The manipulations happen in 'non-numerical' ways, and in a 'mob rule' sort of way. Gold standard folks seem to ignore that sort of reality, and fixate on the fact that the absolute quantity is unchanged, despite the massively varying relative value to meaningful things.
This is an important thing to highlight. There is the actual money changing hands, and then the extrapolation of that to a presumed total value. Said total value is fictional, and would obviously happen if suddenly 99% of people said they wanted to get rid of their bitcoin today.
Of course, this applies to all sorts of 'wealth' such as stocks. Even with traditional currency, the economy will come to ignore money sitting somewhere not moving.
The *theory* is that there is some hard upper limit that cannot be manipulated on a whim by humans in control, one by physical reality and one by math.
In practice, it's not so clean, and contrary to how preppers feel, in general the economy is much better now than it was in the gold standard days.
Of course gold is volatile, in terms of relative value to everyday goods, both up and down. The largest Fiat currencies tend to be stable realitve to everyday goods.
Of course, particularly in a home setup, what is the likelihood that you'll need more than 32 Gbit of throughput at any given moment. An H270 chipset would hive you 24 lanes to install. Sure you don't have the bandwidth to drive them all at once and there is a latency penalty to pay, but for devices like USB/storage/network/etc, it's not going to be a big deal.
The issue being that apart from the fringe overpriced enthusiast market, the core count and frequency have maxed at about 4-ish and even then most of the time software isn't even using those 4 that well.
On the server side, TDP and core counts have soared.
On the consumer side, performance has gradually increased, but TDP has gone down at the same time.
Organizations like Gartner and IDC can provide data about the past and the present. When they start claiming they have any insight into the future whatsoever, ignore them. Their track record for predicting things is either unimpressive (predicting the obvious) to hilariously incorrect (any time they project a hyped technologieshttps://apple.slashdot.org/story/17/05/29/1613217/pc-market-could-return-to-growth-in-2019# future).
For storage/network/usb/sound, going over the DMI to the chipset, which itself offers PCIe lanes is more than sufficient for most imaginable scenarios.
Video card and certain supercomputer fabrics have real benefit going straight to the processor PCIe controller, the latter having zero relevance for any home computing use.
So in the home scenario, if you *really* think you want more than one graphics card (there's a lot of downsides for multi-gpu gaming, so you probably don't), there's not much reason to freak out about having *only* 16 direct-to-cpu lanes.
Now if all other things are equal, nice to have them, and go AMD, but regardless of vendor, the above $300 choices are beyond the point of diminishing returns for CPU performance in the context of home use.
I'm fine with however you sell it *so long as it is clear what is being sold*. If they want customers to try their luck without a real keyboard, then so be it.
Personally, I imagined using it as a tablet a fair amount, but in practice, Windows is not very good at a pure touch experience. In general, I can't find any touch friendly applications in Windows. I just use android tablet and android applications if I want touch experience, since the closest Windows equivalents are terrible. Of course, there's only a handful of things that I will do without a keyboard (reading, music, video).
While I have not put a desktop linux on that device, based on my experience trying to use Windows without a keyboard and my experience with desktop linux applications, I think it would be just as terrible.
That success can *easily* be in spite of poor code management practices, or even if the code quality isn't that great.
If they are having to spend a lot of time trying to change git to their use case, that means they are at *least* spending money on that. Given the sort of scenario that would drive these changes, I imagine the code workflow at microsoft is probably hideous. You can still get work done under those conditions, but probably in a really inefficient way.
So the point can be made that if it's something like a bunch of video files, it's weird, but could be a fair complaint about the VCS. Of course the VCS cannot meaningfully provide fine grained difference data about non-textual, so having the process have links to some more media appropriate storage would make sense.
The other half is the implication that of the presumably massively far and wide code is in a single repository. A repository makes sense if people who access are *roughly* equally likely to access any part of it. If one portion of the repository is used by one team and they never touch the rest, and this is a common phenomenon, then it doesn't makes sense.
Note that while I am not going to defend VSS, while it is fun to poke at a company for not eating their own dog food, in this case it *could* make sense.
What is appropriate for managing a project as complex as an entire operating system is not necessarily what is appropriate for 99% of their customers who want to manage code in a project.
Just like the way MS runs Azure probably looks nothing like what they have customers run.
Take a typical linux distro. Hundreds of packages, each has their own repository. Many of them are git, but not all. Only one of those is the kernel, which is what people keep trying to compare.
In MS, they have a single repo, for everytihng. This is crazy. Even in my org which has way less complexity, we have several git repositories because we know, for example, that work on one portion is not related to the other. Sure, there are cross-functional people that might touch more, but they just have clones of the projects they work on, not merging them.
Of course, if your repo is 300GB, you've done something wrong. That's not to say that there sholudn't be 300GB of resources going into a product, but having a *single* git repo encompass your entire product may be a bad call. It's not just whether the git software can keep up, I can guarantee you people struggle to keep up with the activity going on in the repo, when they really only care about more well defined subsets.
It has been significantly warmer, when we weren't alive. It has been significantly cooler, again when we weren't alive.
The key is we know the score in terms of our current standard of living and current climate. Sure we can dream up better climate consequences in theory, in practice though we know how to play the game in front of us, and we can't be sure of how we can play in a new scenario, and we know that once changed, undoing it is going to be impossible or at least much much harder than avoiding the change in the first place, so the risk/reward benefit for rolling the dice on change is poor.
C++ particularly has a lot of everhead to overcome to get into things, it's easier to get to results faster with something like python....
However, in general the results are the interesting parts, rather than getting there. There's a lot in the world where learning to do and the doing of it only is rewarding with some sort of useful goal in mind.
Note that if EV becomes more prevalent, expect more charging ports at work, but for many of those outlets to be off. I would anticipate the charging network at work to allow only X amount of charging, and the behavior would be negotiated based on things like the claimed remaining range of a car.
Also expect employment to partner with companies like chargepoint, so that the employees will pay for whatever they use, perhaps at some premium to discourage at-work charging...
Let's look honestly on this, we don't care so much about whether it's our fault so much as we care about the climate changing in a way *where we all will probably die*.
In that context, it would make sense to do things that are credible to counteract what we see. We see warming, our data tells us that lots of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere certainly don't *help* matters, so it would seem to behoove us to at least curb that (unless someone is suggesting that somehow our changes to the atmosphere have had a *cooling* effect to counteract some greater natural effect).
An article from a while back said: "Because ArcaOS includes software from third-party vendors, pricing information is not yet available as negotiations with vendors are ongoing."
So they may not have much choice on pricing or open sourcing, even if they wanted to.
Well, in the macro sense, it won't work. In the micro sense, it will work to some extent, at least until too many other people join you and suddenly things look appealing.
Though having apt/dnf available software mitigates risks in a way similar to having an 'app store', and is one reason why MS is pushing the Windows Store concept hard (the larger reason of course being profit).
Also, even without admin level access, untrusted software can make a mess of things, since all the stuff you care about is owned by you.(oblig https://xkcd.com/1200/). Platforms like Android and IOS that provide some concept of per application permissions mitigate that more, though generally people will click through crazy permissions too.
Slashdot Mirror
The manipulations happen in 'non-numerical' ways, and in a 'mob rule' sort of way. Gold standard folks seem to ignore that sort of reality, and fixate on the fact that the absolute quantity is unchanged, despite the massively varying relative value to meaningful things.
This is an important thing to highlight. There is the actual money changing hands, and then the extrapolation of that to a presumed total value. Said total value is fictional, and would obviously happen if suddenly 99% of people said they wanted to get rid of their bitcoin today.
Of course, this applies to all sorts of 'wealth' such as stocks. Even with traditional currency, the economy will come to ignore money sitting somewhere not moving.
The *theory* is that there is some hard upper limit that cannot be manipulated on a whim by humans in control, one by physical reality and one by math.
In practice, it's not so clean, and contrary to how preppers feel, in general the economy is much better now than it was in the gold standard days.
Of course gold is volatile, in terms of relative value to everyday goods, both up and down. The largest Fiat currencies tend to be stable realitve to everyday goods.
And as sophisticated as most computers have been for longer than most of us have been alive.
Of course, particularly in a home setup, what is the likelihood that you'll need more than 32 Gbit of throughput at any given moment. An H270 chipset would hive you 24 lanes to install. Sure you don't have the bandwidth to drive them all at once and there is a latency penalty to pay, but for devices like USB/storage/network/etc, it's not going to be a big deal.
The issue being that apart from the fringe overpriced enthusiast market, the core count and frequency have maxed at about 4-ish and even then most of the time software isn't even using those 4 that well.
On the server side, TDP and core counts have soared.
On the consumer side, performance has gradually increased, but TDP has gone down at the same time.
Organizations like Gartner and IDC can provide data about the past and the present. When they start claiming they have any insight into the future whatsoever, ignore them. Their track record for predicting things is either unimpressive (predicting the obvious) to hilariously incorrect (any time they project a hyped technologieshttps://apple.slashdot.org/story/17/05/29/1613217/pc-market-could-return-to-growth-in-2019# future).
For storage/network/usb/sound, going over the DMI to the chipset, which itself offers PCIe lanes is more than sufficient for most imaginable scenarios.
Video card and certain supercomputer fabrics have real benefit going straight to the processor PCIe controller, the latter having zero relevance for any home computing use.
So in the home scenario, if you *really* think you want more than one graphics card (there's a lot of downsides for multi-gpu gaming, so you probably don't), there's not much reason to freak out about having *only* 16 direct-to-cpu lanes.
Now if all other things are equal, nice to have them, and go AMD, but regardless of vendor, the above $300 choices are beyond the point of diminishing returns for CPU performance in the context of home use.
I'm fine with however you sell it *so long as it is clear what is being sold*. If they want customers to try their luck without a real keyboard, then so be it.
Personally, I imagined using it as a tablet a fair amount, but in practice, Windows is not very good at a pure touch experience. In general, I can't find any touch friendly applications in Windows. I just use android tablet and android applications if I want touch experience, since the closest Windows equivalents are terrible. Of course, there's only a handful of things that I will do without a keyboard (reading, music, video).
While I have not put a desktop linux on that device, based on my experience trying to use Windows without a keyboard and my experience with desktop linux applications, I think it would be just as terrible.
It depends. On a system with low ram amount, firefox is better and chrome will make the whole system go nuts due to memory pressure.
On a system with plenty of ram, chrome will fly relative to firefox, as firefox will bottleneck itself a lot.
That success can *easily* be in spite of poor code management practices, or even if the code quality isn't that great.
If they are having to spend a lot of time trying to change git to their use case, that means they are at *least* spending money on that. Given the sort of scenario that would drive these changes, I imagine the code workflow at microsoft is probably hideous. You can still get work done under those conditions, but probably in a really inefficient way.
So the point can be made that if it's something like a bunch of video files, it's weird, but could be a fair complaint about the VCS. Of course the VCS cannot meaningfully provide fine grained difference data about non-textual, so having the process have links to some more media appropriate storage would make sense.
The other half is the implication that of the presumably massively far and wide code is in a single repository. A repository makes sense if people who access are *roughly* equally likely to access any part of it. If one portion of the repository is used by one team and they never touch the rest, and this is a common phenomenon, then it doesn't makes sense.
Note that while I am not going to defend VSS, while it is fun to poke at a company for not eating their own dog food, in this case it *could* make sense.
What is appropriate for managing a project as complex as an entire operating system is not necessarily what is appropriate for 99% of their customers who want to manage code in a project.
Just like the way MS runs Azure probably looks nothing like what they have customers run.
Not more complex, just mismanaged.
Take a typical linux distro. Hundreds of packages, each has their own repository. Many of them are git, but not all. Only one of those is the kernel, which is what people keep trying to compare.
In MS, they have a single repo, for everytihng. This is crazy. Even in my org which has way less complexity, we have several git repositories because we know, for example, that work on one portion is not related to the other. Sure, there are cross-functional people that might touch more, but they just have clones of the projects they work on, not merging them.
Of course, if your repo is 300GB, you've done something wrong. That's not to say that there sholudn't be 300GB of resources going into a product, but having a *single* git repo encompass your entire product may be a bad call. It's not just whether the git software can keep up, I can guarantee you people struggle to keep up with the activity going on in the repo, when they really only care about more well defined subsets.
It is a WTF in managing a product.
It has been significantly warmer, when we weren't alive. It has been significantly cooler, again when we weren't alive.
The key is we know the score in terms of our current standard of living and current climate. Sure we can dream up better climate consequences in theory, in practice though we know how to play the game in front of us, and we can't be sure of how we can play in a new scenario, and we know that once changed, undoing it is going to be impossible or at least much much harder than avoiding the change in the first place, so the risk/reward benefit for rolling the dice on change is poor.
C++ particularly has a lot of everhead to overcome to get into things, it's easier to get to results faster with something like python....
However, in general the results are the interesting parts, rather than getting there. There's a lot in the world where learning to do and the doing of it only is rewarding with some sort of useful goal in mind.
Not everyone in the world is slaving away on death marches managing security/personal information.
Note that if EV becomes more prevalent, expect more charging ports at work, but for many of those outlets to be off. I would anticipate the charging network at work to allow only X amount of charging, and the behavior would be negotiated based on things like the claimed remaining range of a car.
Also expect employment to partner with companies like chargepoint, so that the employees will pay for whatever they use, perhaps at some premium to discourage at-work charging...
Incidentally, generally speaking LCD TVs are still a step back from plasma. AMOLED on the other hand...
Let's look honestly on this, we don't care so much about whether it's our fault so much as we care about the climate changing in a way *where we all will probably die*.
In that context, it would make sense to do things that are credible to counteract what we see. We see warming, our data tells us that lots of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere certainly don't *help* matters, so it would seem to behoove us to at least curb that (unless someone is suggesting that somehow our changes to the atmosphere have had a *cooling* effect to counteract some greater natural effect).
Duh! Have you ever even looked at a map? North is up!
An article from a while back said:
"Because ArcaOS includes software from third-party vendors, pricing information is not yet available as negotiations with vendors are ongoing."
So they may not have much choice on pricing or open sourcing, even if they wanted to.
But would be nice for them to be clearer.
Well, in the macro sense, it won't work. In the micro sense, it will work to some extent, at least until too many other people join you and suddenly things look appealing.
Though having apt/dnf available software mitigates risks in a way similar to having an 'app store', and is one reason why MS is pushing the Windows Store concept hard (the larger reason of course being profit).
Also, even without admin level access, untrusted software can make a mess of things, since all the stuff you care about is owned by you.(oblig https://xkcd.com/1200/). Platforms like Android and IOS that provide some concept of per application permissions mitigate that more, though generally people will click through crazy permissions too.