Posts like this confuse me. You call others "at the top" stupid yet you're in your late 50's and never advanced beyond a minimum wage help desk zombie reading scripts. Ever stop to think it's not them, it's you?
I see people like you every day. Pushing carts down the hallway at my work, setting up mice and keyboards. Often nice enough in person but after 30 years of drone like behavior, stomp off after every customer experience to complain how everyone else is stupid but you.
I'm in my early 40's and advanced past that point 20 years ago. I was lucky enough to learn the lesson that just because someone doesn't know how to install software package X doesn't mean they are stupid, they just have other priorities.
If you really are in your late 50's then maybe it's time you stopped blaming others?
Wow, that's some great candid feedback but some of it was a little off the mark. These people your describe definitely exist but you really shouldn't lump someone into that category by the sole fact they complain but haven't climbed the corporate ladder. I know plenty of people who are very good at what they do, very good at complaining, but also lack of certain soft skills which keeps them where they are. Complaining even could be the very thing holding them back. It's a bit dark twisted of a thing to say, but it's awesome when you have intelligent people working at low level jobs, even if they're not perfect in every way. Super heroes can have their flaws. Sometimes you can mentor them "up" but sometimes you can't. Then you can only hope they're being compensated enough to stay happy and tell them what a great job they're doing regardless.
I'd like these researchers the benefit of the doubt by saying a common problem with this kinds of studies is they fit the data but not reality. But really, you only need half an ounce of wisdom to realize that fitting 7.5 billion people into 4 personality types is an asinine blunder. Just a tad bit oversimplified to say the least. This is how awful stereotypes get started. Our brains sure don't like complexity do they? There's always a push to abstract information into small inaccurate subsets. 2 categories always seems the goal, black and white is so much easier to understand. Maybe we should applaud them for giving themselves 4 options instead of 2.
For literally years, I have been keeping untold trillions or quadrillions of cells that I subsequently integrated into my own body, mostly from leafy green plants called lettuces, in a CRISPER! I could get CANCER from that?!? Shit... I thought the biggest danger was E. Coli...
I'm still hanging onto hope your post was made with sarcasm but I can't tell because I know people that would say something like this.
Regardless, there is so much wrong in this statement I'm having trouble figuring out where to begin. I'll give it a shot.
You don't "integrate" entire cells into your body like you're describing
There is no DNA transfer when you eat food to your body, at best (even though unlikely) it might DNA transfer might occur with the bacteria in your gut
This article is all about CRISPR taking advantage of weakened p53 genes in a cell, you should really read the article
This study has nothing to do with using CRISPR on food, it's using it on your own cells and putting them back into your body
Lettuce is usually not pluralized, in American english it's uncountable
You assume it was an accident that the eggs were cryopreserved, etc. What if it was a deliberate act to preserve or perpetuate a species but:
a) The "matrix" degraded over the journey resulting in a mutant reconstitution
b) The "matrix" was purposefully crippled in order to give already present life a chance to adapt to it before it was allowed to evolve
c) The "matrix" was meant to integrate into currently available "matrices"
I am obviously not a biologist or any kind of expert, but I can at least see some alternatives to narrative.
Yes I was and what you're talking about is no longer called "panspermia" just something else. I'm sure there's a better more scientific sounding name than "Alien-made noah's ark" for the theory you're proposing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Panspermia is a hypothesis proposing that microscopic life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. Under certain ideal impact circumstances (into a body of water, for example), and ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, it is possible that the surviving organisms could become active and begin to colonize their new environment. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe."
Seconded. Chandra Wickramasinghe is a one-trick pony whose answer to absolutely everything is panspermia. (life from space)
You're not kidding. Not that I doubt panspermia is technically possible, but cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized octopus eggs?... I'm trying to picture octopuses gently laying eggs deep inside a bunch of rocks, getting fertilized, frozen, getting hit with an asteroid but not getting destroyed during impact, impacted with such force it throws these rocks up into space, surviving a million/billion-year journey with no degradation in their structure or DNA, surviving yet another asteroid impact this time hitting Earth, and landing on a planet with the same life conditions as their home planet? I'm sorry but I'm finding Noah's ark to be far less challenging to believe than this story.
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.
All energy production has environmental costs. What are you even comparing it to? Coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro? Solar is on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to environmental costs.
This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts.
It's not just solar energy companies lobbying for this stuff. Normal people, solar employees, green tree thumpers, and other advocacy groups are in the mix too. You're making this sound like some kind of secret conspiracy instead of normal everyday par for course capitalistic, liberal, and democratic behavior.
If you follow the money, you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies.
This is how capitalism works. Companies see/create demand, they meet that demand. Then they collect profits. I dunno, you should try it sometime.
Until the Chinese and Russian governments demand keys to ALL Apple devices, because devices sold outside their countries MIGHT be imported and used in China or Russia.
Demand? Hah, why ask for permission when you can just ask for forgiveness later.
Amen, and couldn't the "the leaders of the tech companies" say the same exact thing but in opposite, in return? All crime enforcement sees is darkness and crime, not the truth that a majority of people are law abiding citizens? But no, it's not sunny, rich, and happy all the time... that doesn't exist anywhere.
You say it as if it has some kind of special monopoly. For reference, see anything. Politics, science, health, legal, history, sports, education, technology, economy, etc. Endless examples anywhere you look.
Plywood is weaker than normal wood not stronger and definitely not stronger than steel.
Plywood that is weaker than wood exists. However the vast majority of the product is built and selected because it is stronger and more stable than wood. The greater the number of plys, the stronger it gets. Sure it has some weaknesses like bending strength but the trade off is a no-brainer. For nearly every applicable purpose, after crisscrossing the grain at 90 degrees and lamination its structural strength, resistance to warping, and and moisture resistance is vastly enhanced when compared to solid wood. Whether it's floors, walls, furniture, toys, almost anything you can think of, plywood wins. Except in beauty of course, whichis why it's hidden with edge banding!
https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/docu...
if they are really that stupid that they believe the earth is flat, it's no wonder they fail to launch a rocket...
While I wish it were that simple, it never is. Believe it or not, lots of smart people believe dumb things. Doesn't make them dumb though. People are really, really good surviving with cognitive dissonance while still getting other constructive or innovative shit done.
Free trade? i cite Rule of acquisition #34 War is good for business
It's not, actually. Not even close. There's only a handful of businesses that profit from war, the rest of the economy takes a huge toll. Sure, billions of dollars in weapons production sounds like a lot of money but in comparison to the rest of the economy it's not. It's less than 1/10 of a % in the US' near-$19T economy. Whatever gains your conspiracy theory thought there was, it would be inconsequential by the negative impacts on the rest of the economy.
Just try to think of any historical example where war was good for business. Only if you're not even a party to the war and watching from the stands is there even a remote chance, but still likely not since your trade partners are going to be taking a hit in the long term. Take even the US during WW2 which is often cited as an example. If it wasn't for the fact the rest of the world was simply pulverized, resetting the playing field, it wouldn't have looked like such a boon to the US. Not at all. I only see on arguable intangible benefit benefit of war, its tendency to jumpstart motivation. You get a boost to people's vigor, nationalism, efforts, and sometimes research. Computing and nuclearization may have been accelerated by a few years for example. Pretty heavy price to pay though, not worth it.
Why, exactly? The cards are run at lower wattage, at lower temps, 24/7 - minimal power cycling.
How does that make the card less valuable over time, or more likely to fail? What parts (besides the fans) are going to experience wear&tear?
"Never buy used GPU" is taking it way too far, but that sentiment is still there for discounting their prices. Electronics do experience wear and tear, though not in the same way traditional mechanical parts do. Nothing lasts forever. Capacitors, resistors, diodes, LEDs, even the circuitry itself. Multiple reasons but it all really comes down to chemistry. Take metal whiskers as a particularly interesting phenomenon. For the past 20 years I've been on a 3-5 year cycle where either the performance gains demand an upgrade, or my old car simply kicks the bucket. There's always a reluctance to buy used, hence everyone expects the discount!
Running candidates that aren't white males doesn't look very provocative to me - it looks more like what naturally happens when you stop wrongly disqualifying non-white, non-males. The republicans had Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, and Carly Fiorina as serious contenders, after all.
I dunno man. The first 2 of those 3 of those candidates were pretty popular until the public get a better glimpse of what they were really like and started babbling some really weird garbage. You'll need better examples than them to use the words "wrongly disqualified". Carly Fiorina on other hand, maybe. She could never message her tenure at HP as CEO properly. Sure, she took over the company when it was having rough times but its own board fired her. That was a tough sell on her public image. Unfortunately public image wins in public offices.
A cellphone is a far bigger privacy hole, and you are just in denial because you have too much self esteem invested in feeling superior by not owning an Echo.
You sir, have hit the nail right on the head. Congratulations on your bullseye.
Words of encouragement are always a beautiful thing!!! I just had to call out the overuse of the cliche regarding "things used to be better" theme. I couldn't help it, it's become a trigger for me. But just because I think things have never been better certainly doesn't mean I think things couldn't be better. Go, continue doing God's work!
More and more. Over are the days of using our brains. We now live in a world of headlines and soundbites. There's no more grey, no more thinking, just black and white, or red and blue. Since it's trendy to hate Google because of their size every single thing they have and do must therefore be bad.
*Note this post is not a reflection of what I think of Google Home. That shit can go to hell. But rather this is a reflection of the world we now live in.
I don't buy into your alarmism because intellectuals have been singing this same song for thousands of years now. I think we sometimes fail to realize most of humanity never engaged in any critical thinking beyond headlines and sound bites to begin with. Homo sapiens living or contemplating the lives Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, or the like have always been in the extreme minority.
That being said, these things just like every other technology, they're nothing more than tools. Even the cost of being spied on is nothing new, internet and credit cards anyone? How you use these tools is what has always mattered. I enjoy my Alexa because of all the home automation and app integration it brings to the table, where it really excels. It pales at understanding simple questions however, something Google's is better at. So I for one am happy to see Google's product seeing greater adoption. I hope this will spur Google for greater integration in the home automation and integration arena finally. I'd be happy to see a product that handles both really well
BS. 20 years ago, you could buy a 2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment in Austin for $500 a month. Now, the same place costs $2500/month, and when your lease is up, you have to have the highest bid on your place, or else you get evicted. A house that cost $100,000 20 years ago, now costs seven digits. Salaries? They sure have not kept up unless you are lucky to work for a tech company. In fact, most people who work in Austin are having to commute from the outskirts of the city.
Please, check your facts. Your posts on Slashdot are highly relevant and worth reading, but this one is an aberration.
I would say neither of you are really wrong. There are a lot of economic forces there at work. What's true for Austin is not true for the entire US, what's true for the entire US (average) is certainly not true for Austin either. Anyone can pull up any city example and easily be countered with a different city with different conditions. I can bring up my location, like Western New York, which is your stereotypical rust belt city, and contradict everything you're seeing in Austin. Houses here are extremely affordable and jobs are few but pay "OK". I think this is your classic example of why we can't use national averages and look at everything as if it actually applies.
There is certainly a national trend of many companies focusing their operations in dense cities (like Austin) for many good reasons instead of being more disbursed a tad more evenly around the country. Talent, infrastructure, innovation, tax benefits, etc. One painful side effect is this is creating an exponential feedback loop. More people, more jobs, less space. There are companies that are wising up to this problem but there are only very few willing to take the risk of moving/expanding operations in cities with fewer opportunities. Can we really blame them? So in major hubs, it's only going to get worse. I don't see how it's ever going to get better.
The "Know it all but really doesn't" attitude seems incredibly pervasive at all ages. The professional thing seems to dictate promising the world and delivering nothing.
Who are these mythical "older workforce" people that refused to stay current? I know exactly one guy like that. I sure have kept up, and I started in the 70's on batch FORTRAN. And the advantage I have is when everybody raves about some exciting new tech, I can use the good parts and recognize the parts that are either reinventing the wheel, or were discarded decades ago because they were a bad idea.
This myth that older devs are universally hulking dinosaurs is just plain dumb. There are good older developers and bad ones, just like younger devs. And the idea that the younger ones have a leg up because they used the latest tech in college doesn't hold water. Tech is changing continuously. In the last few years I've gone from C++ to Ruby on Rails to.Net MVC to a single page client app in Typescript. The key is being able to learn. No one comes out of college knowing everything.
I know plenty of examples in both camps. Older devs that are more current than I am, younger devs that are less current than I am. Like you said, the key is being able to learn. Not everyone is. There's a whole spectrum of where peoples' minds are at. Some only dedicate time to learning on the job. Some people and digest blogs, articles, and books everyday like dinner. I will say, based on my own anecdotal experiences and opinions, there is a higher tendency that as people fill their lives with non-technical-based things, it begins to weigh down on the likelihood of them staying current on tech. Whether it's family, grandkids, dating, partying, age, managerial growth, money, other hobbies, etc. I mean there's definitely the biological factor that we don't learn as quickly as we all get older, but I'd like to think wisdom and experienced counteract that for much of our professional careers. Age itself might be one of those coincidental factors that plays up the stereotype. At least to a certain point. Despite the presence of survivors, the herd definitely thins out over time. I can use my father-in-law as a great anecdotal example. He started on punch cards and ended on doing.Net MVC in his early 60's. Gave him a lot of respect for that but he eventually reached a point where he developed a "know it all, but really doesn't" attitude that annoyed his other colleagues. Old people tend to repeat themselves a lot. I notice it even more in myself even though I'm only in my mid 30s and it's a little scary lol.
Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse!
No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
Agreed, as much as I "bible thump" for global climate change. I really, really detest the political-left's eagerness to jump on every unusual weather phenomenon as proof of climate change. Climate != weather as Macro economics != micro economics. It's as foolish looking at the price of Twinkies at your local gas station to declare a rise in inflation. One rare weather occurrence over the past even 100 years struggles to break past simple anecdotal status. If we could have somehow tracked weather events over the past thousand years, across the entire globe, it would be a heck of a lot easier to dry to draw some tangible conclusions from these events.
Women generally are not freaking out and making life miserable for trans ladies. It is men as we are taught as young boys to bully feminine boys as they are weak. We then grow up and do the same to other adults who are different.
Ladies I talk to are mortified reading internet comments from guys. I guess feminine qualities are a virtue for them so they probably don't get it
Very insightful. Yes we're taught which only exacerbates the problem of boys bullying feminine boys, but in the larger context and time scales of evolution, I don't think this would be quite unnatural to instinct either. Looking at our immediate evolutionary ancestors and relatives the sexual dimorphism is fairly apparent but not as obvious as some species. Still, it's never that simple. Even more importantly than that, bullying transcends sex and gender, and carries many faces. The desire to dominate others are just our instinctual brutish attempts to rise to power through whatever means necessary.
It's not easy for everyone to rise above their nature to override their instincts. No matter how "civilized" society becomes. It'll always be a part of who we are. I haven't watched this star trek yet but that was one of the subtle themes I really, really latched onto in TNG. I found it interesting that humanity achieving such dazzling levels of civility and wisdom, elements of our primitive selves remained nonetheless.
Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.
I typically hate the response I'm about to give since I've always felt it to be a cover-all-cop-out but this time I think this is an instance where it does apply. You're under no obligation to buy it. If they miscalculate a technology or marketing decision, you and everyone else should "punish" them by simply not buying the phone. Corporations aren't democratic. At best, you can stretch them to qualify as a republic with money being your elected representative. We can sit here and criticize them all day but if the phone sells like hot cakes because people love this feature, then we're just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Posts like this confuse me. You call others "at the top" stupid yet you're in your late 50's and never advanced beyond a minimum wage help desk zombie reading scripts. Ever stop to think it's not them, it's you?
I see people like you every day. Pushing carts down the hallway at my work, setting up mice and keyboards. Often nice enough in person but after 30 years of drone like behavior, stomp off after every customer experience to complain how everyone else is stupid but you.
I'm in my early 40's and advanced past that point 20 years ago. I was lucky enough to learn the lesson that just because someone doesn't know how to install software package X doesn't mean they are stupid, they just have other priorities.
If you really are in your late 50's then maybe it's time you stopped blaming others?
Wow, that's some great candid feedback but some of it was a little off the mark. These people your describe definitely exist but you really shouldn't lump someone into that category by the sole fact they complain but haven't climbed the corporate ladder. I know plenty of people who are very good at what they do, very good at complaining, but also lack of certain soft skills which keeps them where they are. Complaining even could be the very thing holding them back. It's a bit dark twisted of a thing to say, but it's awesome when you have intelligent people working at low level jobs, even if they're not perfect in every way. Super heroes can have their flaws. Sometimes you can mentor them "up" but sometimes you can't. Then you can only hope they're being compensated enough to stay happy and tell them what a great job they're doing regardless.
I'd like these researchers the benefit of the doubt by saying a common problem with this kinds of studies is they fit the data but not reality. But really, you only need half an ounce of wisdom to realize that fitting 7.5 billion people into 4 personality types is an asinine blunder. Just a tad bit oversimplified to say the least. This is how awful stereotypes get started. Our brains sure don't like complexity do they? There's always a push to abstract information into small inaccurate subsets. 2 categories always seems the goal, black and white is so much easier to understand. Maybe we should applaud them for giving themselves 4 options instead of 2.
For literally years, I have been keeping untold trillions or quadrillions of cells that I subsequently integrated into my own body, mostly from leafy green plants called lettuces, in a CRISPER! I could get CANCER from that?!? Shit... I thought the biggest danger was E. Coli...
I'm still hanging onto hope your post was made with sarcasm but I can't tell because I know people that would say something like this. Regardless, there is so much wrong in this statement I'm having trouble figuring out where to begin. I'll give it a shot.
Off the cuff, here is a possibility:
You assume it was an accident that the eggs were cryopreserved, etc. What if it was a deliberate act to preserve or perpetuate a species but:
a) The "matrix" degraded over the journey resulting in a mutant reconstitution b) The "matrix" was purposefully crippled in order to give already present life a chance to adapt to it before it was allowed to evolve c) The "matrix" was meant to integrate into currently available "matrices"
I am obviously not a biologist or any kind of expert, but I can at least see some alternatives to narrative.
Yes I was and what you're talking about is no longer called "panspermia" just something else. I'm sure there's a better more scientific sounding name than "Alien-made noah's ark" for the theory you're proposing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "Panspermia is a hypothesis proposing that microscopic life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. Under certain ideal impact circumstances (into a body of water, for example), and ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, it is possible that the surviving organisms could become active and begin to colonize their new environment. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe."
Seconded. Chandra Wickramasinghe is a one-trick pony whose answer to absolutely everything is panspermia. (life from space)
You're not kidding. Not that I doubt panspermia is technically possible, but cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized octopus eggs? ... I'm trying to picture octopuses gently laying eggs deep inside a bunch of rocks, getting fertilized, frozen, getting hit with an asteroid but not getting destroyed during impact, impacted with such force it throws these rocks up into space, surviving a million/billion-year journey with no degradation in their structure or DNA, surviving yet another asteroid impact this time hitting Earth, and landing on a planet with the same life conditions as their home planet? I'm sorry but I'm finding Noah's ark to be far less challenging to believe than this story.
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.
All energy production has environmental costs. What are you even comparing it to? Coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro? Solar is on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to environmental costs.
This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts.
It's not just solar energy companies lobbying for this stuff. Normal people, solar employees, green tree thumpers, and other advocacy groups are in the mix too. You're making this sound like some kind of secret conspiracy instead of normal everyday par for course capitalistic, liberal, and democratic behavior.
If you follow the money, you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies.
This is how capitalism works. Companies see/create demand, they meet that demand. Then they collect profits. I dunno, you should try it sometime.
Until the Chinese and Russian governments demand keys to ALL Apple devices, because devices sold outside their countries MIGHT be imported and used in China or Russia.
Demand? Hah, why ask for permission when you can just ask for forgiveness later.
Amen, and couldn't the "the leaders of the tech companies" say the same exact thing but in opposite, in return? All crime enforcement sees is darkness and crime, not the truth that a majority of people are law abiding citizens? But no, it's not sunny, rich, and happy all the time... that doesn't exist anywhere.
For reference, see religion.
You say it as if it has some kind of special monopoly. For reference, see anything. Politics, science, health, legal, history, sports, education, technology, economy, etc. Endless examples anywhere you look.
You just invented plywood!
Plywood is weaker than normal wood not stronger and definitely not stronger than steel.
Plywood that is weaker than wood exists. However the vast majority of the product is built and selected because it is stronger and more stable than wood. The greater the number of plys, the stronger it gets. Sure it has some weaknesses like bending strength but the trade off is a no-brainer. For nearly every applicable purpose, after crisscrossing the grain at 90 degrees and lamination its structural strength, resistance to warping, and and moisture resistance is vastly enhanced when compared to solid wood. Whether it's floors, walls, furniture, toys, almost anything you can think of, plywood wins. Except in beauty of course, whichis why it's hidden with edge banding! https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/docu...
if they are really that stupid that they believe the earth is flat, it's no wonder they fail to launch a rocket...
While I wish it were that simple, it never is. Believe it or not, lots of smart people believe dumb things. Doesn't make them dumb though. People are really, really good surviving with cognitive dissonance while still getting other constructive or innovative shit done.
Free trade? i cite Rule of acquisition #34 War is good for business
It's not, actually. Not even close. There's only a handful of businesses that profit from war, the rest of the economy takes a huge toll. Sure, billions of dollars in weapons production sounds like a lot of money but in comparison to the rest of the economy it's not. It's less than 1/10 of a % in the US' near-$19T economy. Whatever gains your conspiracy theory thought there was, it would be inconsequential by the negative impacts on the rest of the economy.
Just try to think of any historical example where war was good for business. Only if you're not even a party to the war and watching from the stands is there even a remote chance, but still likely not since your trade partners are going to be taking a hit in the long term. Take even the US during WW2 which is often cited as an example. If it wasn't for the fact the rest of the world was simply pulverized, resetting the playing field, it wouldn't have looked like such a boon to the US. Not at all. I only see on arguable intangible benefit benefit of war, its tendency to jumpstart motivation. You get a boost to people's vigor, nationalism, efforts, and sometimes research. Computing and nuclearization may have been accelerated by a few years for example. Pretty heavy price to pay though, not worth it.
Why, exactly? The cards are run at lower wattage, at lower temps, 24/7 - minimal power cycling.
How does that make the card less valuable over time, or more likely to fail? What parts (besides the fans) are going to experience wear&tear?
"Never buy used GPU" is taking it way too far, but that sentiment is still there for discounting their prices. Electronics do experience wear and tear, though not in the same way traditional mechanical parts do. Nothing lasts forever. Capacitors, resistors, diodes, LEDs, even the circuitry itself. Multiple reasons but it all really comes down to chemistry. Take metal whiskers as a particularly interesting phenomenon. For the past 20 years I've been on a 3-5 year cycle where either the performance gains demand an upgrade, or my old car simply kicks the bucket. There's always a reluctance to buy used, hence everyone expects the discount!
Running candidates that aren't white males doesn't look very provocative to me - it looks more like what naturally happens when you stop wrongly disqualifying non-white, non-males. The republicans had Ben Carson, Sarah Palin, and Carly Fiorina as serious contenders, after all.
I dunno man. The first 2 of those 3 of those candidates were pretty popular until the public get a better glimpse of what they were really like and started babbling some really weird garbage. You'll need better examples than them to use the words "wrongly disqualified". Carly Fiorina on other hand, maybe. She could never message her tenure at HP as CEO properly. Sure, she took over the company when it was having rough times but its own board fired her. That was a tough sell on her public image. Unfortunately public image wins in public offices.
A cellphone is a far bigger privacy hole, and you are just in denial because you have too much self esteem invested in feeling superior by not owning an Echo.
You sir, have hit the nail right on the head. Congratulations on your bullseye.
Words of encouragement are always a beautiful thing!!! I just had to call out the overuse of the cliche regarding "things used to be better" theme. I couldn't help it, it's become a trigger for me. But just because I think things have never been better certainly doesn't mean I think things couldn't be better. Go, continue doing God's work!
More and more. Over are the days of using our brains. We now live in a world of headlines and soundbites. There's no more grey, no more thinking, just black and white, or red and blue. Since it's trendy to hate Google because of their size every single thing they have and do must therefore be bad.
*Note this post is not a reflection of what I think of Google Home. That shit can go to hell. But rather this is a reflection of the world we now live in.
I don't buy into your alarmism because intellectuals have been singing this same song for thousands of years now. I think we sometimes fail to realize most of humanity never engaged in any critical thinking beyond headlines and sound bites to begin with. Homo sapiens living or contemplating the lives Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, or the like have always been in the extreme minority.
That being said, these things just like every other technology, they're nothing more than tools. Even the cost of being spied on is nothing new, internet and credit cards anyone? How you use these tools is what has always mattered. I enjoy my Alexa because of all the home automation and app integration it brings to the table, where it really excels. It pales at understanding simple questions however, something Google's is better at. So I for one am happy to see Google's product seeing greater adoption. I hope this will spur Google for greater integration in the home automation and integration arena finally. I'd be happy to see a product that handles both really well
BS. 20 years ago, you could buy a 2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment in Austin for $500 a month. Now, the same place costs $2500/month, and when your lease is up, you have to have the highest bid on your place, or else you get evicted. A house that cost $100,000 20 years ago, now costs seven digits. Salaries? They sure have not kept up unless you are lucky to work for a tech company. In fact, most people who work in Austin are having to commute from the outskirts of the city.
Please, check your facts. Your posts on Slashdot are highly relevant and worth reading, but this one is an aberration.
I would say neither of you are really wrong. There are a lot of economic forces there at work. What's true for Austin is not true for the entire US, what's true for the entire US (average) is certainly not true for Austin either. Anyone can pull up any city example and easily be countered with a different city with different conditions. I can bring up my location, like Western New York, which is your stereotypical rust belt city, and contradict everything you're seeing in Austin. Houses here are extremely affordable and jobs are few but pay "OK". I think this is your classic example of why we can't use national averages and look at everything as if it actually applies. There is certainly a national trend of many companies focusing their operations in dense cities (like Austin) for many good reasons instead of being more disbursed a tad more evenly around the country. Talent, infrastructure, innovation, tax benefits, etc. One painful side effect is this is creating an exponential feedback loop. More people, more jobs, less space. There are companies that are wising up to this problem but there are only very few willing to take the risk of moving/expanding operations in cities with fewer opportunities. Can we really blame them? So in major hubs, it's only going to get worse. I don't see how it's ever going to get better.
The "Know it all but really doesn't" attitude seems incredibly pervasive at all ages. The professional thing seems to dictate promising the world and delivering nothing.
You're certainly not wrong!
Who are these mythical "older workforce" people that refused to stay current? I know exactly one guy like that. I sure have kept up, and I started in the 70's on batch FORTRAN. And the advantage I have is when everybody raves about some exciting new tech, I can use the good parts and recognize the parts that are either reinventing the wheel, or were discarded decades ago because they were a bad idea.
This myth that older devs are universally hulking dinosaurs is just plain dumb. There are good older developers and bad ones, just like younger devs. And the idea that the younger ones have a leg up because they used the latest tech in college doesn't hold water. Tech is changing continuously. In the last few years I've gone from C++ to Ruby on Rails to .Net MVC to a single page client app in Typescript. The key is being able to learn. No one comes out of college knowing everything.
I know plenty of examples in both camps. Older devs that are more current than I am, younger devs that are less current than I am. Like you said, the key is being able to learn. Not everyone is. There's a whole spectrum of where peoples' minds are at. Some only dedicate time to learning on the job. Some people and digest blogs, articles, and books everyday like dinner. I will say, based on my own anecdotal experiences and opinions, there is a higher tendency that as people fill their lives with non-technical-based things, it begins to weigh down on the likelihood of them staying current on tech. Whether it's family, grandkids, dating, partying, age, managerial growth, money, other hobbies, etc. I mean there's definitely the biological factor that we don't learn as quickly as we all get older, but I'd like to think wisdom and experienced counteract that for much of our professional careers. Age itself might be one of those coincidental factors that plays up the stereotype. At least to a certain point. Despite the presence of survivors, the herd definitely thins out over time. I can use my father-in-law as a great anecdotal example. He started on punch cards and ended on doing .Net MVC in his early 60's. Gave him a lot of respect for that but he eventually reached a point where he developed a "know it all, but really doesn't" attitude that annoyed his other colleagues. Old people tend to repeat themselves a lot. I notice it even more in myself even though I'm only in my mid 30s and it's a little scary lol.
Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse! No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
Agreed, as much as I "bible thump" for global climate change. I really, really detest the political-left's eagerness to jump on every unusual weather phenomenon as proof of climate change. Climate != weather as Macro economics != micro economics. It's as foolish looking at the price of Twinkies at your local gas station to declare a rise in inflation. One rare weather occurrence over the past even 100 years struggles to break past simple anecdotal status. If we could have somehow tracked weather events over the past thousand years, across the entire globe, it would be a heck of a lot easier to dry to draw some tangible conclusions from these events.
Women generally are not freaking out and making life miserable for trans ladies. It is men as we are taught as young boys to bully feminine boys as they are weak. We then grow up and do the same to other adults who are different.
Ladies I talk to are mortified reading internet comments from guys. I guess feminine qualities are a virtue for them so they probably don't get it
Very insightful. Yes we're taught which only exacerbates the problem of boys bullying feminine boys, but in the larger context and time scales of evolution, I don't think this would be quite unnatural to instinct either. Looking at our immediate evolutionary ancestors and relatives the sexual dimorphism is fairly apparent but not as obvious as some species. Still, it's never that simple. Even more importantly than that, bullying transcends sex and gender, and carries many faces. The desire to dominate others are just our instinctual brutish attempts to rise to power through whatever means necessary.
It's not easy for everyone to rise above their nature to override their instincts. No matter how "civilized" society becomes. It'll always be a part of who we are. I haven't watched this star trek yet but that was one of the subtle themes I really, really latched onto in TNG. I found it interesting that humanity achieving such dazzling levels of civility and wisdom, elements of our primitive selves remained nonetheless.
Neither of those require giving up private information for a product. Do we need facial rec. to unlock a stupid phone? Heck, no. You could easily come up with a dozen, quick means to unlock a phone, that did not involve privacy violation. So we can assume this method was deliberately chosen to invade the privacy of users.
I typically hate the response I'm about to give since I've always felt it to be a cover-all-cop-out but this time I think this is an instance where it does apply. You're under no obligation to buy it. If they miscalculate a technology or marketing decision, you and everyone else should "punish" them by simply not buying the phone. Corporations aren't democratic. At best, you can stretch them to qualify as a republic with money being your elected representative. We can sit here and criticize them all day but if the phone sells like hot cakes because people love this feature, then we're just wrong.
So, no links to support it...
Sir, I believe you've found yourself a troll!
I question your use of the word 'reality.'
lol, that's all you needed to say