I know this is Slashdot, so everyone likes to paint Apple like they are complete corporate assholes, but let's consider this for a second: Maybe Apple started slowing down phones with diminished batteries because they realized that their customers, on average, prefer a phone that lasts 20 hours with diminished performance, than one that operates at peak performance but is dead after they've been out of the house for four hours? And I can see where having a phone that doesn't die midday would cause you to keep using your current phone for LONGER!
This is the same company whose major selling point is "it just works" -- "It's still works fine, but is slightly slower" is a lot closer to that goal than "it works great until lunchtime and then it's completely unusable."
I'm also willing to bet that have most of you assholes making snide remarks are Android users who are wholly unaffected (I am an Android user myself, if it matters), but feel a need to take it to the company whose users aren't quite/r/iamverysmart enough to operate in the Windows/Android space.
As for my personal opinion, I don't think Apple made a bade decision here. They should have been transparent about it from the get go, but I do not think they were acting in a nefarious way or with poor intentions.
The purpose of diminishing returns isn't to "break up the grind" -- it's to reduce the number of Bright Engrams produced. Bright Engrams, unlike other loot, which aren't rewarded on level up but instead drop from enemies, can be purchased with cold hard cash. Fewer bright engrams generated naturally = more people purchasing bright engrams for money. Aside from new game sales and expansion purchases, it's the only way Bungie/Activision make additional money on the game.
I also have know idea if any of what is being alleged is actually true; however, your experience in white collar silicon valley land is most likely different than what happens on a factory production floor (tech company or not).
I have a great idea -- let's apply a literal interpretation of religious scripts to every individual who claims a given religion. But only if they aren't Christian. Or Jewish. Actually, only if they are Muslim. Yeah, that sounds good.
If I take a million+ sample size of college students, it's still going to be bias if I'm trying to draw conclusions about the average person -- it's going to skew heavily towards a higher socio-economic background, educated, female, young, and liberal. Can you not see how that is relevant to extracting meaning form the data, even though the sample size is huge?
I find that they usually don't haggle if it is near what they had in mind, they just offer that, or close but with some incentives.
As you elude to later in your post, if they don't try to haggle you down, then you didn't ask for enough.
I'm fine arguing over $5k a year. After tax (let's say $3k is left over), that's a vacation every year already paid for. Or, invested yearly in an Index fund over twenty five years (3% inflation, 10% gains), that's an extra $210,000 in today's dollars.
The reason Netflix doesn't care about people like me is that I want "to watch X" but most people want "to find something to watch", so they're way better off doing what they're doing than to pandering to my eclectic wants.
I'm not so sure. Everyone else wants "to watch X" as well, it's just that they don't know what X is yet. So, they end up having "to find something to watch" in order to identify it.
Your issue is that you enjoy watching different content than most people. Content that Netflix does not have.
I've heard people say similar things to rationalize why no one needs over 60 Hz or over 60 FPS in a video game.
[quote]"The human eye can't distinguish a difference beyond 60 FPS! There's a reason films are shot at 24 FPS! and no one even notices!"[/quote]
However, as a long-time competitive Counter-Strike player, I can easily detect the difference between 60 Hz and 100 Hz, or 100 Hz and 144 Hz. I actually kept a CRT monitor until 2012 because it could output at 100 Hz -- I had tried switching to LCD before then, but always returned the monitors because it negatively effected my play. Even now on my 144 Hz Benq, if CSGO launches with a 60 Hz refresh rate for some reason, I know something is wrong before I even join a server because my mouse has too large of a tail when moving it across the title screen.
Now my anecdote doesn't speak to whether humans can necessarily tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, but it does illustrate that people will make claims about the limitations of human's perceptive abilities that are wrong -- or at the very least, don't apply to all individuals and all use cases.
I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at eight feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: There is no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
Yes, 8 - 6 = 2, but we can assume that if the issue began on the 6th and was resolved on the 8th, then service was affected for three business days. I'm sure that point (business days of outage) has been made multiple times. I can imagine the author overlooking their error due to thinking, "If service was affected for three days, then the issue must not have been fixed until three days later." This is an especially easy error to make if you're leaving date or numeric placeholders in an article as you're writing it.
Anyway, I think we should be less hard on summary and article authors for simple arithmetic errors like this (that doesn't mean editors shouldn't be doing their due diligence, though).
Yeah, who wants "hipster status", when you can be an elitist, techy edge-lord?
While everyone on Slashdot keeps droning on about the stupid normies with their "instant gratification", "hipster status", and "being so shallow you cannot even get lost in your own thoughts" (and all based on phone preference, no less!), Apple will keep on making expensive products that people like and are willing to pay for.
You guys seem to believe you're so superior to the people you're shitting on, but here you are wasting your time writing drivel on Slashdot that none of the people you are criticizing are every going to read. Get a fucking life.
Sincerely,
A non-Apple user tired of being represented by complete douche-nozzles
A lot of it is placebo - unless someone is sitting 5' away from their 75" screen, they probably couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k in a double-blind test. There's a limit to the angular resolution of the human eyeball, and after a certain point the extra pixels are packing in information that we can't even perceive at realistic viewing distances.
I've heard people say similar things to rationalize why no one needs over 60 Hz or over 60 FPS in a video game. "The human eye can't distinguish a difference beyond 60 FPS! There's a reason films are shot at 24 FPS!" However, as a long-time competitive Counter-Strike player, I can tell you the difference between 60 Hz and 100 Hz, or 100 Hz and 144 Hz is night-and-day. I actually kept a CRT monitor until 2012 because it could output at 100 Hz -- I had tried switching to LCD before then, but always returned the monitors because it severely effected my gameplay. Even now on my 144 Hz Benq, if CSGO launches with a 60 Hz refresh rate override, I know something is wrong as soon as I join a server.
Now my anecdote doesn't speak to whether humans can necessarily tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, but it does illustrate that people will make commonly-accepted claims about the limitations of human's perceptive abilities that are wrong -- or at the very least, don't apply to all individuals and all use cases. I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a more "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at ten feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: that there was no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
But in the scenario you outlined, if something catastrophic happens (fire, flood, etc.) your backup isn't sufficiently separated for your primary. All you're protecting yourself from is hardware failure, really.
You've spent two posts completely ignoring what the person you responded to actually wrote, while also attributing beliefs and statements to them that they don't hold and didn't make. I have no clue how/why you've been modded up. I'm also a little surprised your User ID is 1m. You clearly have an axe to grind, and we try to stay away from hyperbole here.
Seriously? Get off your high horse. What is the point of your post?
Someone made a reading error and so their response contained the same. They then go out of their way to acknowledge the error and your response is to accuse them of a "transgression" as if they were being malicious from the get-go.
...why doesn't he put his "gender-based superiority" to the test and just go start his own tech biz...
This is just like asking someone who has criticized their country/governenment, "Why don't you just go live somewhere else then?" It dismisses the criticism and ignores reality.
Storage utilization is the user's problem, not the software engineer's.
Uh, no. It may not be "the software engineer's problem", since they are often just coding to spec, but it is certainly not the user's problem. The user may have to deal with the annoyance of storage limitations presented by the app, but it's the responsibility of the app manufacturer to avoid the limitation in the first place or to mitigate it once identified.
Dismissing the problem and putting it on the stakeholder is a sure-fire way to lose customers.
This is great anecdote and just about as useful as every other anecdote.
Clearly everyone living there has plenty of free time since when you drive by in your car you see people outside. A lot of assumptions going on here.
Is it possible that the place is trashed because the people living there don't have time to clean it up, and the minority of people that do simply don't want to clean up after everyone else? What about the possibility that renters in general don't care as much about the property they live in because since they don't OWN it, they have nothing at stake. It's the same reason landlords don't put as much into properties then rent as they do the home they live in.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, fuck off.
/r/iamverysmart enough to operate in the Windows/Android space.
I know this is Slashdot, so everyone likes to paint Apple like they are complete corporate assholes, but let's consider this for a second: Maybe Apple started slowing down phones with diminished batteries because they realized that their customers, on average, prefer a phone that lasts 20 hours with diminished performance, than one that operates at peak performance but is dead after they've been out of the house for four hours? And I can see where having a phone that doesn't die midday would cause you to keep using your current phone for LONGER!
This is the same company whose major selling point is "it just works" -- "It's still works fine, but is slightly slower" is a lot closer to that goal than "it works great until lunchtime and then it's completely unusable."
I'm also willing to bet that have most of you assholes making snide remarks are Android users who are wholly unaffected (I am an Android user myself, if it matters), but feel a need to take it to the company whose users aren't quite
As for my personal opinion, I don't think Apple made a bade decision here. They should have been transparent about it from the get go, but I do not think they were acting in a nefarious way or with poor intentions.
Well of course. Why risk your own money when you can get paid to risk someone else's?
In a country with a large proportion of arranged marriages, not necessarily.
You're all missing the point.
The purpose of diminishing returns isn't to "break up the grind" -- it's to reduce the number of Bright Engrams produced. Bright Engrams, unlike other loot, which aren't rewarded on level up but instead drop from enemies, can be purchased with cold hard cash. Fewer bright engrams generated naturally = more people purchasing bright engrams for money. Aside from new game sales and expansion purchases, it's the only way Bungie/Activision make additional money on the game.
When in doubt, follow the money!
I also have know idea if any of what is being alleged is actually true; however, your experience in white collar silicon valley land is most likely different than what happens on a factory production floor (tech company or not).
Can you please stop advertising my home wireless network?
Thanks.
I have a great idea -- let's apply a literal interpretation of religious scripts to every individual who claims a given religion. But only if they aren't Christian. Or Jewish. Actually, only if they are Muslim. Yeah, that sounds good.
If I take a million+ sample size of college students, it's still going to be bias if I'm trying to draw conclusions about the average person -- it's going to skew heavily towards a higher socio-economic background, educated, female, young, and liberal. Can you not see how that is relevant to extracting meaning form the data, even though the sample size is huge?
I find that they usually don't haggle if it is near what they had in mind, they just offer that, or close but with some incentives.
As you elude to later in your post, if they don't try to haggle you down, then you didn't ask for enough.
I'm fine arguing over $5k a year. After tax (let's say $3k is left over), that's a vacation every year already paid for. Or, invested yearly in an Index fund over twenty five years (3% inflation, 10% gains), that's an extra $210,000 in today's dollars.
Someone has to build those automated systems. Someone has to maintain them. Someone has to upgrade them. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
So how will people incapable of acquiring the skills to fill these kinds of advanced positions be employed?
The reason Netflix doesn't care about people like me is that I want "to watch X" but most people want "to find something to watch", so they're way better off doing what they're doing than to pandering to my eclectic wants.
I'm not so sure. Everyone else wants "to watch X" as well, it's just that they don't know what X is yet. So, they end up having "to find something to watch" in order to identify it.
Your issue is that you enjoy watching different content than most people. Content that Netflix does not have.
I've heard people say similar things to rationalize why no one needs over 60 Hz or over 60 FPS in a video game. [quote]"The human eye can't distinguish a difference beyond 60 FPS! There's a reason films are shot at 24 FPS! and no one even notices!"[/quote] However, as a long-time competitive Counter-Strike player, I can easily detect the difference between 60 Hz and 100 Hz, or 100 Hz and 144 Hz. I actually kept a CRT monitor until 2012 because it could output at 100 Hz -- I had tried switching to LCD before then, but always returned the monitors because it negatively effected my play. Even now on my 144 Hz Benq, if CSGO launches with a 60 Hz refresh rate for some reason, I know something is wrong before I even join a server because my mouse has too large of a tail when moving it across the title screen.
Now my anecdote doesn't speak to whether humans can necessarily tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, but it does illustrate that people will make claims about the limitations of human's perceptive abilities that are wrong -- or at the very least, don't apply to all individuals and all use cases.
I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at eight feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: There is no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
Yeah, it's hard to believe the same company was selling the Nexus 5 (that was a ton of phone!) in 2013 for only $350.
I can see why they may have made this mistake.
Yes, 8 - 6 = 2, but we can assume that if the issue began on the 6th and was resolved on the 8th, then service was affected for three business days. I'm sure that point (business days of outage) has been made multiple times. I can imagine the author overlooking their error due to thinking, "If service was affected for three days, then the issue must not have been fixed until three days later." This is an especially easy error to make if you're leaving date or numeric placeholders in an article as you're writing it.
Anyway, I think we should be less hard on summary and article authors for simple arithmetic errors like this (that doesn't mean editors shouldn't be doing their due diligence, though).
Oh, right, but that won't give me hipster status.
Yeah, who wants "hipster status", when you can be an elitist, techy edge-lord?
While everyone on Slashdot keeps droning on about the stupid normies with their "instant gratification", "hipster status", and "being so shallow you cannot even get lost in your own thoughts" (and all based on phone preference, no less!), Apple will keep on making expensive products that people like and are willing to pay for.
You guys seem to believe you're so superior to the people you're shitting on, but here you are wasting your time writing drivel on Slashdot that none of the people you are criticizing are every going to read. Get a fucking life.
Sincerely, A non-Apple user tired of being represented by complete douche-nozzles
Yes let's worry about shit that happened 170 years ago instead of ...
...what?
A lot of it is placebo - unless someone is sitting 5' away from their 75" screen, they probably couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k in a double-blind test. There's a limit to the angular resolution of the human eyeball, and after a certain point the extra pixels are packing in information that we can't even perceive at realistic viewing distances.
I've heard people say similar things to rationalize why no one needs over 60 Hz or over 60 FPS in a video game. "The human eye can't distinguish a difference beyond 60 FPS! There's a reason films are shot at 24 FPS!" However, as a long-time competitive Counter-Strike player, I can tell you the difference between 60 Hz and 100 Hz, or 100 Hz and 144 Hz is night-and-day. I actually kept a CRT monitor until 2012 because it could output at 100 Hz -- I had tried switching to LCD before then, but always returned the monitors because it severely effected my gameplay. Even now on my 144 Hz Benq, if CSGO launches with a 60 Hz refresh rate override, I know something is wrong as soon as I join a server.
Now my anecdote doesn't speak to whether humans can necessarily tell the difference between 4k and 1080p, but it does illustrate that people will make commonly-accepted claims about the limitations of human's perceptive abilities that are wrong -- or at the very least, don't apply to all individuals and all use cases. I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a more "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at ten feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: that there was no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
Any more info on this? Curious why bandwidth is so bad in Seattle... I was considering moving there at some point.
But in the scenario you outlined, if something catastrophic happens (fire, flood, etc.) your backup isn't sufficiently separated for your primary. All you're protecting yourself from is hardware failure, really.
You've spent two posts completely ignoring what the person you responded to actually wrote, while also attributing beliefs and statements to them that they don't hold and didn't make. I have no clue how/why you've been modded up. I'm also a little surprised your User ID is 1m. You clearly have an axe to grind, and we try to stay away from hyperbole here.
Seriously? Get off your high horse. What is the point of your post?
Someone made a reading error and so their response contained the same. They then go out of their way to acknowledge the error and your response is to accuse them of a "transgression" as if they were being malicious from the get-go.
You're either stupid or willfully ignorant.
...why doesn't he put his "gender-based superiority" to the test and just go start his own tech biz...
This is just like asking someone who has criticized their country/governenment, "Why don't you just go live somewhere else then?" It dismisses the criticism and ignores reality.
Storage utilization is the user's problem, not the software engineer's.
Uh, no. It may not be "the software engineer's problem", since they are often just coding to spec, but it is certainly not the user's problem. The user may have to deal with the annoyance of storage limitations presented by the app, but it's the responsibility of the app manufacturer to avoid the limitation in the first place or to mitigate it once identified.
Dismissing the problem and putting it on the stakeholder is a sure-fire way to lose customers.
This is great anecdote and just about as useful as every other anecdote.
Clearly everyone living there has plenty of free time since when you drive by in your car you see people outside. A lot of assumptions going on here.
Is it possible that the place is trashed because the people living there don't have time to clean it up, and the minority of people that do simply don't want to clean up after everyone else? What about the possibility that renters in general don't care as much about the property they live in because since they don't OWN it, they have nothing at stake. It's the same reason landlords don't put as much into properties then rent as they do the home they live in.
The person who ran the electrical for the stage for $15/hour. All of the supporting performers. The person at the ticket booth.
I don't know? Everyone else who contributed to the performance, but isn't famous?