Performance is good enough that they spend effort making it more efficient for battery life, instead of letting the CPU idle.1% more time. And you say this is not progress?
What if the about page displayed estimated power consumption instead of speed? Progress would be evident.
This is not a solution to the recycling problem. It is a solution to a different problem, which happens to be easy to recycle.
I'd say this is the opposite of worthless, if it solves a non-recycling problem. Especially if it also has a recycling solution that we may not yet know about because people JUST INVENTED IT.
The key question is whether the same results would come from different ends, again.
And the key evidence is that parallel evolution uses different changes from different genes to achieve the same end.
The question that I have to ask is, if different changes result in the same end, can the follow-on changes result? Or are they stopped?
Flippers turn into hands, but using different gene combinations - does that stop the thumb from differentiating? Or would evolutionary pressure still reward the mutant with the thumb?
I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm not swayed on any part of the question other than someone is now thinking about this. It is far from the foregone conclusion you think it is. In fact, in your statements, it stops at the interesting point. Will eyeballs that evolved differently be able to further evolve in similar ways? Or are they forever doomed, due to their makeup of different proteins, to be different? Or is it somewhere in the middle, which sounds plausible pending further research?
Your friends who are gamers essentially form a self-selected group where your opinions either are similar, or become similar via conversations about those opinions.
I don't need famous people, but it does need to be on the far side of believable. If you sound like you don't care about your quest, I'm likely to just chop you to bits and consider I'm doing you a favor.
Also, may I suggest that if you repeatedly find "cliched, overused, derivative crap" you probably need to play fewer games. I say this because buying a game counts as a vote for it (sold X copies), and your opinion doesn't matter. Buying used, or renting then only buying the decent ones will move games toward what's popular, not towards what's marketed.
On that subject, sequels and expansions are very popular because people want more of exactly this experience, with some novelty added. Very frequently, the sequel is panned because it changes something too much - gameplay, atmosphere, environment. So almost the same is good, except when it's not, and very different is good, except when it is too foreign. If you had a business, which way would you go?
The obvious answer is the indie studios who don't even have a business yet. Next obvious is the tiny studios. Not obvious at all is try before you buy, and don't reward the failures with money.
Nope. I buy games when the major glitches are fixed. Typically this is also when prices drop due to first adopters trading in, which also means secondhand market availability.
I don't mind buying new, just buying buggy. Now its fixed, but only available used. Publisher loses my money.
Works day 1? Don't believe it. Day 7? Maybe. But I don't buy until someone has a complete playthrough, and at least some ending variations are documented, meaning tested.
Sorry, game industry, you screwed yourself into a corner here.
Your argument does not convince. Why reserve a CVE Id and sit on it for six months? Maybe there is a reason, I'm not familiar with how CVE internals work. Your argument is pointless without more support. Sounds like you don't understand the system you defend, which seems rather silly.
I believe in my theory, I try to prove it, I get data that supports my view.
So far, so good.
Someone pokes a hole in this thing I believed, and still do.
Now it gets weird.
I can fight against the establishment, for what I believe. Or I can admit defeat, and consider my theory back to hypothesis, or perhaps passing thought.
To change conventional wisdom, the heretic needs to fight a great number of preconceptions. Or the crazy guy needs to fight established and proven science.
Both sides believe their ideas. Being on the bleeding edge of science means one side does not stand with science. Both may have solid evidence and good reason. Both sides have faith in their procedures.
Until one side backs down, it will have adherents, deserved or not. In the last decade, several breakthroughs seemed possible, until data fabrication was admitted. One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
Your assumption is bad. Ftfa, they took numbers on smart separately. The summary does not make a distinction. So you are objecting to a nonexistent slight.
The industry sold 1.8 Billion new mobile
phones just last year alone. And more than half of the new
sales are now smartphones (990 million were in 2013). In
the installed base, already 31% of all mobile phones in use
are smartphones (1.7 Billion units) and this year will sell
about 1.2 Billion more with roughly half going to replace
Yes, if they meet the definition of "traitor". Because "those spying on anyone, anywhere" does not meet any definition I know of.
Or, another way, your statement is just as true as the gp.
I prefer to think of it as redefinition, where the meaning of treason is whatever supports gp post.
On one hand, we have the idea that all spying is wrong. On the other, some spying is okay, if it supports the greater good.
If I misdial an international number and get a terrorist burn phone, does it make sense to flag me as metadata to be recorded in the future? If I repeatedly call burn phones, am i a greater risk? If I have friends I met in college who are fighting for their freedom and lives in an unpleasant country - fighting the same fight that my country is fighting but from the inside - how does my country know which side I'm on?
If some spying is good, we have to define where to draw the line. My parents were killed 20 years ago, when CCTV was not prevalent. Would you support CCTV cameras for the purposes of finding their killer(s)? That seems like unnecessary spying given the hours of tape that would get captured, but it also seems to be for the greater good.
So, can we define clear lines that don't require interpretation, which clearly defines the good guys from the bad guys and the targets from the protected? And we have to keep in mind that the state preserving itself is not the same as the state preserving its citizens, so the state is not necessarily the best decision maker. When a revolution happens, the state finds itself on the wrong site of history, and is the bad guy. They will abuse any power granted them at that point.
So how do you grant UK permission to make the call, while giving the Americans the ability to revolt?
3 Fortune 150 companies, and we always had someone who could get a support ticket opened to major vendor. I had to push a bit to find the contact, since this information is usually kept close to the chest.
Basic vendor rules are: 1) Be running the latest version 2) Be ready to upgrade to the next patch in order to have your bug fixed 3) All of the other patches, improvements, and bugs will be in the next version
These can be very limiting, and I would prefer to have the source even if all I do is submit a diff. But "mercy of the vendor" isn't even a thing, if you understand your your support contract works, and your upgrade plans accommodate the rules. If you choose to operate differently, you are probably better off using something more flexible.
You mention having people who can fix the bugs from open source. Most business does not operate this way. You are shifting costs and beta testing onto your own employees. Not all of it, but this is a risk.
I'm happy your company has found enlightenment. For other companies to make the same switch, they need to shift around their infrastructure to support this model of internal ownership. That takes a huge leap of faith, or a rogue division willing to take a risk to make a name in management.
I sound like an apologist, I give you that. But equally plausible is the concept of "know your enemy".
I will contribute this - there are many proprietary tools where you get the source if you buy it. These examples are great places to start, if you want to start supporting availability of source code. Many are development tools, where the benefit is obvious. There are others.
Until a data issue means you have to ship a database backup or large data file to the developer to reproduce and fix the issue, and you have no company to make a data confidentiality agreement with. Or the main developer is outside the company, because international law is a bitch.
Want to fix it yourself? Now you've signed up for internal maintenance unless you can get it accepted upstream. And without a repro, and bad data to test with, the need for the fix is not obvious.
As always, your circumstances will determine what you can and cannot use. Ignoring certain situations means your choice is an uninformed one. I'm not surprised to see that larger businesses want to cover situations they have experienced or read about, and smaller companies are fine with taking changes they don't even know they are taking. Chances that history has created a flowchart or checklist in that company that says we need this data in order to even consider operating third party software. And open source doesn't have it, unless you buy with a support plan like red hat or oracle.
I learned Basic, visual basic, C, C with function pointers, C++, and of course others before my first job. Other than the framework, I've been learning the fundamentals of C# all along.
Similar with scripting languages, for databases, for all manner of jobs.
There are completely new ideas like NoSql, but it is hard to generalise irrelevance 20 years out. Did I learn C first? No, but I had to learn a throwaway language so I could generalise and apply when learning C. Ah, I can write my own MID function. I could write my own libc. Someone did. It's turtles all the way down. Bootstrap? Asm. x86, 6502, PPC, 68k. Now I get it.
I had to start somewhere, these kids have to as well. Or should we just skip to a negative 15 year old language to teach?
Statistically speaking, no student will ever be in a class with a professor like Tomasko. I assume there is a backup plan for the teachers who manage to make the student hate something they liked?
I'm of a mind that dreaming is a useful sandbox, and I need not disturb it.
That may be due to brain research being nascent, or it may be rationalizing my lack of effort to develop the talent. I do hope to avoid the headline "Lucid dreamer? You may be interfering with your ability to $(hobby) in first life. Read more here, $(name)"
Because personalized ads are more lucrative than basic brain care and feeding.
Wrong. Your short term memory can remember, without effort, 7 digits easily. It therefore is not so complicated that it changes before you put it back.
Remembering the order of events over several days, on the other hand, does not fit in short term memory in a coherent fashion. So you may gradually put several things on a week long trip on the same day. When telling the story, someone else who was there says "No, it was the next day, because [reason]". You didn't have a forceful enough memory to record a separation, and they gradually blur the line while you remember, and now they are on the same day. Something made an impression on the other person that put it on a different day - maybe the same day as something you remember happened on a different day.
There are lots of other little things, like pattern recognition. If someone's number is nearly the same as yours, you may repeat theirs when saying yours, because you call them more than you call yourself. And then you have to struggle to recall your own number, and it is vulnerable to change in that moment. But if you're not sure, you pull out your phone and problem solved - you store it correctly. There's more, but I don't see you coming out of this any better if I keep typing.
Early non-medicinal PTSD treatments were desensitization, where you recall the memory in a calm and non-threatening situation. Turns out, just recalling them is like getting them off the shelf and putting them back. So there are faster ways to achieve the same thing.
Remembering things, and interrupting the storage process, seems to reduce the strength of a traumatic memory.
That link only touches the surface of the changing part, but it's a starting point.
As time goes on, your arguments can fall apart as you remember things that feel absolutely true, but aren't. Typically, it is a true fact infused with a personal experience, so you are really close to a fact, but something is wrong enough about it that you look stupid.
The point of this article is that Microsoft does not need a bug filed and hope someone fixes it, and meanwhile wait. Microsoft's documentation is keyword complete, so you don't wind up like this in the first place.
I've been in large companies and had Microsoft support on the phone fixing SQL server, and had a ticket in for visual studio. It was our configuration both times, or Oracle bugs in another, but we had support.
That is cost of ownership, and they got us going again. I know the common refrain is, how many times do we actually hold Microsoft responsible for its bugs? Well, we never have to because big company support fixes the issue quickly.
If libre office wants to compete with Microsoft, it has to be easier to self support, and documentation has to magically just work, or else TCO goes up.
I'm sure you weren't arguing any of this, but file a bug only helps so far in the context of TCO. I would think the code should be generating its own help docs, maybe with a secondary tool that spits out a shell page, and if you check in and there is a help file not in source control, it is missing and someone files a bug to have it written. That's basic QA, and I expect at least that much effort.
This is no different from having a command line lookup table that is different from running "app -h" which doesn't happen because they are generated from the same data. This was a solved problem 20 years ago and should not be an issue.
Irrelevant. The congress writes the laws, the executive enforces laws. Exec does not publish a written interpretation for every law, they just arrest or kill, and show up in court with the written law.
If there is a technical appeal, the courts decide interpretation. Until that point, no ones interpretation means anything.
The only point where it matters is when scotus allows a secret decision based on secret evidence. Because that establishes case law, which lasts until congress changes the law.
So what you don't like is secret decisions, and probably the difficulty of proving standing to challenge laws and their interpretation. I agree with you, but it is a lot easier to argue my side than your side, to anyone who knows how the government works.
We did not vote for this. Not one of the executive branch lawyers who write legal justifications for this is elected. If it has congressional oversight in any capacity, only a handful of congress ate on the super secret committees that are marginally briefed. The judicial branch is not elected.
This is how a representative domocracy works, voting for someone who sounds the most like you and trusting they will do what they say. Especially since they campaign on things they can't change, like the president on taxes.
I agree that voting third party is the answer. But don't let people repeat your horseshit when convincing someone who doesn't already agree. Arguing ignorance against ignorance never works. Backfire effect will prevent lots of converts, you don't want to lose more due to poor reasoning.
For the only reference you thought relevant enough to cite, it is awful full of weasel words like "may", ending with a solid, weasel free conclusion based on nothing concretely shown. I hope there is a better source, otherwise this ranks near homeopathy for everyone not writing a doctoral thesis on it.
Do you know what contracting means? At one point it was zero, and then lots of people bought them. Not you obviously, but you don't count. Literally they are not counting the people who did not buy one, so you and your experiences and opinion are not a factor here. So it expanded from zero to a positive non-zero number. From there, it has to stop expanding, then contract, before it gets to zero.
Guaranteed the tech problems that didn't haunt HD-DVD would have helped adoption due to lower prices had they let the market dictate price. Although many of the tech companies involved in the manufacture of HD-DVD were also involved in LCD price fixing for 10 years, so they could easily have screwed themselves by grabbing for now instead of the long term.
So Sony went for maximum revenue by having royalties on media. Toshiba figured they were screwing people on LCDs and threw in the towel on HD-DVD, crumbling the opposition. Possibly because the LCD lawsuit guaranteed they couldn't do the same with HD-DVD.
The moment Blu-Ray was a base component of a premium system, and HD-DVD was the budget add-on, it was over. But most people didn't know the rest of the nasty business that went on from the media to the pixels, to bring HD into the living room.
The companies involved basically did everything they could to grab their slice of the pie and guarantee that when it burned to the ground, no one was going to get scooped. We would still be buying bigger screens if the players had passed the threshold where everyone had one and people talked about it.
Then tablets and streaming to small devices hit, and no one cared about resolution. Again, if we had the devices the portable things may have had us pushing back against "toys". But they valued short term profits over longevity.
Finally, DVD was a 10 year format, and then coexisted with HD formats. It wasn't going to last 10 years - not when you could rip any DVD without having to search the internet or have a private key built in to your ripper. This is important when mobile devices started taking over.
So yes, contracting. Not from "popular" but from "higher than zero adoption rate". For many reasons - mobile, encryption, cost, lack of popularity, and of course the format war that was so obvious I didn't even address it directly till now that made people wary to invest in an expensive player that might not even have discs for it in a few years.
The assumption that a consistent explanation can be found ignores all of the history of a business, the history of that business sector, tradition or consumer expectations, and whether the business is desperate enough to disrupt all of that.
You have to assume everyone has the same information to base their decisions on, and then explain why they reached different ones.
It's like an introductory econ course where reality takes a back seat to consistency. So there is not an incorrect statement, because the wrong parts are unstated.
Slashdot Mirror
Performance is good enough that they spend effort making it more efficient for battery life, instead of letting the CPU idle .1% more time. And you say this is not progress?
What if the about page displayed estimated power consumption instead of speed? Progress would be evident.
This is not a solution to the recycling problem. It is a solution to a different problem, which happens to be easy to recycle.
I'd say this is the opposite of worthless, if it solves a non-recycling problem. Especially if it also has a recycling solution that we may not yet know about because people JUST INVENTED IT.
The key question is whether the same results would come from different ends, again.
And the key evidence is that parallel evolution uses different changes from different genes to achieve the same end.
The question that I have to ask is, if different changes result in the same end, can the follow-on changes result? Or are they stopped?
Flippers turn into hands, but using different gene combinations - does that stop the thumb from differentiating? Or would evolutionary pressure still reward the mutant with the thumb?
I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm not swayed on any part of the question other than someone is now thinking about this. It is far from the foregone conclusion you think it is. In fact, in your statements, it stops at the interesting point. Will eyeballs that evolved differently be able to further evolve in similar ways? Or are they forever doomed, due to their makeup of different proteins, to be different? Or is it somewhere in the middle, which sounds plausible pending further research?
Your friends who are gamers essentially form a self-selected group where your opinions either are similar, or become similar via conversations about those opinions.
I don't need famous people, but it does need to be on the far side of believable. If you sound like you don't care about your quest, I'm likely to just chop you to bits and consider I'm doing you a favor.
Also, may I suggest that if you repeatedly find "cliched, overused, derivative crap" you probably need to play fewer games. I say this because buying a game counts as a vote for it (sold X copies), and your opinion doesn't matter. Buying used, or renting then only buying the decent ones will move games toward what's popular, not towards what's marketed.
On that subject, sequels and expansions are very popular because people want more of exactly this experience, with some novelty added. Very frequently, the sequel is panned because it changes something too much - gameplay, atmosphere, environment. So almost the same is good, except when it's not, and very different is good, except when it is too foreign. If you had a business, which way would you go?
The obvious answer is the indie studios who don't even have a business yet. Next obvious is the tiny studios. Not obvious at all is try before you buy, and don't reward the failures with money.
Nope. I buy games when the major glitches are fixed. Typically this is also when prices drop due to first adopters trading in, which also means secondhand market availability.
I don't mind buying new, just buying buggy. Now its fixed, but only available used. Publisher loses my money.
Works day 1? Don't believe it. Day 7? Maybe. But I don't buy until someone has a complete playthrough, and at least some ending variations are documented, meaning tested.
Sorry, game industry, you screwed yourself into a corner here.
The old guy screwed up, was replaced, and the new guys screwed up too. Does that mean replace or do not replace?
Or just that you remember old news?
If the latter, stick to tagging dupes here.
Your argument does not convince. Why reserve a CVE Id and sit on it for six months? Maybe there is a reason, I'm not familiar with how CVE internals work. Your argument is pointless without more support. Sounds like you don't understand the system you defend, which seems rather silly.
I believe in my theory, I try to prove it, I get data that supports my view.
So far, so good.
Someone pokes a hole in this thing I believed, and still do.
Now it gets weird.
I can fight against the establishment, for what I believe. Or I can admit defeat, and consider my theory back to hypothesis, or perhaps passing thought.
To change conventional wisdom, the heretic needs to fight a great number of preconceptions. Or the crazy guy needs to fight established and proven science.
Both sides believe their ideas. Being on the bleeding edge of science means one side does not stand with science. Both may have solid evidence and good reason. Both sides have faith in their procedures.
Until one side backs down, it will have adherents, deserved or not. In the last decade, several breakthroughs seemed possible, until data fabrication was admitted. One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
Your assumption is bad. Ftfa, they took numbers on smart separately. The summary does not make a distinction. So you are objecting to a nonexistent slight.
The industry sold 1.8 Billion new mobile
phones just last year alone. And more than half of the new
sales are now smartphones (990 million were in 2013). In
the installed base, already 31% of all mobile phones in use
are smartphones (1.7 Billion units) and this year will sell
about 1.2 Billion more with roughly half going to replace
older smartphones and half going to first-time
smartphone owners.
Or one can assume that 300 titles in the space on one is all they really needed, and that more frequently used manuals will be stored physically.
Or instead of assuming you are smarter that everyone in the procurement process, you could read more and assume less.
Yes, if they meet the definition of "traitor". Because "those spying on anyone, anywhere" does not meet any definition I know of.
Or, another way, your statement is just as true as the gp.
I prefer to think of it as redefinition, where the meaning of treason is whatever supports gp post.
On one hand, we have the idea that all spying is wrong. On the other, some spying is okay, if it supports the greater good.
If I misdial an international number and get a terrorist burn phone, does it make sense to flag me as metadata to be recorded in the future? If I repeatedly call burn phones, am i a greater risk? If I have friends I met in college who are fighting for their freedom and lives in an unpleasant country - fighting the same fight that my country is fighting but from the inside - how does my country know which side I'm on?
If some spying is good, we have to define where to draw the line. My parents were killed 20 years ago, when CCTV was not prevalent. Would you support CCTV cameras for the purposes of finding their killer(s)? That seems like unnecessary spying given the hours of tape that would get captured, but it also seems to be for the greater good.
So, can we define clear lines that don't require interpretation, which clearly defines the good guys from the bad guys and the targets from the protected? And we have to keep in mind that the state preserving itself is not the same as the state preserving its citizens, so the state is not necessarily the best decision maker. When a revolution happens, the state finds itself on the wrong site of history, and is the bad guy. They will abuse any power granted them at that point.
So how do you grant UK permission to make the call, while giving the Americans the ability to revolt?
3 Fortune 150 companies, and we always had someone who could get a support ticket opened to major vendor. I had to push a bit to find the contact, since this information is usually kept close to the chest.
Basic vendor rules are:
1) Be running the latest version
2) Be ready to upgrade to the next patch in order to have your bug fixed
3) All of the other patches, improvements, and bugs will be in the next version
These can be very limiting, and I would prefer to have the source even if all I do is submit a diff. But "mercy of the vendor" isn't even a thing, if you understand your your support contract works, and your upgrade plans accommodate the rules. If you choose to operate differently, you are probably better off using something more flexible.
You mention having people who can fix the bugs from open source. Most business does not operate this way. You are shifting costs and beta testing onto your own employees. Not all of it, but this is a risk.
I'm happy your company has found enlightenment. For other companies to make the same switch, they need to shift around their infrastructure to support this model of internal ownership. That takes a huge leap of faith, or a rogue division willing to take a risk to make a name in management.
I sound like an apologist, I give you that. But equally plausible is the concept of "know your enemy".
I will contribute this - there are many proprietary tools where you get the source if you buy it. These examples are great places to start, if you want to start supporting availability of source code. Many are development tools, where the benefit is obvious. There are others.
Until a data issue means you have to ship a database backup or large data file to the developer to reproduce and fix the issue, and you have no company to make a data confidentiality agreement with. Or the main developer is outside the company, because international law is a bitch.
Want to fix it yourself? Now you've signed up for internal maintenance unless you can get it accepted upstream. And without a repro, and bad data to test with, the need for the fix is not obvious.
As always, your circumstances will determine what you can and cannot use. Ignoring certain situations means your choice is an uninformed one. I'm not surprised to see that larger businesses want to cover situations they have experienced or read about, and smaller companies are fine with taking changes they don't even know they are taking. Chances that history has created a flowchart or checklist in that company that says we need this data in order to even consider operating third party software. And open source doesn't have it, unless you buy with a support plan like red hat or oracle.
I learned Basic, visual basic, C, C with function pointers, C++, and of course others before my first job. Other than the framework, I've been learning the fundamentals of C# all along.
Similar with scripting languages, for databases, for all manner of jobs.
There are completely new ideas like NoSql, but it is hard to generalise irrelevance 20 years out. Did I learn C first? No, but I had to learn a throwaway language so I could generalise and apply when learning C. Ah, I can write my own MID function. I could write my own libc. Someone did. It's turtles all the way down. Bootstrap? Asm. x86, 6502, PPC, 68k. Now I get it.
I had to start somewhere, these kids have to as well. Or should we just skip to a negative 15 year old language to teach?
Statistically speaking, no student will ever be in a class with a professor like Tomasko. I assume there is a backup plan for the teachers who manage to make the student hate something they liked?
I'm of a mind that dreaming is a useful sandbox, and I need not disturb it.
That may be due to brain research being nascent, or it may be rationalizing my lack of effort to develop the talent. I do hope to avoid the headline "Lucid dreamer? You may be interfering with your ability to $(hobby) in first life. Read more here, $(name)"
Because personalized ads are more lucrative than basic brain care and feeding.
Wrong. Your short term memory can remember, without effort, 7 digits easily. It therefore is not so complicated that it changes before you put it back.
Remembering the order of events over several days, on the other hand, does not fit in short term memory in a coherent fashion. So you may gradually put several things on a week long trip on the same day. When telling the story, someone else who was there says "No, it was the next day, because [reason]". You didn't have a forceful enough memory to record a separation, and they gradually blur the line while you remember, and now they are on the same day. Something made an impression on the other person that put it on a different day - maybe the same day as something you remember happened on a different day.
There are lots of other little things, like pattern recognition. If someone's number is nearly the same as yours, you may repeat theirs when saying yours, because you call them more than you call yourself. And then you have to struggle to recall your own number, and it is vulnerable to change in that moment. But if you're not sure, you pull out your phone and problem solved - you store it correctly. There's more, but I don't see you coming out of this any better if I keep typing.
Early non-medicinal PTSD treatments were desensitization, where you recall the memory in a calm and non-threatening situation. Turns out, just recalling them is like getting them off the shelf and putting them back. So there are faster ways to achieve the same thing.
Remembering things, and interrupting the storage process, seems to reduce the strength of a traumatic memory.
citation
That link only touches the surface of the changing part, but it's a starting point.
As time goes on, your arguments can fall apart as you remember things that feel absolutely true, but aren't. Typically, it is a true fact infused with a personal experience, so you are really close to a fact, but something is wrong enough about it that you look stupid.
The point of this article is that Microsoft does not need a bug filed and hope someone fixes it, and meanwhile wait. Microsoft's documentation is keyword complete, so you don't wind up like this in the first place.
I've been in large companies and had Microsoft support on the phone fixing SQL server, and had a ticket in for visual studio. It was our configuration both times, or Oracle bugs in another, but we had support.
That is cost of ownership, and they got us going again. I know the common refrain is, how many times do we actually hold Microsoft responsible for its bugs? Well, we never have to because big company support fixes the issue quickly.
If libre office wants to compete with Microsoft, it has to be easier to self support, and documentation has to magically just work, or else TCO goes up.
I'm sure you weren't arguing any of this, but file a bug only helps so far in the context of TCO. I would think the code should be generating its own help docs, maybe with a secondary tool that spits out a shell page, and if you check in and there is a help file not in source control, it is missing and someone files a bug to have it written. That's basic QA, and I expect at least that much effort.
This is no different from having a command line lookup table that is different from running "app -h" which doesn't happen because they are generated from the same data. This was a solved problem 20 years ago and should not be an issue.
Irrelevant. The congress writes the laws, the executive enforces laws. Exec does not publish a written interpretation for every law, they just arrest or kill, and show up in court with the written law.
If there is a technical appeal, the courts decide interpretation. Until that point, no ones interpretation means anything.
The only point where it matters is when scotus allows a secret decision based on secret evidence. Because that establishes case law, which lasts until congress changes the law.
So what you don't like is secret decisions, and probably the difficulty of proving standing to challenge laws and their interpretation. I agree with you, but it is a lot easier to argue my side than your side, to anyone who knows how the government works.
We did not vote for this. Not one of the executive branch lawyers who write legal justifications for this is elected. If it has congressional oversight in any capacity, only a handful of congress ate on the super secret committees that are marginally briefed. The judicial branch is not elected.
This is how a representative domocracy works, voting for someone who sounds the most like you and trusting they will do what they say. Especially since they campaign on things they can't change, like the president on taxes.
I agree that voting third party is the answer. But don't let people repeat your horseshit when convincing someone who doesn't already agree. Arguing ignorance against ignorance never works. Backfire effect will prevent lots of converts, you don't want to lose more due to poor reasoning.
For the only reference you thought relevant enough to cite, it is awful full of weasel words like "may", ending with a solid, weasel free conclusion based on nothing concretely shown. I hope there is a better source, otherwise this ranks near homeopathy for everyone not writing a doctoral thesis on it.
Do you know what contracting means? At one point it was zero, and then lots of people bought them. Not you obviously, but you don't count. Literally they are not counting the people who did not buy one, so you and your experiences and opinion are not a factor here. So it expanded from zero to a positive non-zero number. From there, it has to stop expanding, then contract, before it gets to zero.
Guaranteed the tech problems that didn't haunt HD-DVD would have helped adoption due to lower prices had they let the market dictate price. Although many of the tech companies involved in the manufacture of HD-DVD were also involved in LCD price fixing for 10 years, so they could easily have screwed themselves by grabbing for now instead of the long term.
So Sony went for maximum revenue by having royalties on media. Toshiba figured they were screwing people on LCDs and threw in the towel on HD-DVD, crumbling the opposition. Possibly because the LCD lawsuit guaranteed they couldn't do the same with HD-DVD.
The moment Blu-Ray was a base component of a premium system, and HD-DVD was the budget add-on, it was over. But most people didn't know the rest of the nasty business that went on from the media to the pixels, to bring HD into the living room.
The companies involved basically did everything they could to grab their slice of the pie and guarantee that when it burned to the ground, no one was going to get scooped. We would still be buying bigger screens if the players had passed the threshold where everyone had one and people talked about it.
Then tablets and streaming to small devices hit, and no one cared about resolution. Again, if we had the devices the portable things may have had us pushing back against "toys". But they valued short term profits over longevity.
Finally, DVD was a 10 year format, and then coexisted with HD formats. It wasn't going to last 10 years - not when you could rip any DVD without having to search the internet or have a private key built in to your ripper. This is important when mobile devices started taking over.
So yes, contracting. Not from "popular" but from "higher than zero adoption rate". For many reasons - mobile, encryption, cost, lack of popularity, and of course the format war that was so obvious I didn't even address it directly till now that made people wary to invest in an expensive player that might not even have discs for it in a few years.
This time it was the fault of some stupid fuck at Vice, rather than some stupid fuck at Dice, because the headline is a direct copy.
Doesn't make it any better that the headline doesn't at all match the summary even, but I prefer to point fingers at the right stupid fuck.
The assumption that a consistent explanation can be found ignores all of the history of a business, the history of that business sector, tradition or consumer expectations, and whether the business is desperate enough to disrupt all of that.
You have to assume everyone has the same information to base their decisions on, and then explain why they reached different ones.
It's like an introductory econ course where reality takes a back seat to consistency. So there is not an incorrect statement, because the wrong parts are unstated.