Well, Musk just announced he was closing the showrooms. For financial reasons. We had two stories posted to the Slashdot front page about that.
Then they mysteriously burn down. Which means a showroom that was effectively a write off is now an insurance settlement.
This is obviously great news and not suspicious at all, so Tesla will be able to use the money to save its business and use it to fund more space missions for convertibles.
OK, I was actually making a joke, but FWIW the "middle man markup" at most dealerships is somewhere approximating to $200 per vehicle, which is probably less than Teslas overheads selling the cars directly (remember Tesla is talking about shipping each car individually to individuals across the country to test drive and back again if they don't buy it. Yes, there's shipping with dealerships too, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to ship 500 cars to one place once a month, especially when you can use rail for part of the journey, than to 500 different places at different times of the month, with some making a return journey, all from and to the factory.)
Dealers don't make money on vehicle sales. They make money on the sundry stuff, maintenance, recalls, etc. Yes, your Tesla doesn't need oil changes, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to determine ways in which a dealer could make money on aftercare.
I'm not saying dealers are great, the culture of most dealerships sucks, but that said nothing stops Tesla from imposing a culture on any company that wants to sell its cars. Dealerships don't have to be terrible, I've bought cars from CarMax before, for example, and the experience was great, not pushy, not threatening, just pleasant.
So while my comment may have been in jest, part of me does feel Tesla's missing a trick here.
Maybe some enterprising third parties can come in and start running stores that people can use to test drive and even buy Teslas at. They could have showrooms full of Teslas, and people who want to buy one could go to such a place, be greeted by a salesperson who could also help arrange financing and, perhaps even negotiate a price to meet the buyer's budget. These "dealerships" as I would suggest we call them would be a great way to ensure people around the country have a chance to buy Teslas.
Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men?
Are you seriously saying female superheroes cannot be physiologically as strong or stronger than normal men?
I thought the GP made it pretty clear we're talking superheroes here, so it's hard for me to believe you missed that part. On the other hand, you do seriously appear to be arguing that fictional entities given amazing powers cannot possibly be stronger than normal human unmodified men if they possess vaginas.
This is unlikely. What it's more likely to do is mean that the comments on the Gab version of the forum will reflect the clientelle of Gab.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, this wasn't Gab's project, but Slashdot's. All of a sudden you'd get comments comparing things to systemd, complaints about the MAFIAAAA with relation to copyrights, and so on. Does this mean that the New York Times is censoring comments about copyright and has some hard-on for systemd?
No, it doesn't.
Now look at the type of people who currently use Gab. Are they representative of the nation as a whole? Do you think you'll be able to tell what kind of content gets censored from, say, Breitbart or the Wall Street Journal by comparing the comments sections to Gab's?
Biological markers, like "the end of young adulthood (women's menopause)", combined with sociological markers like "start of old age (retirement ages for pensions, etc," aren't the best measure.
They are, however, the measure.
Menopause starts on average at 51 years old for women in the US
On average, possibly, that's why the start of middle age is considered soft. But the point is that generally around the mid-forties it's harder to conceive and many women have already hit the biological brick wall at that point.
The average retirement age for people in the US is 60 years old.
That seems improbable to me, as the majority of people won't get access to their retirement benefits for another five years. Additionally there's a hell of a lot of people who retired long after 65.
My point about the mathematical measure is that you can divide your life into young, middle, and old by thirds. That's all. A simple fact for people to digest when looking at the provided definitions from the wiki.
You can. But... what is the point? You talk about major events that affect lifestyles as being "not the best measure", but instead suggest something completely unrelated to how life is lived such as splitting a lifetime into equal portions is meaningful in some way.
Meaningful to whom? I mean, why would you do that? Why three? Why break it up at all? We don't talk about middle age because we're interested in the passage of time, we talk about it because it's a phase of life, and it would be an extraordinary mathematical coincidence if the phases of life just happened to line up with average-adult-life-expentence/3.
To talk of middle age the way you're doing is to divorce not merely the term from its meaning, but from the reason the term exists in the first place.
Lastly, the wiki simply points to other people's arbitrary definitions. Anyone can define it anyway they like. There is no rule in life that says you can't make up your own definition....
Actually, yeah there is. If you start using phrases that are in common use with your own definitions, then people won't understand what you're talking about, and you'll be babbling incoherently without adding knowledge.
If we were to talk about the history of the PC, and I said "It's a shame the PC died sometime around 1992, it was a great thing, and nobody has ever successfully brought it back", you'd be pretty pissed off at me if it turned out I was using the word PC to describe "Computers made by Commodore".
So yeah, you have to at least try to use the same definitions everyone else is doing in normal life. In your case, bizarrely you're the one creating an arbitrary definition, while calling everyone else's arbitrary, when in fact they're using the phrase correctly. Yes, there's some fuzziness there, but that's not because the term is bad, it's because it's difficult to pin down exact dates that describe that middle phase of life.
Intel started making memory chips for Minuteman missiles
You know who didn't? MOS Technology.
I mention this because the alternate timeline where Intel doesn't exist isn't one where the personal computer revolution doesn't occur. Intel certainly made a massive impression with the original 4004, but the 4004 as-was was virtually useless, it was a landmark because it was the first of a generation of CPUs that people were working on anyway.
At the same time as the 4004 was being designed, Intel had a parallel project called the 8008. The 8008 wasn't a development of the 4004 (IIRC it wasn't even made by the same people), it was an entirely different contract. Two external businesses, one making calculators, the other terminals, had asked Intel to put all the logic into a smaller number of chips. Intel responded by putting the calculator logic in the 4004, and the terminal logic in the 8008.
So, what does that mean? It means if Intel didn't exist, then Busicom and CTC would have found another supplier, and there were plenty of companies making chips in 1970-72 that would have made them. TI and Motorola, to name but two.
Assuming Motorola didn't make those chips, it's safe to say Motorola would still have produced the 6800. And its designers would have hopped over to MOS Technology with the 6502.
And so the Apple II would still have been made. And meanwhile Jack Tramiel would have bought MOS, and it would have continued to make 6502s, and memory chips, and cool graphic chips, and eventually the VIC-20 and then Commodore 64 - the world's best selling microcomputer - would have been made.
The company that made the 4004 and 8008 might have gone in the same direction as Intel, or not, who knows. But it wouldn't have mattered much. Without the 8080 we might not have seen the Z80 or S-100 bus, but it's fair to say we would still have seen the 68000, and then the PowerPC and ARM chips. And it's reasonable to suppose that as IBM repeatedly tried to enter the PC market during the 1970s, it would have eventually hit on a formula that worked, probably in the form of a 6502 or 68000 based machine.
The DoD did indeed pump money into the industry, but that doesn't mean we ever needed the DoD.
Yeah I'm pissed off by that because had the MRAs/Incels/GGers/etc not poisoned the well, the fact it was absolutely awful might have been apparent before we were watched it.
But yeah, seems to be the exception - most of the films they get upset about turn out to be good, in some cases exceptionally so.
You don't win an argument by discrediting the speaker.
While this is true, if the speaker has no qualifications and is being quoted as an authority on something that he clearly knows nothing about (the left - hell, just the fact it starts with the word "leftist" shows Kazinsky knows less about the left than I'd have previously assumed), and if the speaker has no argument, just a sequence of unsupported assertions on a topic he has no apparent knowledge of, then it's legitimate to point that out.
It's legitimate not least because it demonstrates that not only does the speaker have no arguments, but it illustrates that the person quoting him (THAT WOULD BE YOU) also apparently not only lacks the knowledge he's trying to impart, but doesn't even have a clue who would.
And it also says one other thing about you. Generally speaking, quoting a controversial figure in support of something nobody thinks he's qualified to speak on is only done when someone's trolling.
So AmiMojo is entirely right to point it out, just in case there's anyone out there at all who thinks you're trying to argue in good faith. Troll.
Middle age mathematically starts at about 28 years and lasts to about 57 (the middle third of your life if you die at 85).
It's not about the mathematical mid-point of your life, it's about you transitioning from the first part of your life to old age.
To put it this way: you grow up, have babies, look after them, and then they leave the house. That period is considered young adulthood. The period that follows, where you're too old for children (OK, men can still technically conceive, but that doesn't make it a good idea), but not elderly, is considered middle aged.
It's fairly easy to put an age range on it because there are legal and physiological age ranges defining both the end of young adulthood (women's menopause), and the start of old age (retirement ages for pensions, etc, defined that way because it's at the tail end of when employers are likely to find the average person useful.)
I guess once the movie is out and raking in a billion dollars it's harder to pretend that it's failing and troll attacks are less effective.
They're still trying to convince everyone The Last Jedi was a failure despite not merely raking in over a billion dollars, but also getting superb Cinemascore ratings (this is an opinion poll based upon people randomly selected leaving cinemas having watched it), and it being the best selling Blu-ray disc in 2018. So don't be surprised if the "Captain Marvel was a disaster, this is the end of the MCU, Disney is going to make superhero films with only white male leads form here on" narrative doesn't continue long after Captain Marvel 3: The Three Hours of Lectures About Toxic Masculinity has made its third billion dollars.
Is AmiMojo engaged in ad hominem, or is DNS-and-Bind appealing to authority?
Lest you go for the former because DandB didn't say "It must be true, no lesser authority than..." explicitly, remember that he felt the need to quote the Unibomber and indicate it was the Unibomber he was quoting. He does, apparently, believe it carries weight because a known deranged serial killer said it.
The Unibomber is not an expert on "Leftists" (or rather the left wing), or how the left in general would use technology. He provides no facts in support of this thesis about what he's accusing the left of being likely to do. He's a crank. A crank that murdered people because he hated technology. He is more likely wrong than right, and so is DNS-and-BIND apparently because, apparently, the latter admires Kazinsky enough to feel he's worth mining for support of his already ludicrous positions.
Musk isn't trying to save the world, and I assure you the dislike is bipartisan. Indeed, I'd be unsurprised if Trump doesn't know what any of this is about and has no opinion about it or Musk.
All he literally had to do to comply with the SEC agreement was to pass his tweets by a Tesla employed fact checking lawyer before actually posting them. That was it. And he agreed to that because normally blatantly lying while in your position as CEO of a company in order to manipulate your company's stock price would net you massive fines and/or jail time.
That's "oppressive" to you? But jail wouldn't have been? Or is your position that nobody should suffer any consequences from trying to defraud investors?
But yeah, having to pass a tweet by a lawyer you employ and can easily afford to employ is somehow a "gag order". Right.
The more I hear about Musk, the more I think he's a poster child for people with money who shouldn't have it. Normally the jerks who are rich and misuse their positions are there through inhereted wealth, but Musk got lucky with Paypal and we've been paying for it ever since, from FUD campaigns against long needed infrastructure expansion, to lies about everything from company performance to the sexual preferences of rescue divers.
He's a jerk, and despite his fans he's clearly a net negative for society. I wish they'd prosecuted rather than settled. Hopefully that'll happen now.
Ghostbusters 2016 was a shitty movie. Despite this, it got quite a respectable audience. It wasn't a hit, but do you really think it would have been that high if people weren't bombarded with "OMG R-WORDED MY CHILDHOOD FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMALES" "reviews" and were so overwhelmed with them they weren't able to find the good faith reviews that also said it was crap?
The MRAs/MGtOWs/GGers/CGers/etc poisoned the well with shitty reviews. If Captain Marvel turns out to be shitty, it'll be their fault it breaks even. By all accounts though it's actually a decent movie, it'll probably do well.
Maybe they have some Rosetta-style tricks up their sleeve, but IIRC Rosetta was able to deliver acceptable performance largely because the x86 CPUs of the day were sufficiently faster than the PPC CPUs they were emulating
True-ish. If most PPC Macs that were being replaced by Intel Macs had been powered by G5s, then the performance would have been considered sub-optimal.
The question isn't whether good ISA translation software could make software written for the latest i7 run acceptably on a fast ARM, but whether good ISA translation could make software written for a 2014 i5 run acceptably on a modern fast ARM. I suspect it could.
The other comment I'd add is that experience showed us that developers were extremely quick to put out native versions of their applications as soon as the Intel switch happened. That'll probably happen again, leaving only very old legacy applications needing emulation, emulation that'd probably be fast enough if using more traditional semi-interpreted techniques. Indeed, I'd be interested to see if they support PPC translation as well as ix86 translation, as that might also result in a lot of software running faster than it did when it was native.
When I bought my first Mac OS X Mac, which was long before they switched to Intel, virtually every developer I knew was excited by it, and a fair number bought one.
I really don't get the "But you can't develop on one CPU if your program will run on another" thing. In practice, unless you're writing in C or something equally low level, the operating system matters far more than the CPU architecture.
Realistically, if the complaint were true, ix86 mobile phones would have taken off as they would have been the only phones people were willing to write software for.
I've heard this claimed multiple times and when I try to pin people down on it they can never come up with specifics. What about the original Pentium made it "interally RISCy"? They didn't reduce the number of instructions, increase the number of registers, or anything like that. The Pentium was more or less an incremental upgrade of the 486, with a better pipeline (that meant it was the first to provide superscalar performance... sometimes) and more caches. It was still microcode controlled and still had few registers, and I don't need to explain why it wasn't a RISC chip in any other way.
The best argument I've heard is that in the Pentium Pro (note: not the Pentium), Intel replaced a traditional microcode controller with a thing that translated ix86 instructions into VLIW instructions, with everything running on a VLIW core. "That's the same!" you cry, well, if it is then every simple CPU is a RISC design, and every CPU that uses microcode has a "RISC core". What, in practice, is the difference between a core that's controlled directly by microcode being read in real time, and a core that's controlled by data from a buffer that's being filled with instructions from a microcode decoder? Nothing, except the buffer. The buffer's a great idea, it makes optimization much easier, but it's not the same thing as adoption of RISC.
The thing people forget is that by 1995 RISC vs CISC was thought to be over... with the results largely a stalemate, but leaning towards CISC. RISC had come out of the gate with high performance, but could only be improved with higher clockspeeds, and was already suffering issues with data starvation. The higher transistor budgets that were becoming available were not helping RISC much - it was cheaper, and allowed hardware makers to own their own CPUs, but beyond that RISC wasn't improving.
CISC, on the other hand, had the benefits that it had plenty that still needed to be optimized, and with smaller instructions, was much more cache friendly. Adding a cache and using it to effectively create a Harvard architecture inside a CPU, together with better pipelining, meant you could get superscalar performance and have the benefit of more advanced instructions.
Now before you point it out, sure, you could add the same features to a RISC design. The issue though was that RISC didn't benefit as much. You needed a larger instruction cache, for example, and equivalent superscalar RISC performance will never beat superscalar CISC performance, because the former is doing slightly more than one simple instruction every tick, and the later a complex instruction usually worth several RISC instructions every tick.
Why's RISC suddenly important again? RAM is cheaper and faster than it was, power usage is now an important metric, and transistor budgets have stalled. Removing or simplifying the instruction decoder is now worth doing, it's a big chunk of logic that could be eliminated completely now that RAM is cheap. But in the 1990s none of that mattered.
Welcome to 2019 people. Also, people are up in arms already about their cellphones tracking them, but at least cellphones and the networks need to have some idea of where they are in the world - there's no such excuse for shoes to contain this level of computer technology...
I'd go with bandwidth between towers and network then. I commute to work on relatively busy roads every day and usually pass the time streaming music, without any problems. (On the odd occasion I've played a video - no not watched it! Just to bring up music that isn't on Amazon Prime or in my library) the music has been fine (can't comment on the video quality because I can't see it.)
Having six lanes of traffic within a mile of six more lanes of traffic at rush hour doesn't seem to phase TMoUS's 4G network, but I'd half expect them, being a US operation, to be more even with high bandwidth links between towers than a European operation, where I'd assume towers next to a motorway wouldn't be considered prime upgrade territory as long as they can support a lot of voice calls, just because it's not where people would expect a lot of data usage... maybe? I don't know! Either way, the technology and density in both these cases should be similar, so I don't think it's the radio interface.
Many (all?) browsers aren't optimized for RAM usage. They'll eat as much as you make available. And aren't great about cutting things back if you like to have tons of tabs open. Think I heard Firefox was even shifting to the one process for each tab like Chrome has been doing (pretty sure that'll eat more RAM up than a pair of rendering processes for whatever you're looking at currently like it used to do).
While all of this is true, the original complaint was that while 4Gb might be enough for Windows, it isn't for GNU/Linux. I see nothing different about the way Firefox (or Chrome) handles memory in GNU/Linux vs Windows. So if someone's comfortable in 4Gb under Windows, in theory they should have no problem with any mainstream GNU/Linux distribution such as Ubuntu.
Assuming by slow you mean bandwidth, not latency (the comment about "basic browsing" suggests the former): I have no problems with it, my daughter often watches YouTube shows on the way home using 4G data without any apparent problems (albeit this is T-Mo's video throttling to around 1.5Mbps, so it ends up being 480p, but on a 5" phone who cares?)
At a guess I'd say that there aren't enough towers in your area, OR they haven't upgraded the links between the towers to the core network (which is surprisingly common), neither of which are issues related to 4G itself. I wouldn't assume 5G is going to improve anything in the slightest for you, as it'll still need those extra towers and connectivity, without those upgrades your network will still be terrible.
If you extend the definition of SJW to mean "Anyone I don't like who says something I disagree with occasionally" then sure they're SJWs. In that respect, AmiMojo is wrong because SJWism is a meaningless word that applies to pretty much everyone, and yet pretty much no-one these days.
What is true is that normally when people refer to SJWs they're saying they're vaguely left wing and vaguely concerned about racism or sexism. Vice definitely does not fall under that category - it's usually the target of people with those concerns, not a ally to them.
There's a good reason why we haven't heard of a Cambridge Analytica style scandal involving Google yet - that's not how their business works. People on Slashdot love this idea Google is "selling" all your personal data, but actually they sell services to third parties that happen to be better than the competition because Google is able to use the data it has to make the work well.
There's a world of difference between the two, and in privacy terms they're more or less opposites: if your secret sauce is knowing that DogDude looks at a lot of goat porn and so will be a great person to target ads for industrial sized goat dildos, it isn't going to help you if you pass this secret information on to someone else so everyone who runs an advertising company can also use that information to run an ad service that's just as good as Google's.
Facebook works differently, they do run an advertising business but it's never going to be as successful as Google's, so they look for other ways to monetize the data they harvest about you. Part of that is because the data they harvest is different - Google is interested in your interests, Facebook from day one was interested in who you're associated with. It's harder for Facebook to draw conclusions on its own from that data (hence Facebook also doing what it can to find ways to get your interests), so it benefits them to sell the data to third parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Musk just announced he was closing the showrooms. For financial reasons. We had two stories posted to the Slashdot front page about that.
Then they mysteriously burn down. Which means a showroom that was effectively a write off is now an insurance settlement.
This is obviously great news and not suspicious at all, so Tesla will be able to use the money to save its business and use it to fund more space missions for convertibles.
OK, I was actually making a joke, but FWIW the "middle man markup" at most dealerships is somewhere approximating to $200 per vehicle, which is probably less than Teslas overheads selling the cars directly (remember Tesla is talking about shipping each car individually to individuals across the country to test drive and back again if they don't buy it. Yes, there's shipping with dealerships too, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to ship 500 cars to one place once a month, especially when you can use rail for part of the journey, than to 500 different places at different times of the month, with some making a return journey, all from and to the factory.)
Dealers don't make money on vehicle sales. They make money on the sundry stuff, maintenance, recalls, etc. Yes, your Tesla doesn't need oil changes, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to determine ways in which a dealer could make money on aftercare.
I'm not saying dealers are great, the culture of most dealerships sucks, but that said nothing stops Tesla from imposing a culture on any company that wants to sell its cars. Dealerships don't have to be terrible, I've bought cars from CarMax before, for example, and the experience was great, not pushy, not threatening, just pleasant.
So while my comment may have been in jest, part of me does feel Tesla's missing a trick here.
It's literally the same as the previous post, but minus most of the information... and both were published by the same editor. What gives?
Maybe some enterprising third parties can come in and start running stores that people can use to test drive and even buy Teslas at. They could have showrooms full of Teslas, and people who want to buy one could go to such a place, be greeted by a salesperson who could also help arrange financing and, perhaps even negotiate a price to meet the buyer's budget. These "dealerships" as I would suggest we call them would be a great way to ensure people around the country have a chance to buy Teslas.
I wonder why Musk hasn't thought of this?
Are you seriously saying female superheroes cannot be physiologically as strong or stronger than normal men?
I thought the GP made it pretty clear we're talking superheroes here, so it's hard for me to believe you missed that part. On the other hand, you do seriously appear to be arguing that fictional entities given amazing powers cannot possibly be stronger than normal human unmodified men if they possess vaginas.
This is unlikely. What it's more likely to do is mean that the comments on the Gab version of the forum will reflect the clientelle of Gab.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, this wasn't Gab's project, but Slashdot's. All of a sudden you'd get comments comparing things to systemd, complaints about the MAFIAAAA with relation to copyrights, and so on. Does this mean that the New York Times is censoring comments about copyright and has some hard-on for systemd?
No, it doesn't.
Now look at the type of people who currently use Gab. Are they representative of the nation as a whole? Do you think you'll be able to tell what kind of content gets censored from, say, Breitbart or the Wall Street Journal by comparing the comments sections to Gab's?
They are, however, the measure.
On average, possibly, that's why the start of middle age is considered soft. But the point is that generally around the mid-forties it's harder to conceive and many women have already hit the biological brick wall at that point.
That seems improbable to me, as the majority of people won't get access to their retirement benefits for another five years. Additionally there's a hell of a lot of people who retired long after 65.
You can. But... what is the point? You talk about major events that affect lifestyles as being "not the best measure", but instead suggest something completely unrelated to how life is lived such as splitting a lifetime into equal portions is meaningful in some way.
Meaningful to whom? I mean, why would you do that? Why three? Why break it up at all? We don't talk about middle age because we're interested in the passage of time, we talk about it because it's a phase of life, and it would be an extraordinary mathematical coincidence if the phases of life just happened to line up with average-adult-life-expentence/3.
To talk of middle age the way you're doing is to divorce not merely the term from its meaning, but from the reason the term exists in the first place.
Actually, yeah there is. If you start using phrases that are in common use with your own definitions, then people won't understand what you're talking about, and you'll be babbling incoherently without adding knowledge.
If we were to talk about the history of the PC, and I said "It's a shame the PC died sometime around 1992, it was a great thing, and nobody has ever successfully brought it back", you'd be pretty pissed off at me if it turned out I was using the word PC to describe "Computers made by Commodore".
So yeah, you have to at least try to use the same definitions everyone else is doing in normal life. In your case, bizarrely you're the one creating an arbitrary definition, while calling everyone else's arbitrary, when in fact they're using the phrase correctly. Yes, there's some fuzziness there, but that's not because the term is bad, it's because it's difficult to pin down exact dates that describe that middle phase of life.
You know who didn't? MOS Technology.
I mention this because the alternate timeline where Intel doesn't exist isn't one where the personal computer revolution doesn't occur. Intel certainly made a massive impression with the original 4004, but the 4004 as-was was virtually useless, it was a landmark because it was the first of a generation of CPUs that people were working on anyway.
At the same time as the 4004 was being designed, Intel had a parallel project called the 8008. The 8008 wasn't a development of the 4004 (IIRC it wasn't even made by the same people), it was an entirely different contract. Two external businesses, one making calculators, the other terminals, had asked Intel to put all the logic into a smaller number of chips. Intel responded by putting the calculator logic in the 4004, and the terminal logic in the 8008.
So, what does that mean? It means if Intel didn't exist, then Busicom and CTC would have found another supplier, and there were plenty of companies making chips in 1970-72 that would have made them. TI and Motorola, to name but two.
Assuming Motorola didn't make those chips, it's safe to say Motorola would still have produced the 6800. And its designers would have hopped over to MOS Technology with the 6502.
And so the Apple II would still have been made. And meanwhile Jack Tramiel would have bought MOS, and it would have continued to make 6502s, and memory chips, and cool graphic chips, and eventually the VIC-20 and then Commodore 64 - the world's best selling microcomputer - would have been made.
The company that made the 4004 and 8008 might have gone in the same direction as Intel, or not, who knows. But it wouldn't have mattered much. Without the 8080 we might not have seen the Z80 or S-100 bus, but it's fair to say we would still have seen the 68000, and then the PowerPC and ARM chips. And it's reasonable to suppose that as IBM repeatedly tried to enter the PC market during the 1970s, it would have eventually hit on a formula that worked, probably in the form of a 6502 or 68000 based machine.
The DoD did indeed pump money into the industry, but that doesn't mean we ever needed the DoD.
Yeah I'm pissed off by that because had the MRAs/Incels/GGers/etc not poisoned the well, the fact it was absolutely awful might have been apparent before we were watched it.
But yeah, seems to be the exception - most of the films they get upset about turn out to be good, in some cases exceptionally so.
While this is true, if the speaker has no qualifications and is being quoted as an authority on something that he clearly knows nothing about (the left - hell, just the fact it starts with the word "leftist" shows Kazinsky knows less about the left than I'd have previously assumed), and if the speaker has no argument, just a sequence of unsupported assertions on a topic he has no apparent knowledge of, then it's legitimate to point that out.
It's legitimate not least because it demonstrates that not only does the speaker have no arguments, but it illustrates that the person quoting him (THAT WOULD BE YOU) also apparently not only lacks the knowledge he's trying to impart, but doesn't even have a clue who would.
And it also says one other thing about you. Generally speaking, quoting a controversial figure in support of something nobody thinks he's qualified to speak on is only done when someone's trolling.
So AmiMojo is entirely right to point it out, just in case there's anyone out there at all who thinks you're trying to argue in good faith. Troll.
It's not about the mathematical mid-point of your life, it's about you transitioning from the first part of your life to old age.
To put it this way: you grow up, have babies, look after them, and then they leave the house. That period is considered young adulthood. The period that follows, where you're too old for children (OK, men can still technically conceive, but that doesn't make it a good idea), but not elderly, is considered middle aged.
It's fairly easy to put an age range on it because there are legal and physiological age ranges defining both the end of young adulthood (women's menopause), and the start of old age (retirement ages for pensions, etc, defined that way because it's at the tail end of when employers are likely to find the average person useful.)
They're still trying to convince everyone The Last Jedi was a failure despite not merely raking in over a billion dollars, but also getting superb Cinemascore ratings (this is an opinion poll based upon people randomly selected leaving cinemas having watched it), and it being the best selling Blu-ray disc in 2018. So don't be surprised if the "Captain Marvel was a disaster, this is the end of the MCU, Disney is going to make superhero films with only white male leads form here on" narrative doesn't continue long after Captain Marvel 3: The Three Hours of Lectures About Toxic Masculinity has made its third billion dollars.
Is AmiMojo engaged in ad hominem, or is DNS-and-Bind appealing to authority?
Lest you go for the former because DandB didn't say "It must be true, no lesser authority than..." explicitly, remember that he felt the need to quote the Unibomber and indicate it was the Unibomber he was quoting. He does, apparently, believe it carries weight because a known deranged serial killer said it.
The Unibomber is not an expert on "Leftists" (or rather the left wing), or how the left in general would use technology. He provides no facts in support of this thesis about what he's accusing the left of being likely to do. He's a crank. A crank that murdered people because he hated technology. He is more likely wrong than right, and so is DNS-and-BIND apparently because, apparently, the latter admires Kazinsky enough to feel he's worth mining for support of his already ludicrous positions.
Musk isn't trying to save the world, and I assure you the dislike is bipartisan. Indeed, I'd be unsurprised if Trump doesn't know what any of this is about and has no opinion about it or Musk.
All he literally had to do to comply with the SEC agreement was to pass his tweets by a Tesla employed fact checking lawyer before actually posting them. That was it. And he agreed to that because normally blatantly lying while in your position as CEO of a company in order to manipulate your company's stock price would net you massive fines and/or jail time.
That's "oppressive" to you? But jail wouldn't have been? Or is your position that nobody should suffer any consequences from trying to defraud investors?
But yeah, having to pass a tweet by a lawyer you employ and can easily afford to employ is somehow a "gag order". Right.
The more I hear about Musk, the more I think he's a poster child for people with money who shouldn't have it. Normally the jerks who are rich and misuse their positions are there through inhereted wealth, but Musk got lucky with Paypal and we've been paying for it ever since, from FUD campaigns against long needed infrastructure expansion, to lies about everything from company performance to the sexual preferences of rescue divers.
He's a jerk, and despite his fans he's clearly a net negative for society. I wish they'd prosecuted rather than settled. Hopefully that'll happen now.
Ghostbusters 2016 was a shitty movie. Despite this, it got quite a respectable audience. It wasn't a hit, but do you really think it would have been that high if people weren't bombarded with "OMG R-WORDED MY CHILDHOOD FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMALES" "reviews" and were so overwhelmed with them they weren't able to find the good faith reviews that also said it was crap?
The MRAs/MGtOWs/GGers/CGers/etc poisoned the well with shitty reviews. If Captain Marvel turns out to be shitty, it'll be their fault it breaks even. By all accounts though it's actually a decent movie, it'll probably do well.
True-ish. If most PPC Macs that were being replaced by Intel Macs had been powered by G5s, then the performance would have been considered sub-optimal.
The question isn't whether good ISA translation software could make software written for the latest i7 run acceptably on a fast ARM, but whether good ISA translation could make software written for a 2014 i5 run acceptably on a modern fast ARM. I suspect it could.
The other comment I'd add is that experience showed us that developers were extremely quick to put out native versions of their applications as soon as the Intel switch happened. That'll probably happen again, leaving only very old legacy applications needing emulation, emulation that'd probably be fast enough if using more traditional semi-interpreted techniques. Indeed, I'd be interested to see if they support PPC translation as well as ix86 translation, as that might also result in a lot of software running faster than it did when it was native.
When I bought my first Mac OS X Mac, which was long before they switched to Intel, virtually every developer I knew was excited by it, and a fair number bought one.
I really don't get the "But you can't develop on one CPU if your program will run on another" thing. In practice, unless you're writing in C or something equally low level, the operating system matters far more than the CPU architecture.
Realistically, if the complaint were true, ix86 mobile phones would have taken off as they would have been the only phones people were willing to write software for.
I've heard this claimed multiple times and when I try to pin people down on it they can never come up with specifics. What about the original Pentium made it "interally RISCy"? They didn't reduce the number of instructions, increase the number of registers, or anything like that. The Pentium was more or less an incremental upgrade of the 486, with a better pipeline (that meant it was the first to provide superscalar performance... sometimes) and more caches. It was still microcode controlled and still had few registers, and I don't need to explain why it wasn't a RISC chip in any other way.
The best argument I've heard is that in the Pentium Pro (note: not the Pentium), Intel replaced a traditional microcode controller with a thing that translated ix86 instructions into VLIW instructions, with everything running on a VLIW core. "That's the same!" you cry, well, if it is then every simple CPU is a RISC design, and every CPU that uses microcode has a "RISC core". What, in practice, is the difference between a core that's controlled directly by microcode being read in real time, and a core that's controlled by data from a buffer that's being filled with instructions from a microcode decoder? Nothing, except the buffer. The buffer's a great idea, it makes optimization much easier, but it's not the same thing as adoption of RISC.
The thing people forget is that by 1995 RISC vs CISC was thought to be over... with the results largely a stalemate, but leaning towards CISC. RISC had come out of the gate with high performance, but could only be improved with higher clockspeeds, and was already suffering issues with data starvation. The higher transistor budgets that were becoming available were not helping RISC much - it was cheaper, and allowed hardware makers to own their own CPUs, but beyond that RISC wasn't improving.
CISC, on the other hand, had the benefits that it had plenty that still needed to be optimized, and with smaller instructions, was much more cache friendly. Adding a cache and using it to effectively create a Harvard architecture inside a CPU, together with better pipelining, meant you could get superscalar performance and have the benefit of more advanced instructions.
Now before you point it out, sure, you could add the same features to a RISC design. The issue though was that RISC didn't benefit as much. You needed a larger instruction cache, for example, and equivalent superscalar RISC performance will never beat superscalar CISC performance, because the former is doing slightly more than one simple instruction every tick, and the later a complex instruction usually worth several RISC instructions every tick.
Why's RISC suddenly important again? RAM is cheaper and faster than it was, power usage is now an important metric, and transistor budgets have stalled. Removing or simplifying the instruction decoder is now worth doing, it's a big chunk of logic that could be eliminated completely now that RAM is cheap. But in the 1990s none of that mattered.
Welcome to 2019 people. Also, people are up in arms already about their cellphones tracking them, but at least cellphones and the networks need to have some idea of where they are in the world - there's no such excuse for shoes to contain this level of computer technology...
I'd go with bandwidth between towers and network then. I commute to work on relatively busy roads every day and usually pass the time streaming music, without any problems. (On the odd occasion I've played a video - no not watched it! Just to bring up music that isn't on Amazon Prime or in my library) the music has been fine (can't comment on the video quality because I can't see it.)
Having six lanes of traffic within a mile of six more lanes of traffic at rush hour doesn't seem to phase TMoUS's 4G network, but I'd half expect them, being a US operation, to be more even with high bandwidth links between towers than a European operation, where I'd assume towers next to a motorway wouldn't be considered prime upgrade territory as long as they can support a lot of voice calls, just because it's not where people would expect a lot of data usage... maybe? I don't know! Either way, the technology and density in both these cases should be similar, so I don't think it's the radio interface.
While all of this is true, the original complaint was that while 4Gb might be enough for Windows, it isn't for GNU/Linux. I see nothing different about the way Firefox (or Chrome) handles memory in GNU/Linux vs Windows. So if someone's comfortable in 4Gb under Windows, in theory they should have no problem with any mainstream GNU/Linux distribution such as Ubuntu.
Assuming by slow you mean bandwidth, not latency (the comment about "basic browsing" suggests the former): I have no problems with it, my daughter often watches YouTube shows on the way home using 4G data without any apparent problems (albeit this is T-Mo's video throttling to around 1.5Mbps, so it ends up being 480p, but on a 5" phone who cares?)
At a guess I'd say that there aren't enough towers in your area, OR they haven't upgraded the links between the towers to the core network (which is surprisingly common), neither of which are issues related to 4G itself. I wouldn't assume 5G is going to improve anything in the slightest for you, as it'll still need those extra towers and connectivity, without those upgrades your network will still be terrible.
If you extend the definition of SJW to mean "Anyone I don't like who says something I disagree with occasionally" then sure they're SJWs. In that respect, AmiMojo is wrong because SJWism is a meaningless word that applies to pretty much everyone, and yet pretty much no-one these days.
What is true is that normally when people refer to SJWs they're saying they're vaguely left wing and vaguely concerned about racism or sexism. Vice definitely does not fall under that category - it's usually the target of people with those concerns, not a ally to them.
There's a good reason why we haven't heard of a Cambridge Analytica style scandal involving Google yet - that's not how their business works. People on Slashdot love this idea Google is "selling" all your personal data, but actually they sell services to third parties that happen to be better than the competition because Google is able to use the data it has to make the work well.
There's a world of difference between the two, and in privacy terms they're more or less opposites: if your secret sauce is knowing that DogDude looks at a lot of goat porn and so will be a great person to target ads for industrial sized goat dildos, it isn't going to help you if you pass this secret information on to someone else so everyone who runs an advertising company can also use that information to run an ad service that's just as good as Google's.
Facebook works differently, they do run an advertising business but it's never going to be as successful as Google's, so they look for other ways to monetize the data they harvest about you. Part of that is because the data they harvest is different - Google is interested in your interests, Facebook from day one was interested in who you're associated with. It's harder for Facebook to draw conclusions on its own from that data (hence Facebook also doing what it can to find ways to get your interests), so it benefits them to sell the data to third parties.