What drives me crazy though is how the Office 2016 for Mac and Windows code-base was so lacking in features. (...) I'm sure we'll pay the asking price and migrate to Office 2019 eventually
Aka "Thank you sir, may I have another." why would Microsoft do that when you're giving them money anyway?
I guess I'm not the only one that remembers the days when that 640K of RAM was a major portion of the cost of building a computer.... Hell, I remember just being amazed that I could buy a 32MB stick for $60!
Been there, done that... but on some memory sticks prices have tripled which is quite unusual for computer prices that have usually been on an everlasting downward spiral. I regret not getting 64GB when I had the chance, usually procrastinating is smart but in this case it was a real bummer. Oh well, not like 16GB is killing me.
When you consider the large crowds in the public spaces where this system is likely to be deployed, a 5% false positive rate would result in unmanageable numbers to verify. -E.g. Times Square sees 300,000 people a day movement, resulting in 15,000 false positives a day.
Until you start pairing it with cell phone metadata, which would be my first priority if I was planning to do mass surveillance. If you're doing face recognition from some fixed point I'd assume you have a rather static cell tower strength combination associated with the same point, so if you lower the tolerance for those who appear to be there and increase tolerance for those who's supposedly somewhere else you might see more manageable figures.
They rarely threaten or comment without taking action. Their financial situation and power affects every country in the world.
In fact, they're big enough that non-action is quite effective. After the independent Nobel committee gave Liu Xiaobo the Peace Prize in 2010 they basically put the relationship to us here in Norway in the deep freezer for six years. No political talks, no new trade agreements, creating new business relations was near impossible and existing ones were languishing. Nothing so overt as to cause a formal complaint, we were simply unwanted. We refused to give any sort of apology, they refused to relent. Eventually after 3.5 years we caved to an agreement that pretty much said we'll stop commenting on China's internal affairs:
The Norwegian Government reiterates its commitment to the one China policy, fully respects China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China's core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.
After that there's been pretty much total silence on China, refusing to even join the EU in their criticisms. Here and in the US the government changes every so often, if you couldn't make friends with Bush then maybe Obama or Trump. In China if your relationship turns shit it just stays that way. They don't compromise, they don't budge, they just say come back when you're ready to apologize and behave nicely and show you the door. Which is what I suspect Trump will find out if he starts a trade war with China, they won't be coming to the negotiating table. They'll wait it out until the US comes crawling back asking to resume trade.
That ship sailed looooooooong ago when they decided software is licensed, not sold. Honestly, anything that looks like a one-time payment for indefinite and unlimited use of a software product should have been considered a sale, if it walks and talks like a duck it's a duck. That was the wedge that let them redefine everything digital as licensed. It wouldn't stop the rental model like you had Blockbuster and GameStop with physical products but then owning something would mean something. If buying a car was like "buying" a game on Steam it'd be a indefinite lease subject to [car company]'s terms and conditions.
Well unless you're literally saving lives or something it's pretty obvious both employees and contractors are in it for the paycheck. That doesn't mean I'd do anything for "extra $$$", it's the total package of work content, working conditions, colleagues, management, job security, perks and so on. And other things like the commute that doesn't really change with employment status but might mean you'd like to stay where you are. I'm not in the best paid job I could be, but I'd probably come home more tired, stressed, miserable or with some other ailment that you can't so easily fix with money.
P.S. I actually like company events. Unless you're all work all the time you've probably done a lot of ice breaking chit-chatting in between meetings, coffee breaks, lunch breaks and whatnot. Unless you're really generally miserable around other people there's usually some like-minded people to hang out with or get to know better. Though I've never held it against anyone if they don't want to, if your social calendar is full or you'd rather get home to your WoW raid that's cool. If it becomes mandatory team building sessions, go fish.
At the office where you're likely to have more displays, keyboard, mouse, wired network, printer and so on? No. On the go you need as many ports as you're likely to actually simultaneously use on the go. Assuming you got a Bluetooth mouse etc. I'd say power and occasionally a USB stick instead. What do you think normal people use 2+ ports for on the go?
Reason to that was/is professional photographers and their old habits / inability to adapt to progress, and these cameras being expensive are bought mostly by professionals.
Or more likely, the lenses. From what I understand most pro photographers have way more invested in glass than in bodies and adapters are less than ideal. They last decades if you treat them nicely so you don't want to invest in a mount that flops, like for example Sony's A-mount seem to be dying. And I dare you to find a photography shoot-out where you easily tell what brand of camera the photographer was using, it's way more QWERTY vs DVORAK than horse vs automobile. Really wish they'd agree on a common lens mount for mirrorless FF though like MFT did for smaller sensors, but I wasn't really expecting it.
The worst case is almost always that you die. You can die of a heart attack, a car crash, lightning strike, whatever. We have dismissed them because they are highly improbable. If it was 50-50 thereâ(TM)s a âoerealâ chance youâ(TM)ll die. It only looks like a 1D model after youâ(TM)ve evaluated the other dimension.
Most of us are carrying an electronic signal bouy 24x7x365. Iâ(TM)m typing on it right now. Is there a law forcing me to? No, but itâ(TM)s convenient. Electronic cash is convenient. Facebook is convenient. The cloud is convenient. People want convenience. We have a democracy and itâ(TM)s not like anybody would vote Hitler into power, right? Oh, wait...
I was under the impression Interpol handled that the crime was in one country and criminal in a different one all the time, instead of thousands of bilateral systems itâ(TM)s one clearing house where you send/recieve extradition requests. And I donâ(TM)t think they filter, Sweden asked for Assange and UK decided whether to approve or deny. Interpol is just the framework to manage the process.
If you embed it in your page, are you responsible for it? Like ads, twitter posts, youtube vids etc. that youâ(TM)re not simply linking to but rather displaying as part of your own page. The theory so far has been that this is the sourceâ(TM)s problem and not the embedderâ(TM)s. This ruling can mean youâ(TM)re responsible for everything, like if the twitter post has a photo used illegally youâ(TM)re liable.
YouTube may be eating into the total screen time but that weâ(TM)ll stop seeing scripted movies and TV series seems unlikely, vloggers/streamers etc. is more like the extreme version of reality TV where you make super cheap content that only needs a few clicks to pay for it. What I do hope is that Netflix, YouTube etc. drives a stake through the heart of the cable TV model, your Internet connection is just a conduit and you can get any content from anywhere. And I hope - though this seems less likely due to DRM - that eventually itâ(TM)ll be more like a plug-in service, one player but many providers. Itâ(TM)s kinda circling back to the cable channel model, if you want the Disney channel you subscibe to that. Except on-demand and online.
For quick charging maybe. For home charging itâ(TM)s a standard industrial plug used by pretty much all heavy equipment in Europe and unlikely to change, itâ(TM)s just been unusual to have one at home.
I take it you don't actually know any average users? For the average user PCs have pretty much unlimited power ever since we had gigahertz processors. "The cloud" solved the problem of backups and synchronization, if you lost your camera you lost your pictures. Today it's like your phone breaks, then take a new one and resync and it's all there, your contacts and notes and pictures and whatnot. You'll of course counter to say that one day your cloud provider will lose data. Well maybe he will but people will forget or fail to properly set up backups 100x more often than iCloud will fail. You can hope that something like ownCloud will take over, but I don't see the average person having a box with the uptime and redudancy you'd want.
So long, The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Deadwood... you know, stuff that actually took time, care, and focus to produce. On the other hand, I still have to catch up on most of these series anyway.
Isn't that the target market? The people who, when they do get an hour or two off from the wife and kids they're willing and able to pay good money for some quality entertainment. Sure, hours a day you can get with any junk reality show or YouTube video, they cost almost nothing. But they're also worth almost nothing exactly because there's thousands of hours of filler like that. Unless you have some crazy viral video but that's just the online community's random whim of the day. Nothing made Gangnam Style that special. People just picked some random shit and made it an Internet hit. Good luck if they think they can reliably produce that.
The genie is out of the bottle, and this is just another revenue stream. Much like 'pay TV' that is still full of ads, data monetization is probably here to stay.
Yes. The only thing I wonder is if people can and will put a value on the price they're paying for their "free" services. Like if you could have the same service without the tracking and mining, is that worth something to you. So far I'm thinking "no" at least when it comes to paying, the jury is still out on whether they'd take a slightly less convenient open source alternative but I'm starting to trend towards "no" there as well. Occasionally people pretend-rage when it becomes too obvious but they like their free service too much to actually do anything about it.
That's why I think the arguments about "public" or "private" are rather silly...... It's better to evaluate individual proposals to see what is better.
No, that's exactly why a public system works better - they're your patients whether you like it or not, always and forever. The primary reason the US needs to spend twice as much to have the same level of healthcare is that everyone is trying to cherry pick profitable patients and get rid of unprofitable patients, with hospitals billing for things you don't really need while insurance companies work to avoid paying claims. Health insurance is not like fire insurance or auto insurance where you either had a fire/crash or you didn't. Bad health comes crawling with risk factors, precursors, complications, good and bad periods and chronic issues people live with and insurance companies are trying to pick up the warning flags and get rid of you.
In the public system, single payer basically means it's a single bill. Doesn't matter if it's now or next year, at this hospital or that hospital, if you've got cancer we're going to end up paying for treating that cancer. The whole system is geared towards what's medically the most efficient way to treat it, we have a pool of money and it's constantly being evaluated if we spend it on the right things - from the patients' perspective. If there's a cheaper generic medicine we just decree it's the default and you only get other brand medicine if you experience side effects. The pharmacy industry hates this. There's still huge debates on say placements of hospitals and what treatments to support, but it's mostly based in medicine.
It's still not funny... your child is going to die, there's a medicine that could help extend their life but it costs $1 million dollars. At some point somebody has to consider if not 100 $10k treatments or 10000 $100 prescriptions are better for the public health. But if we're doing it with the public's money at least we are considering it, not by what insurance plan you have. Unless you're in the small minority that has private health insurance that lets you get certain surgeries quicker or could afford crazy money out of pocket. But for the money you're getting good care in the public system. And it turns out fixing poor people's simple health problems often avoid big expenses later, we want you healthy enough to be a tax payer. Otherwise some other part of the system will get stuck with the bill.
They get 50% of the revenue from these chips, and they have the potential to get close to 100% marketshare in China once the Chinese government forces Chinese companies to use Chinese made processors.
Not how China rolls. Their typical pattern is: 1. Buy the full service product, the Chinese learn to use it. 2. Buy the product, the Chinese learn to operate/maintain it. 3. License the product, the Chinese learn to manufacture it. 4. Watch a Chinese clone take over your market.
Though the latter seems plausible though, anyone care to guess if those Chinese "special needs" are backdoors for the government? Then it would make sense that there's no user-visible changes...
Realistically I think Firefox lost market share because every time users searched for something with the default search engine they were offered a 'faster' browser. And google also advertises chrome outside of the internet, advertising works. Are there any polls on this that don't just poll techies?
I think it's be very hard to get a representative poll on why the whole Internet went one way or the other, but it's not like Firefox was the vastly superior option that got buried by Google's marketing. It was one huge monolithic process with memory leaks and if you ran a number of extensions - supposedly the big advantage - it could be absolutely terrible. And one bad page causing a lock-up or a bug could kill your entire session. I'd been using Firefox since it was the Phoenix like version 0.6 or something but eventually I just said fuck it. Chrome was a memory hog. Chrome replaced the address bar and search bar with one jack of all trades, master of none bar. Some extensions didn't have equivalents. But if fucking worked like a charm for basic browsing, fast and stable. So Firefox was relegated to "when I have to" status and eventually kicked to the curb.
Of course that's just an anecdote. But Firefox had me way into their corner after dealing with Netscape and IE6, if you asked me if I'd ever go back to a proprietary browser (yes, I know Chromium exists) then I'd say you were crazy. But here we are, they didn't lose me because of the marketing budget. They lost me because they lost track of trying to be the best browser possible, like they'd already beaten IE so let's start goofing off doing lots of other things instead of finishing major rework on the core product. They did try to launch e10s in 2009 to compete with Chrome's multi-process system. Then they gave up because it was "too ambitious". Then they started wasting time on Servo and Rust and whatnot while Chrome ate them for lunch. They had every possible chance to keep and expand their user base and wasted it.
Uh... YOUR MATH implies that 1,300 people did die. So.... WHAT THE FUCK? Either you are making shit up, or you can't do math... Which is it?
The question was whether they died because they didn't have a bug out bag, in most disasters you have people that die as a direct consequence like if the hurricane causes a building to collapse on you then you're dead no matter what. If you're sitting on top of a roof waiting for water it takes days to die. Longer if there's rain water to collect or if you're desperate enough you'll probably eventually drink the flood water. Would it have been smarter to stockpile water? Yes. But I doubt very many died because they didn't.
The right question is whether you're role playing or min-max'ing the game mechanics. Like if you get a choice to shoot or not shoot someone and in the latter case an NPC goes "Well if you don't have the balls then I'll do it" so either way he dies. For that character's personality it obviously matters like what role are you playing, if you're min-max'ing you don't really care about the moral choice just whether the XP/loot is worth any penalties you get. Personally I tend to pretty much ignore the RP elements and it's just kill boss X get reward Y unless it's completely level-free like "The Walking Dead". You'll reach the end the question is who did you choose to be to get their, who did you help, who did you betray, who did you kill or let be killed. If you don't care the game is just a bit of trivial button pushing, but then I'd play something else...
So... I'm not sure who's the liar here. Maybe you're just lying to yourself.
From the looks of it the effect varies with the local climate:
But does daylight time still save energy? Not really, according to most research on the subject. Lighting has become a smaller part of overall energy consumption, and extending the use of daylight hours encourages people to use more air conditioning and heating. A 2017 analysis of 44 different papers on the subject found that, on average, the policy helped save 0.34 percent of electricity use. Places farther from the Equator (with mild summers and lower cooling demands) might save energy, but places closer to the Equator used more energy during daylight time, the researchers found.
I did find another study (PDF) from Europe though that showed that really far north like Scandinavia it didn't actually help much at all. So it looks to be a Goldilocks zone, if you can extend the number of temperate days where there's no major need for warming/cooling then you can save a bit. And if we're moving towards EVs then it'll be an even smaller fraction of total power usage. But it's still zero point something percent.
Slashdot Mirror
What drives me crazy though is how the Office 2016 for Mac and Windows code-base was so lacking in features. (...) I'm sure we'll pay the asking price and migrate to Office 2019 eventually
Aka "Thank you sir, may I have another." why would Microsoft do that when you're giving them money anyway?
I guess I'm not the only one that remembers the days when that 640K of RAM was a major portion of the cost of building a computer.... Hell, I remember just being amazed that I could buy a 32MB stick for $60!
Been there, done that... but on some memory sticks prices have tripled which is quite unusual for computer prices that have usually been on an everlasting downward spiral. I regret not getting 64GB when I had the chance, usually procrastinating is smart but in this case it was a real bummer. Oh well, not like 16GB is killing me.
When you consider the large crowds in the public spaces where this system is likely to be deployed, a 5% false positive rate would result in unmanageable numbers to verify. -E.g. Times Square sees 300,000 people a day movement, resulting in 15,000 false positives a day.
Until you start pairing it with cell phone metadata, which would be my first priority if I was planning to do mass surveillance. If you're doing face recognition from some fixed point I'd assume you have a rather static cell tower strength combination associated with the same point, so if you lower the tolerance for those who appear to be there and increase tolerance for those who's supposedly somewhere else you might see more manageable figures.
They rarely threaten or comment without taking action. Their financial situation and power affects every country in the world.
In fact, they're big enough that non-action is quite effective. After the independent Nobel committee gave Liu Xiaobo the Peace Prize in 2010 they basically put the relationship to us here in Norway in the deep freezer for six years. No political talks, no new trade agreements, creating new business relations was near impossible and existing ones were languishing. Nothing so overt as to cause a formal complaint, we were simply unwanted. We refused to give any sort of apology, they refused to relent. Eventually after 3.5 years we caved to an agreement that pretty much said we'll stop commenting on China's internal affairs:
The Norwegian Government reiterates its commitment to the one China policy, fully respects China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China's core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.
After that there's been pretty much total silence on China, refusing to even join the EU in their criticisms. Here and in the US the government changes every so often, if you couldn't make friends with Bush then maybe Obama or Trump. In China if your relationship turns shit it just stays that way. They don't compromise, they don't budge, they just say come back when you're ready to apologize and behave nicely and show you the door. Which is what I suspect Trump will find out if he starts a trade war with China, they won't be coming to the negotiating table. They'll wait it out until the US comes crawling back asking to resume trade.
That ship sailed looooooooong ago when they decided software is licensed, not sold. Honestly, anything that looks like a one-time payment for indefinite and unlimited use of a software product should have been considered a sale, if it walks and talks like a duck it's a duck. That was the wedge that let them redefine everything digital as licensed. It wouldn't stop the rental model like you had Blockbuster and GameStop with physical products but then owning something would mean something. If buying a car was like "buying" a game on Steam it'd be a indefinite lease subject to [car company]'s terms and conditions.
Well unless you're literally saving lives or something it's pretty obvious both employees and contractors are in it for the paycheck. That doesn't mean I'd do anything for "extra $$$", it's the total package of work content, working conditions, colleagues, management, job security, perks and so on. And other things like the commute that doesn't really change with employment status but might mean you'd like to stay where you are. I'm not in the best paid job I could be, but I'd probably come home more tired, stressed, miserable or with some other ailment that you can't so easily fix with money.
P.S. I actually like company events. Unless you're all work all the time you've probably done a lot of ice breaking chit-chatting in between meetings, coffee breaks, lunch breaks and whatnot. Unless you're really generally miserable around other people there's usually some like-minded people to hang out with or get to know better. Though I've never held it against anyone if they don't want to, if your social calendar is full or you'd rather get home to your WoW raid that's cool. If it becomes mandatory team building sessions, go fish.
If you need a hub, then you've already failed.
At the office where you're likely to have more displays, keyboard, mouse, wired network, printer and so on? No. On the go you need as many ports as you're likely to actually simultaneously use on the go. Assuming you got a Bluetooth mouse etc. I'd say power and occasionally a USB stick instead. What do you think normal people use 2+ ports for on the go?
Reason to that was/is professional photographers and their old habits / inability to adapt to progress, and these cameras being expensive are bought mostly by professionals.
Or more likely, the lenses. From what I understand most pro photographers have way more invested in glass than in bodies and adapters are less than ideal. They last decades if you treat them nicely so you don't want to invest in a mount that flops, like for example Sony's A-mount seem to be dying. And I dare you to find a photography shoot-out where you easily tell what brand of camera the photographer was using, it's way more QWERTY vs DVORAK than horse vs automobile. Really wish they'd agree on a common lens mount for mirrorless FF though like MFT did for smaller sensors, but I wasn't really expecting it.
The worst case is almost always that you die. You can die of a heart attack, a car crash, lightning strike, whatever. We have dismissed them because they are highly improbable. If it was 50-50 thereâ(TM)s a âoerealâ chance youâ(TM)ll die. It only looks like a 1D model after youâ(TM)ve evaluated the other dimension.
Most of us are carrying an electronic signal bouy 24x7x365. Iâ(TM)m typing on it right now. Is there a law forcing me to? No, but itâ(TM)s convenient. Electronic cash is convenient. Facebook is convenient. The cloud is convenient. People want convenience. We have a democracy and itâ(TM)s not like anybody would vote Hitler into power, right? Oh, wait...
I was under the impression Interpol handled that the crime was in one country and criminal in a different one all the time, instead of thousands of bilateral systems itâ(TM)s one clearing house where you send/recieve extradition requests. And I donâ(TM)t think they filter, Sweden asked for Assange and UK decided whether to approve or deny. Interpol is just the framework to manage the process.
As long as weâ(TM)re stuck in this galaxy, everything is in finite amounts. Maybe we should just get used to that?
If you embed it in your page, are you responsible for it? Like ads, twitter posts, youtube vids etc. that youâ(TM)re not simply linking to but rather displaying as part of your own page. The theory so far has been that this is the sourceâ(TM)s problem and not the embedderâ(TM)s. This ruling can mean youâ(TM)re responsible for everything, like if the twitter post has a photo used illegally youâ(TM)re liable.
YouTube may be eating into the total screen time but that weâ(TM)ll stop seeing scripted movies and TV series seems unlikely, vloggers /streamers etc. is more like the extreme version of reality TV where you make super cheap content that only needs a few clicks to pay for it. What I do hope is that Netflix, YouTube etc. drives a stake through the heart of the cable TV model, your Internet connection is just a conduit and you can get any content from anywhere. And I hope - though this seems less likely due to DRM - that eventually itâ(TM)ll be more like a plug-in service, one player but many providers. Itâ(TM)s kinda circling back to the cable channel model, if you want the Disney channel you subscibe to that. Except on-demand and online.
For quick charging maybe. For home charging itâ(TM)s a standard industrial plug used by pretty much all heavy equipment in Europe and unlikely to change, itâ(TM)s just been unusual to have one at home.
I take it you don't actually know any average users? For the average user PCs have pretty much unlimited power ever since we had gigahertz processors. "The cloud" solved the problem of backups and synchronization, if you lost your camera you lost your pictures. Today it's like your phone breaks, then take a new one and resync and it's all there, your contacts and notes and pictures and whatnot. You'll of course counter to say that one day your cloud provider will lose data. Well maybe he will but people will forget or fail to properly set up backups 100x more often than iCloud will fail. You can hope that something like ownCloud will take over, but I don't see the average person having a box with the uptime and redudancy you'd want.
So long, The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Deadwood ... you know, stuff that actually took time, care, and focus to produce. On the other hand, I still have to catch up on most of these series anyway.
Isn't that the target market? The people who, when they do get an hour or two off from the wife and kids they're willing and able to pay good money for some quality entertainment. Sure, hours a day you can get with any junk reality show or YouTube video, they cost almost nothing. But they're also worth almost nothing exactly because there's thousands of hours of filler like that. Unless you have some crazy viral video but that's just the online community's random whim of the day. Nothing made Gangnam Style that special. People just picked some random shit and made it an Internet hit. Good luck if they think they can reliably produce that.
Oh, I see you haven't actually looked at data: you're just guessing and wishing.
No, those are the facts. You just don't like them.
The genie is out of the bottle, and this is just another revenue stream. Much like 'pay TV' that is still full of ads, data monetization is probably here to stay.
Yes. The only thing I wonder is if people can and will put a value on the price they're paying for their "free" services. Like if you could have the same service without the tracking and mining, is that worth something to you. So far I'm thinking "no" at least when it comes to paying, the jury is still out on whether they'd take a slightly less convenient open source alternative but I'm starting to trend towards "no" there as well. Occasionally people pretend-rage when it becomes too obvious but they like their free service too much to actually do anything about it.
That's why I think the arguments about "public" or "private" are rather silly...... It's better to evaluate individual proposals to see what is better.
No, that's exactly why a public system works better - they're your patients whether you like it or not, always and forever. The primary reason the US needs to spend twice as much to have the same level of healthcare is that everyone is trying to cherry pick profitable patients and get rid of unprofitable patients, with hospitals billing for things you don't really need while insurance companies work to avoid paying claims. Health insurance is not like fire insurance or auto insurance where you either had a fire/crash or you didn't. Bad health comes crawling with risk factors, precursors, complications, good and bad periods and chronic issues people live with and insurance companies are trying to pick up the warning flags and get rid of you.
In the public system, single payer basically means it's a single bill. Doesn't matter if it's now or next year, at this hospital or that hospital, if you've got cancer we're going to end up paying for treating that cancer. The whole system is geared towards what's medically the most efficient way to treat it, we have a pool of money and it's constantly being evaluated if we spend it on the right things - from the patients' perspective. If there's a cheaper generic medicine we just decree it's the default and you only get other brand medicine if you experience side effects. The pharmacy industry hates this. There's still huge debates on say placements of hospitals and what treatments to support, but it's mostly based in medicine.
It's still not funny... your child is going to die, there's a medicine that could help extend their life but it costs $1 million dollars. At some point somebody has to consider if not 100 $10k treatments or 10000 $100 prescriptions are better for the public health. But if we're doing it with the public's money at least we are considering it, not by what insurance plan you have. Unless you're in the small minority that has private health insurance that lets you get certain surgeries quicker or could afford crazy money out of pocket. But for the money you're getting good care in the public system. And it turns out fixing poor people's simple health problems often avoid big expenses later, we want you healthy enough to be a tax payer. Otherwise some other part of the system will get stuck with the bill.
They get 50% of the revenue from these chips, and they have the potential to get close to 100% marketshare in China once the Chinese government forces Chinese companies to use Chinese made processors.
Not how China rolls. Their typical pattern is:
1. Buy the full service product, the Chinese learn to use it.
2. Buy the product, the Chinese learn to operate/maintain it.
3. License the product, the Chinese learn to manufacture it.
4. Watch a Chinese clone take over your market.
Though the latter seems plausible though, anyone care to guess if those Chinese "special needs" are backdoors for the government? Then it would make sense that there's no user-visible changes...
Realistically I think Firefox lost market share because every time users searched for something with the default search engine they were offered a 'faster' browser. And google also advertises chrome outside of the internet, advertising works. Are there any polls on this that don't just poll techies?
I think it's be very hard to get a representative poll on why the whole Internet went one way or the other, but it's not like Firefox was the vastly superior option that got buried by Google's marketing. It was one huge monolithic process with memory leaks and if you ran a number of extensions - supposedly the big advantage - it could be absolutely terrible. And one bad page causing a lock-up or a bug could kill your entire session. I'd been using Firefox since it was the Phoenix like version 0.6 or something but eventually I just said fuck it. Chrome was a memory hog. Chrome replaced the address bar and search bar with one jack of all trades, master of none bar. Some extensions didn't have equivalents. But if fucking worked like a charm for basic browsing, fast and stable. So Firefox was relegated to "when I have to" status and eventually kicked to the curb.
Of course that's just an anecdote. But Firefox had me way into their corner after dealing with Netscape and IE6, if you asked me if I'd ever go back to a proprietary browser (yes, I know Chromium exists) then I'd say you were crazy. But here we are, they didn't lose me because of the marketing budget. They lost me because they lost track of trying to be the best browser possible, like they'd already beaten IE so let's start goofing off doing lots of other things instead of finishing major rework on the core product. They did try to launch e10s in 2009 to compete with Chrome's multi-process system. Then they gave up because it was "too ambitious". Then they started wasting time on Servo and Rust and whatnot while Chrome ate them for lunch. They had every possible chance to keep and expand their user base and wasted it.
Uh... YOUR MATH implies that 1,300 people did die. So.... WHAT THE FUCK? Either you are making shit up, or you can't do math... Which is it?
The question was whether they died because they didn't have a bug out bag, in most disasters you have people that die as a direct consequence like if the hurricane causes a building to collapse on you then you're dead no matter what. If you're sitting on top of a roof waiting for water it takes days to die. Longer if there's rain water to collect or if you're desperate enough you'll probably eventually drink the flood water. Would it have been smarter to stockpile water? Yes. But I doubt very many died because they didn't.
The right question is whether you're role playing or min-max'ing the game mechanics. Like if you get a choice to shoot or not shoot someone and in the latter case an NPC goes "Well if you don't have the balls then I'll do it" so either way he dies. For that character's personality it obviously matters like what role are you playing, if you're min-max'ing you don't really care about the moral choice just whether the XP/loot is worth any penalties you get. Personally I tend to pretty much ignore the RP elements and it's just kill boss X get reward Y unless it's completely level-free like "The Walking Dead". You'll reach the end the question is who did you choose to be to get their, who did you help, who did you betray, who did you kill or let be killed. If you don't care the game is just a bit of trivial button pushing, but then I'd play something else...
So... I'm not sure who's the liar here. Maybe you're just lying to yourself.
From the looks of it the effect varies with the local climate:
But does daylight time still save energy? Not really, according to most research on the subject. Lighting has become a smaller part of overall energy consumption, and extending the use of daylight hours encourages people to use more air conditioning and heating. A 2017 analysis of 44 different papers on the subject found that, on average, the policy helped save 0.34 percent of electricity use. Places farther from the Equator (with mild summers and lower cooling demands) might save energy, but places closer to the Equator used more energy during daylight time, the researchers found.
I did find another study (PDF) from Europe though that showed that really far north like Scandinavia it didn't actually help much at all. So it looks to be a Goldilocks zone, if you can extend the number of temperate days where there's no major need for warming/cooling then you can save a bit. And if we're moving towards EVs then it'll be an even smaller fraction of total power usage. But it's still zero point something percent.