bingo. the market is saturated. Upgrading to the latest iSamsung is no longer of critical importance, and kids are getting by with phones or hand-me-down tablets. Kids aren't really rushing out to get laptops, you can tell that by the slowly declining sales. The PC market ain't what it used to be. With larger screen phones like the Galaxy S8 (5.6") being so popular, it is easier to argue that the tablet market is transforming than to say it is dead. (not to be confused with "phablets" of 6+ inch)
My company had to get out of the tablet SoC business because the margins eventually became too small to support R&D.
He made a great comedy album when he was young. And was pretty good as a writer on SNL. But he never really seemed to carry on his success in Punch-Drunk Love, I think it was just a really well written script and he was in a particular frame of mind to be a serious and natural actor. Whatever acting capabilities he had in 2001/2002 seems to have vanished.
It's not ment to be a useful CoC for the SQLite project. It's a troll on the level of "it's okay to be white"
The author of SQLite is quite a religious person. I don't think it's some kind of joke. Usually devote people don't use things related to their religion as a form of mockery.
Now to see if the project survives this hijink
The project isn't going way just because a few thousand people get upset. And the public domain nature of SQLite makes it pretty trivial to fork and continue to integrate patches from mainline. But I seriously doubt the current community around SQLite would ever break up. Having a group that respects their leader makes external criticism pretty irrelevant in this case.
St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries is a pretty interesting read as a study on how to form cooperative organizations. It's very heavily drench in medieval European culture, so it's thoroughly and unashamedly Christian.
Worthwhile reading if you think understanding medieval institution is interesting, or to cherry-pick ideas if when you're trying to put together an informal group that needs some structure to stay on the right track.
I think it would have been very easy to edit down the core ideas into a purely secular and modern code, even if one chose to structure it similar to the original. Overall SQLite community's execution of this CoC shows a certain carelessness in verbatim adopting a code for a different kind of organization.
"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
Maybe I'm turning towards the wall because the bridge is out? Maybe I'm trying to slow down unconventionally because my breaks have overheated on a long descent. Maybe there is no wall and it's an optical illusion and I'm only trying to turn into my own driveway?
Didn't that die when Apple was taken over by NeXT?
Basically what we call macOS is a fork of NeXTSTEP. We all knew that the Mac OS X developer preview was really a snapshot of Rhapsody. It delivered on many of the promises made by the years old announcement of the Copland project. The developer preview of OSX proved to some of us that the only possible fix to MacOS System 7 was to throw it away and start over.
The softwarethat people run on their Apple hardware today (macOS, OSX, iOS) was not technically originally created by Apple engineers, but by engineers that left Apple and joined NeXT in the 1980's and 1990's. Though I don't believe that is all of an important distinction. It should be noted that NeXT had an easier time focusing on making working technology while Apple spun out of control with numerous projects. It's as if Apple forgot how to run a profitable business without Jobs around to kill off stupid side projects.
It would seem to me that you are saying that there is no other form of learning than through science. I must be mistaken in my understanding - no?
Correct. you a mistaken.
I can learn about comic books. That's not science.
I can read a science fiction novel and gain some insight on my own life. That's not science, even through it literally has the word science in it.
History is not subject to scientific method. History is learned through evidentiary means. Without the evidentiary tools we have we could not understand our own past, let alone ancient past. Am I misunderstanding you?
There is history, as in an account of what happened. And there are claims made by early historians, ancient religious text, etc. That we question when they conflict with how we currently understand basic laws of physics, mathematics, medicine, and many other branches of science.
If you want to move into the topic of evidentiary tools. Just because a claim is written down, even if corroborated by multiple sources, doesn't mean we have to accept it at face value. If claims seem impossible, then they probably are. Set such claims aside as a likely fantasy. Then if we have the capability to prove or disprove it at a later date, then do so and revise our understanding of the Universe.
I appreciate your response and the respect with which you convey it - you are not an uninformed skeptic. The proof you require is manifestly clear and perceivable - within the grasp of evident reason.
Of course there are mysteries that we do not and perhaps cannot know.
Quantum theory leans towards there being hidden variables. String theory strictly requires it. Just noting the unknowable is not a problem unique to religion
Of course there are divergent views but that is not limited to religion.
The key difference is religions claim to be a universal and unerring Truth.
Science doesn't claim to have absolute answers to anything. It does claim that there is a process that works for finding better and better answers that can model and predict the physical world. (that includes both matter and energy)
Atheists aren't necessarily scientific or logical. They simply don't believe in a God or gods.
My point is that differing views do not justify the disqualifications of all beliefs just as divergent scientific viewpoints do not mean we purge all science.
If your religion states the Earth is N years old. And multiple scientific disciplines agree on a much different number then which do you chose to believe? I'd go for the one that seems more likely to represent reality, than one that satisfies my personal feelings.
There is a popular thought that all religions are fundamentally the same with superficial differences but the truth is that religions are superficially the same and fundamentally different.
I'd buy that sociologists and psychologists might argue that. In contrast, I think the details of each religion are varied and rich in history and culture. But I'm more sympathetic with anthropologist than sociologists.
The moral laws of various religions may be similar but the doctrines are far different. Just as in science, we can compare these differences and test their validity in relation to reality.
Formally it is studied as a secular field known as Ethics. It doesn't need supernatural power, magic, mysteries, or divinity to work. It can be logically deduced without reaching for a Holy book. Using moral philosophy and logic is rather handy because not all people agree on which teachings are authoritative. The study of Ethics can be a system of first principles that does not require agreement on a dubious premise.
Regarding the reliability of the documents we have. There has been no book (none) in history that even remotely approaches the higher critical scrutiny of the Bible.
Yet the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh matches incredibly closely to parts of Genesis, even though it dates much earlier than the best estimates of Tanakh & Mikra (Old Testament).
And sadly there is no known original text (Urtext) for the Bible. A great loss to us from a human history and anthropology point of view alone. Assuming such a text could have possibly existed. (unlikely)
I think if I were to go to an ancient written account on how things really happened, I'd aim for the many tablets we have from Sumeria and Babylonia, some as old as 23rd century BCE. A significant portion of them are from the 18th century BCE, which is about 1000 years before most of the texts that compose the Old Testament.
Studying and comparing religions is interesting and valuable and I think informs us all on the human experience. But strictly linking your view of reality to groups of ancient texts you've selected is highly problematic. (tl;dr - don't be a fundamentalist, or you'll find reality really difficult)
People need to be certified before using a computer, because this has gotten more dangerous than driving cars. And luckily there is no digital equivalent of the 2nd amendment, so better to nip this one in the bud right now.
Someone voting for Trump because they didn't like Hillary was a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, off a cliff, then lighting it on fire.
I'm not denying that people didn't do this, but it doesn't seem all the rational. Sometimes I hate our system, but I'm not one to think that blowing it up and starting over is an improvement.
But you're probably right. At least I hope so. And people are more motivated during this mid-term than usual. I guess depending on how this turns out, we'll see if there is any consequences for pissing off a whole lot of folks with anti-woman bullshit.
Well I'd recommend starting with voting. Maybe write some letters. Why do people have to start at violent extremes, even if only rhetorically.
I think the DNC losing the 2016 is the original mistake here. They theoretically had the numbers to win, but couldn't motivate voters to come out. Too many people gave up when Bernie didn't make it through the primaries, and a handful of pinheads voted for Trump because they couldn't stand the idea of Hillary being president. I mean I agree to a point in the sense that we shouldn't permit a Clinton dynasty when we were so critical of the Bush dynasty.
If you say so. Anyone happy with this treasonous moron pretending to be a dictator is either A: Nazi sympathizing in plain sight or B: A retarded traitor generally.
Overwhelmingly the "retarded" part of option B. But there are a few A types taking advantage of the useful idiots and have seized significant power over us.
It's important to remember that conservatives have a direct line of communication to their voters. While moderates and liberals have to filter their subdued and watered down message through the so-called mainstream media. The GOP is far more effective at firing up their base. All the DNC can manage is to work out a carpool schedule for African American voters.
My main concern is that if the DNC couldn't motivate people during 2016, why would the 2018 mid-terms have a better turn out? Basically what has change? And unless there is an amazing Democrat turn out, they can expect to fall short of the necessary goals to take back the Senate and House. The Senate they may do, but it's more a roll of the dice than up to any superior strategy. In the Senate, the Democrats are as likely to lose more seats than they gain.
It's because liberals aren't violent, contrary to what talkshow pundits say for listeners and clicks. And conservatives tolerate liars as long as they are playing for the "right" team.
Either you're happy with Trump and his administration, or you're too feckless to do anything about it.
As an RSS user I can admit that RSS is dying. In no small part because RSS is harmful to ad revenue. But it is a missed opportunity of those 99.99% that never tried it.
If you're going to rant about Google's products, at least make an attempt to rant about the actual product you're posting in response to. ChromeOS has plenty of rant-worthy flaws, but you didn't actually touch on any of them.
You realize my comment "Merry-go-round of deprecated services" applied to Chrome equally right?
Anyways, to expand on my original point. I've developed for both, professionally as a system software developer for a hardware vendor.
In many ways ChromeOS is worse at being an operating system than Android. ChromeOS is less rich in terms of cross-application functionality, but that does make it simpler and easier to secure. And Chrome is more squarely aimed at being a dumb terminal that accesses many cloud-based applications, which is you'd think is exactly what Google wants. But at the same time Google tends to severely alter and sometimes EOL's those cloud applications, which I believe is to the detriment of a device like a Chromebook.
I would argue that ChromeOS is a kernel, drivers, and a browser. Data sharing is URL based, that has a certain elegance to it. But Android has a lot more in common with Newton, Palm, or Xerox Star/Alto. In that it's not just a GUI but it's very document oriented in that a data objects type (files, clipboard items, messages, etc) control how it is routed to an application. And applications have a formula state machine built in (if you've done Palm or Newton programming this will seem very familiar)
The business strategy for Android and ChromeOS are similar though, w.r.t. being a platform for advertising. Even if the technical details are different between the two environments. (it's a bit amazing how different two Linux-based environments can be). Although Linux isn't even all that essential to the experience and Fuchsia will soon easily slot into either Android or ChromeOS.
Because 3:2 is a less cumbersome aspect ratio for a mobile device than 16:9. Physically more compact and lower perimeter and higher screen area.
Luckily bicubic scaling can be done in hardware these days and is fairly cheap and at high resolutions quite effective. You'll have a little box on the device, but maybe the extra 320 lines can be used to let you scroll through YouTube comments or display ads while you watch your slightly downscaled 4K videos.
I do agree that it would be nice if we conformed to some standard resolutions, and VESA tried to convince the computing industry to do this. But I don't agree that near movie screen aspect ratio is the right panel for every situation, the whole 16:9 thing is a bit of a marketing joke because 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 are preferable for movies rather than consumer wide-screen 1.77:1. I like 3840x2880 or 2560x1920 as a good compromise for 4:3, or 3840x2560 for 3:2. Of course getting 3840x2560 into the same space as 3000x2000 pixels is going to have compromises in manufacturing and probably not be as sharp.
More crapware. More forced updates. Merry-go-round of deprecated services (Google+, XMPP, etc)
Android could be really good, technically speaking, if it were device first and cloud second. Google has the ecosystem backwards and essentially we're paying $$$ to host advertising space for Google.
I don't know which is worse, the forking of Android and lack of software updates from second tier Android vendors. Or the official Android branch and Google branded devices that have a problematic amount of garbage and constantly changing UI.
We can already see services being pushed into the cloud. Even Microsoft sees this and is adapting to that. What we are not likely to repeat is a locked down platform. Even if your business is using Office365 or whatever, you'll still access other services simultaneously. Microsoft's control of the platform is slipping from their grasp. In the end we'll see a multitude of players unless someone figures out how to monopolize deploying applications.
Will the future platform be Chromebooks? I highly doubt it. With a standardized webbrowser being ubiquitous I think it is unlikely for a single platform to dominate again.
I don't think this generation's goal ought to be to drive the population to zero. Sure, as a nation, we hardly ever meet our goals, but what if some of us are overachievers?
Saccharin is one of the few artificial sweeteners that I don't have a reaction to, with Aspartame triggering the most severe reaction. But saccharin does taste rather bitter so I tend to avoid it just on flavor alone.
You could get a Raspberry Pi 3 and some USB controllers, I like iBuffalo's clone of the Super Famicom gamepad it's the right balance between cheap and reasonably good feel. If you and your kids absolutely have to play Nintendo-brand games, an RPi can illegally run NES and SNES games nicely.
I kind of wish the huge library of crappy games on the Ouya could have been brought over to the RPi somehow. Razer Inc. bought the console company and did nothing with it, the legal rights and infrastructure are just sitting around. Seemed like a poor business decision to me.
Something like Tremulous (an open source total conversion for Quake3) should run pretty decently on an RPi3. And I had a lot of fun playing Frogatto on my RPi (apt-get install frogatto frogatto-data).
Slashdot Mirror
bingo. the market is saturated. Upgrading to the latest iSamsung is no longer of critical importance, and kids are getting by with phones or hand-me-down tablets. Kids aren't really rushing out to get laptops, you can tell that by the slowly declining sales. The PC market ain't what it used to be. With larger screen phones like the Galaxy S8 (5.6") being so popular, it is easier to argue that the tablet market is transforming than to say it is dead. (not to be confused with "phablets" of 6+ inch)
My company had to get out of the tablet SoC business because the margins eventually became too small to support R&D.
He made a great comedy album when he was young. And was pretty good as a writer on SNL. But he never really seemed to carry on his success in Punch-Drunk Love, I think it was just a really well written script and he was in a particular frame of mind to be a serious and natural actor. Whatever acting capabilities he had in 2001/2002 seems to have vanished.
It's not ment to be a useful CoC for the SQLite project. It's a troll on the level of "it's okay to be white"
The author of SQLite is quite a religious person. I don't think it's some kind of joke. Usually devote people don't use things related to their religion as a form of mockery.
Now to see if the project survives this hijink
The project isn't going way just because a few thousand people get upset. And the public domain nature of SQLite makes it pretty trivial to fork and continue to integrate patches from mainline. But I seriously doubt the current community around SQLite would ever break up. Having a group that respects their leader makes external criticism pretty irrelevant in this case.
I guess Netflix shouldn't have burned piles of cash with four Adam Sandler movies that were worse than garbage.
St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries is a pretty interesting read as a study on how to form cooperative organizations. It's very heavily drench in medieval European culture, so it's thoroughly and unashamedly Christian.
Worthwhile reading if you think understanding medieval institution is interesting, or to cherry-pick ideas if when you're trying to put together an informal group that needs some structure to stay on the right track.
I think it would have been very easy to edit down the core ideas into a purely secular and modern code, even if one chose to structure it similar to the original. Overall SQLite community's execution of this CoC shows a certain carelessness in verbatim adopting a code for a different kind of organization.
"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
Maybe I'm turning towards the wall because the bridge is out? Maybe I'm trying to slow down unconventionally because my breaks have overheated on a long descent. Maybe there is no wall and it's an optical illusion and I'm only trying to turn into my own driveway?
Bet something normal like $20 or a steak dinner. No need to wave your cock around over these science bets, unless... It was all for the publicity.
Didn't that die when Apple was taken over by NeXT?
Basically what we call macOS is a fork of NeXTSTEP. We all knew that the Mac OS X developer preview was really a snapshot of Rhapsody. It delivered on many of the promises made by the years old announcement of the Copland project. The developer preview of OSX proved to some of us that the only possible fix to MacOS System 7 was to throw it away and start over.
The softwarethat people run on their Apple hardware today (macOS, OSX, iOS) was not technically originally created by Apple engineers, but by engineers that left Apple and joined NeXT in the 1980's and 1990's. Though I don't believe that is all of an important distinction. It should be noted that NeXT had an easier time focusing on making working technology while Apple spun out of control with numerous projects. It's as if Apple forgot how to run a profitable business without Jobs around to kill off stupid side projects.
It would seem to me that you are saying that there is no other form of learning than through science. I must be mistaken in my understanding - no?
Correct. you a mistaken.
I can learn about comic books. That's not science.
I can read a science fiction novel and gain some insight on my own life. That's not science, even through it literally has the word science in it.
History is not subject to scientific method. History is learned through evidentiary means. Without the evidentiary tools we have we could not understand our own past, let alone ancient past. Am I misunderstanding you?
There is history, as in an account of what happened. And there are claims made by early historians, ancient religious text, etc. That we question when they conflict with how we currently understand basic laws of physics, mathematics, medicine, and many other branches of science.
If you want to move into the topic of evidentiary tools. Just because a claim is written down, even if corroborated by multiple sources, doesn't mean we have to accept it at face value. If claims seem impossible, then they probably are. Set such claims aside as a likely fantasy. Then if we have the capability to prove or disprove it at a later date, then do so and revise our understanding of the Universe.
I appreciate your response and the respect with which you convey it - you are not an uninformed skeptic. The proof you require is manifestly clear and perceivable - within the grasp of evident reason.
Of course there are mysteries that we do not and perhaps cannot know.
Quantum theory leans towards there being hidden variables. String theory strictly requires it. Just noting the unknowable is not a problem unique to religion
Of course there are divergent views but that is not limited to religion.
The key difference is religions claim to be a universal and unerring Truth.
Science doesn't claim to have absolute answers to anything. It does claim that there is a process that works for finding better and better answers that can model and predict the physical world. (that includes both matter and energy)
Atheists aren't necessarily scientific or logical. They simply don't believe in a God or gods.
My point is that differing views do not justify the disqualifications of all beliefs just as divergent scientific viewpoints do not mean we purge all science.
If your religion states the Earth is N years old. And multiple scientific disciplines agree on a much different number then which do you chose to believe? I'd go for the one that seems more likely to represent reality, than one that satisfies my personal feelings.
There is a popular thought that all religions are fundamentally the same with superficial differences but the truth is that religions are superficially the same and fundamentally different.
I'd buy that sociologists and psychologists might argue that. In contrast, I think the details of each religion are varied and rich in history and culture. But I'm more sympathetic with anthropologist than sociologists.
The moral laws of various religions may be similar but the doctrines are far different. Just as in science, we can compare these differences and test their validity in relation to reality.
Formally it is studied as a secular field known as Ethics. It doesn't need supernatural power, magic, mysteries, or divinity to work. It can be logically deduced without reaching for a Holy book. Using moral philosophy and logic is rather handy because not all people agree on which teachings are authoritative. The study of Ethics can be a system of first principles that does not require agreement on a dubious premise.
Regarding the reliability of the documents we have. There has been no book (none) in history that even remotely approaches the higher critical scrutiny of the Bible.
Yet the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh matches incredibly closely to parts of Genesis, even though it dates much earlier than the best estimates of Tanakh & Mikra (Old Testament).
And sadly there is no known original text (Urtext) for the Bible. A great loss to us from a human history and anthropology point of view alone. Assuming such a text could have possibly existed. (unlikely)
I think if I were to go to an ancient written account on how things really happened, I'd aim for the many tablets we have from Sumeria and Babylonia, some as old as 23rd century BCE. A significant portion of them are from the 18th century BCE, which is about 1000 years before most of the texts that compose the Old Testament.
Studying and comparing religions is interesting and valuable and I think informs us all on the human experience. But strictly linking your view of reality to groups of ancient texts you've selected is highly problematic. (tl;dr - don't be a fundamentalist, or you'll find reality really difficult)
People need to be certified before using a computer, because this has gotten more dangerous than driving cars. And luckily there is no digital equivalent of the 2nd amendment, so better to nip this one in the bud right now.
I let myself in, because this is AMERICA. (Fuck yea)
Someone voting for Trump because they didn't like Hillary was a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, off a cliff, then lighting it on fire.
I'm not denying that people didn't do this, but it doesn't seem all the rational. Sometimes I hate our system, but I'm not one to think that blowing it up and starting over is an improvement.
But you're probably right. At least I hope so. And people are more motivated during this mid-term than usual. I guess depending on how this turns out, we'll see if there is any consequences for pissing off a whole lot of folks with anti-woman bullshit.
Well I'd recommend starting with voting. Maybe write some letters. Why do people have to start at violent extremes, even if only rhetorically.
I think the DNC losing the 2016 is the original mistake here. They theoretically had the numbers to win, but couldn't motivate voters to come out. Too many people gave up when Bernie didn't make it through the primaries, and a handful of pinheads voted for Trump because they couldn't stand the idea of Hillary being president. I mean I agree to a point in the sense that we shouldn't permit a Clinton dynasty when we were so critical of the Bush dynasty.
If you say so. Anyone happy with this treasonous moron pretending to be a dictator is either A: Nazi sympathizing in plain sight or B: A retarded traitor generally.
Overwhelmingly the "retarded" part of option B. But there are a few A types taking advantage of the useful idiots and have seized significant power over us.
It's important to remember that conservatives have a direct line of communication to their voters. While moderates and liberals have to filter their subdued and watered down message through the so-called mainstream media. The GOP is far more effective at firing up their base. All the DNC can manage is to work out a carpool schedule for African American voters.
My main concern is that if the DNC couldn't motivate people during 2016, why would the 2018 mid-terms have a better turn out? Basically what has change? And unless there is an amazing Democrat turn out, they can expect to fall short of the necessary goals to take back the Senate and House. The Senate they may do, but it's more a roll of the dice than up to any superior strategy. In the Senate, the Democrats are as likely to lose more seats than they gain.
It's because liberals aren't violent, contrary to what talkshow pundits say for listeners and clicks. And conservatives tolerate liars as long as they are playing for the "right" team.
Either you're happy with Trump and his administration, or you're too feckless to do anything about it.
As an RSS user I can admit that RSS is dying. In no small part because RSS is harmful to ad revenue. But it is a missed opportunity of those 99.99% that never tried it.
Yet popular. I guess there are many consumers less discerning than you.
If you're going to rant about Google's products, at least make an attempt to rant about the actual product you're posting in response to. ChromeOS has plenty of rant-worthy flaws, but you didn't actually touch on any of them.
You realize my comment "Merry-go-round of deprecated services" applied to Chrome equally right?
Anyways, to expand on my original point. I've developed for both, professionally as a system software developer for a hardware vendor.
In many ways ChromeOS is worse at being an operating system than Android. ChromeOS is less rich in terms of cross-application functionality, but that does make it simpler and easier to secure. And Chrome is more squarely aimed at being a dumb terminal that accesses many cloud-based applications, which is you'd think is exactly what Google wants. But at the same time Google tends to severely alter and sometimes EOL's those cloud applications, which I believe is to the detriment of a device like a Chromebook.
I would argue that ChromeOS is a kernel, drivers, and a browser. Data sharing is URL based, that has a certain elegance to it. But Android has a lot more in common with Newton, Palm, or Xerox Star/Alto. In that it's not just a GUI but it's very document oriented in that a data objects type (files, clipboard items, messages, etc) control how it is routed to an application. And applications have a formula state machine built in (if you've done Palm or Newton programming this will seem very familiar)
The business strategy for Android and ChromeOS are similar though, w.r.t. being a platform for advertising. Even if the technical details are different between the two environments. (it's a bit amazing how different two Linux-based environments can be). Although Linux isn't even all that essential to the experience and Fuchsia will soon easily slot into either Android or ChromeOS.
Because 3:2 is a less cumbersome aspect ratio for a mobile device than 16:9. Physically more compact and lower perimeter and higher screen area.
Luckily bicubic scaling can be done in hardware these days and is fairly cheap and at high resolutions quite effective. You'll have a little box on the device, but maybe the extra 320 lines can be used to let you scroll through YouTube comments or display ads while you watch your slightly downscaled 4K videos.
I do agree that it would be nice if we conformed to some standard resolutions, and VESA tried to convince the computing industry to do this. But I don't agree that near movie screen aspect ratio is the right panel for every situation, the whole 16:9 thing is a bit of a marketing joke because 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 are preferable for movies rather than consumer wide-screen 1.77:1. I like 3840x2880 or 2560x1920 as a good compromise for 4:3, or 3840x2560 for 3:2. Of course getting 3840x2560 into the same space as 3000x2000 pixels is going to have compromises in manufacturing and probably not be as sharp.
More crapware. More forced updates. Merry-go-round of deprecated services (Google+, XMPP, etc)
Android could be really good, technically speaking, if it were device first and cloud second. Google has the ecosystem backwards and essentially we're paying $$$ to host advertising space for Google.
I don't know which is worse, the forking of Android and lack of software updates from second tier Android vendors. Or the official Android branch and Google branded devices that have a problematic amount of garbage and constantly changing UI.
We can already see services being pushed into the cloud. Even Microsoft sees this and is adapting to that. What we are not likely to repeat is a locked down platform. Even if your business is using Office365 or whatever, you'll still access other services simultaneously. Microsoft's control of the platform is slipping from their grasp. In the end we'll see a multitude of players unless someone figures out how to monopolize deploying applications.
Will the future platform be Chromebooks? I highly doubt it. With a standardized webbrowser being ubiquitous I think it is unlikely for a single platform to dominate again.
I don't think this generation's goal ought to be to drive the population to zero. Sure, as a nation, we hardly ever meet our goals, but what if some of us are overachievers?
And coal is made from plants. So what!
Coal tar is also a treatment for dandruff.
Saccharin is one of the few artificial sweeteners that I don't have a reaction to, with Aspartame triggering the most severe reaction. But saccharin does taste rather bitter so I tend to avoid it just on flavor alone.
I have a 24 hour mechanical wrist watch. But I think it's safe to assume most people do not.
You could get a Raspberry Pi 3 and some USB controllers, I like iBuffalo's clone of the Super Famicom gamepad it's the right balance between cheap and reasonably good feel. If you and your kids absolutely have to play Nintendo-brand games, an RPi can illegally run NES and SNES games nicely.
I kind of wish the huge library of crappy games on the Ouya could have been brought over to the RPi somehow. Razer Inc. bought the console company and did nothing with it, the legal rights and infrastructure are just sitting around. Seemed like a poor business decision to me.
Something like Tremulous (an open source total conversion for Quake3) should run pretty decently on an RPi3. And I had a lot of fun playing Frogatto on my RPi (apt-get install frogatto frogatto-data).