But, as a computer engineer, I can say that sounds very familiar. I could have worked 40 if I didn't care to have a career. Few did that. In my early years, I averaged double that and rarely got paid for more than 48 or so. That was just what a "team player" did. If they didn't, nothing was ever said, but the raises and promotions wouldn't be there because they couldn't compete productivity-wise with those that did.
It shocked me a few times when I compared across industries. In 1995, I was making about $55K as a project lead with 9 years of experience at Boeing in St. Louis. I had a friend who was an electrician on the manufacturing floor at Ford in St. Louis making $95K with about the same experience. Also, at the same time, an in-law was making $90K as a construction foreman in Florida. I could have done either of their jobs and, in fact, have been a licensed Journeyman electrician on the side. I just happen to love tech enough to work in the lesser industry.
LOL. California's little project here is not truly THAT big. You need to get a handle on the size of the lithium battery production in the world, both existing and announced projects, before making statements implying this would make a dent in it. Worldwide battery production is on its way to topping the TWh per year mark before this project could possibly get completed - probably before it can get started.
And, there are many utility scale projects already in operation. The US had over 700 MWh or utility scale battery storage at the end of last year. Tesla just built a 129MWh facility in Australia that is already demonstrating unexpectedly rapid payoff. California already has a 120 MWh facility opened last year. There is already over 1 GWh of utility battery storage contracted for the California grid, a large portion of it coming from a 730 MWh Tesla project. And on and on. But all of these projects combined are barely a dent in the worldwide battery production that was over 100 GWh last year and rapidly increasing.
You also seem to think that these require big buildings or something. They are just outdoor fields of relatively small units, with the largest typically being built to a tractor trailer size for obvious reasons. Tesla's look about like refrigerators. Each unit needs a concrete pad and you probably want to put it in a fenced area with gravel for ease of maintenance. How they are deployed is really up to the utility. You could add them to existing substations or buy a little field near an existing power line. There would almost never be a need for any new lines. You just deploy them in existing facilities near existing power lines.
I think you're way wrong. First, note that I'm only talking about a 30% drop to get to 70% of today's prices. The cost of lithium-ion battery packs dropped by half from 2014 to 2016 and have already dropped in half again. And the mass manufacturing curve is really just starting. I said I was using the most conservative estimates. If we drop in half again by sometime in 2020 as the many battery factories around the world start coming on line to serve the auto industry, my estimates will be blown away.
Looking at the cell level, cells were around $0.59/Wh in 1998. They are now under the $0.10/Wh mark with the assembled packs getting ready to drop under that mark - likely this year. That's an amazing move, but if anything, the change may grow quicker.
But, the initial cost isn't the only thing that matters. The batteries are also lasting for many more recharges than they were in '98 and many developments are in that area. Advances in battery lifetime greatly affect the lifecycle costs. Some lab batteries have achieved near infinite recharge cycles. Lab stuff takes a while to move, but we're looking at a decade type time scale, so that's OK.
In addition, in a few years we will be seeing large numbers of batteries from cars needing to be recycled because their capacity is falling below 90%. Utility scale usage could employ those for much longer because there is no concern about the capacity decrease. They can just add some acreage. I believe we will see an industry emerge to just pull those batteries out, put them in outdoor racks and provide utility storage with them. As the capacity drops, you just keep adding acreage to make up for it until the batteries are truly not functional anymore.
But, that is lithium-ion. You'd probably start with that and by the end of a decade you could be building storage with flow batteries. Research into flow battery technology using cheap, plentiful, nontoxic materials is rapidly advancing. That will eventually be the way to go with utility level storage - cities will have lakes of cheap nontoxic electrolytes and a lot of plumbing instead of banks of lithium ion cells.
When looking at something of this scale, you can't use today's prices. I found several estimates of the rate of decline of cost in battery storage over the next few years and even the conservative ones put it at 70% of today's prices in 5 years. Since pumped storage is a very mature technology, it is unlikely to experience any decline.
The 15 vs 26 cent comparison in the article amounts to pumped storage being roughly 60% of the cost of battery storage right now. So, in roughly 7 years, the two should cross. And that doesn't take into account the likelihood of big advancements in utility scale flow battery storage which is likely going to replace lithium because it is not an application that cares about density or weight of the battery system so much as cost.
The likelihood of a project of this magnitude gaining all of its approvals and being completed in 7 years is slim to none.
This is just an attempt to slip some more billions into the old-money major construction industry.
It would be better to build much smaller scale projects with batteries placed closer to demand points. They would start coming online much sooner and each year the new projects can adapt to the latest, most cost-effective technologies. If you spread that same $3 billion over 15 years of battery buildout, the cost of the ones you're building near the end will be much less than that 15 cent per kWH mark and balance out the cost of today's expenditures. In addition, you'll be providing service within the first year. Mega projects always get eaten up by increased costs due to delays. A battery approach actually ends up having a decreased cost with delays.
Apparently, they can only use 16 square inches of that. The areal density of a blu ray layer is 12.5 Gbits / square inch. Each layer holds 25 GBytes. (25*8)/12.5 = 16 square inches of area. Frankly, I'm surprised they can use that much.
Newer tech has allowed them to reach 100GB using three layers with the Ultra Blu Ray. There is also a 4 layer spec for the 128GB.
If the article was interpreting layers as density, it would take near 1000 layers to boost blu ray's native 12.5 gigabits/ square inch to the 12 Tbits/square inch level.
The article has an obvious mistake. Period. It is typical of today's tech articles.
I've been investing for years and read many blogs that are the precursors to these articles. They are almost always written by or based on information pushed forward by shorts.
I have traced the activities of the shorts in social media and found them manipulating through general social media in addition to their activities on the investment boards. I've done well very well the last couple of years by spotting their campaigns in social media, waiting for the stock hit to materialize, buying into the artificially lowered stock, and selling after it recovers the loss (my target is around 10% gain) in a week or two.
This is a real phenomenon and is the reason articles like this are posted. It's all about money.
This "crap" usually originates with people shorting the stock - regardless of who writes the article. Modern "journalists" are an easy tool for manipulating a stock with many already beholden to certain interests. Business Insider is the usual route. They are biased towards attacking because it is easier to create a planned stock swing through attack than through a positive article.
Those shorting stocks are also the ones behind many of the "political" attacks on tech companies. Their are already well-honed systems for manipulating and weaponizing certain political groups. They just jump in and use the existing system to attack a company for the purpose of manipulating the stock that they've shorted.
I have no idea how the Amazon system compares to the Walmart system environmentally and taking one element of the system and making a comparison does not help to rectify that. In fact, this was cherry-picked in a big way. What about some of the other factors?
What's the environmental costs of everyone individually driving to Walmart to pick up goods as opposed to trucks delivering to many people in one pass through a route?
The brick and mortar system has a lot more, well, brick and mortar that has a remarkably short lifetime and takes up much space. Amazon has about 150 fulfillment centers to Walmart's 175 or so distribution centers and 4000+ stores over 3000 of which are in the 140,000 sq ft size range. Walmarts buildings plus parking lots cover over 90 square miles. All of those buildings and parking lots have an environmental cost.
It also appears to be less employee efficient even counting delivery personnel. The total of all Amazon and all UPS employees is less than half of Walmart's while sales have surpassed the halfway point. The environmental cost of the lives of the employees involved should be counted in a full accounting of the cost of an industry. An industry is nothing without employees.
I do not believe that brick and mortar, in general, will ever measure up to delivery if you really dig into the full system environmental costs.
The problem is, it could change back to unsafe as you're pulling it. Computers operate at speeds way to fast for this. You'd have to do something like have a green light, yellow light, red light system where writes wait until a yellow light has been shown for a couple of seconds before they start. That would destroy performance.
I'd like a law that requires all calls made for the purpose of influencing votes be made from numbers that have been registered for them so that I can automatically block them. No further changes in phone laws should be made before addressing that most annoying barrage of calls prior to every election.
In general, instead of laws to regulate how the calls are accomplished, I want laws with real penalties and a mostly automated enforcement system that allow me to block calls by type of content. Whether it is an AI or a person, I do not ever want to receive calls talking about wonderful credit offers. In general, I do not want to receive any marketing call, ever, including from companies that I already do business with.
Also, I get calls all of the time that are illegal under the current laws. For the last year, they have almost always come from spoofed numbers of real people within my local exchange. Because they use a different number for every call, they cannot be blocked. Until this is addressed, no phone law is of any consequence.
I want the telcos to be required to implement system changes to allow them to block illegal call makers and then made responsible for effectively employing those systems. It should not be possible for a device to spoof whatever numbers it wants to spoof without being registered and monitored to make sure it is doing so for a legitimate purpose and limited to the minimum set of numbers required to implement that purpose. If we're concerned about telco abuse, then make the penalties for abuse be loss of license and thus business.
In no case though should we support blocking calls by the type of caller or race of caller or require callers to identify their type or race. Specific identities, fine. But laws specifically focused on maintaining someone's idea of what is a pure human race, forget it. We've been there.
Let's focus on the content and purpose of the calls - not who makes them.
I'd agree. find handles the actual performance of the operation pretty nicely. It was the named parameters, validation, and automatic provision of help that gives powershell a boost. Another nice thing, while using powershell interactively, there was autocompletion on parameter names for commands in the shell. And, I've had issues with find and other linux commands differing from system to system. This wouldn't be as vulnerable to that.
I have to install cygwin on windows to use bash and all of the common GNU commands and I have to install powershell on linux or macOS to use it. So that is a wash.
Ultimately, I'm not able to think of a great non-religion based plus or minus of one over the other when choosing a cross platform shell beyond knowing bash and not knowing powershell.
The challenge author also specified that the bash script should match the functionality of the above including:
Output the full filename one per line that fulfills the requirements
I'll totally run the script on a directory that contains some of the more exotic possible file names. (Good luck with that one)
Define the parameters the script can take. Meaning two required parameters - FromDate and ToDate - and one optional parameter the directory. If no directory is specified just use the current one.
Do validation of the passed in parameters. The directory should exist, the datetimes should be valid datetimes and not something else.
And we certainly want tab completion for the parameters and a help that lists what parameters it takes. So the usual bash equivalent of this:
Code:
Get-Help.\test.ps1
test.ps1 [-FromDate] [-ToDate] [[-Directory] ] []
My first thought was, "I can get a bash script to run on any version of Windows and have been happily using bash and tcsh on Windows since Windows 95 in the 90s. Can that Powershell script run on Linux?" Surprisingly, I installed the powershell core snap, copied the script to test.ps1, and ran it with no issues. It doesn't convert me to powershell, but I was surprised the argument didn't hold.
As long as a company remains profitable they can operate indefinitely.
True - though that is not "thriving". Thriving explicitly means growing.
Also, if the resource difference is too great, they will eventually be swept up or put under by a competitor who is intent on growing - whether they want to be or not. This can happen by buyout, targeted undercutting, and/or use of purchasing power to arm-twist suppliers into better or exclusive deals. Business is war. Reducing this likelihood is one of the major reasons for growth.
I never said that Best Buy has no value. I would prefer shopping at a healthy local Best Buy over Amazon though ours is a bit of a dump in a not-so-great neighborhood. I just said that, by any reasonable definition, they are not thriving - "growing or developing in a vigorous way". Every measure I see clearly indicates that they have flatlined for a decade now despite many competitors going out of business (usually an event that allows growth as you pick up their customer base).
If the change has to be something that could be achieved through breeding, there is no improvement worth making. It will still be a plant and will never achieve the ultimate goal of creating a slig that can take all of my organic garbage in one end and allow fresh pork butt to be sliced off the other forever and ever.
Because this article didn't match my observations of closing and aging Best Buy stores all around me, I looked the facts up.
Their profits are roughly the same as they were a decade ago - before inflation adjustment. And they have less stores than they did at their peak. Any retail operation that isn't even maintaining is well on the path to dying.
Given the collapse in other competition such as Circuit City, Radio Shack, Sears, K-Mart, etc, it is apparent that they have succeeded in picking up no customers from competitors when those competitors collapsed.
This is "thriving"? Was this article written by Best Buy's investor relations folks?
Frankly, I do nothing - same as I do with the alerts on the smartphone.
As a child, we had a tornado go over our house. There was no need for a siren. The freight train sound the tornado makes on approach is pretty unmistakable if you don't live next to tracks. We went to the basement. While in the basement as the tornado passed over, lightning struck a tree right outside the house and travelled through its roots to the basement. The fireballs racing all over the concrete floor shredded the carpet in front of our eyes and we all received severe shocks. The wooden-floored areas upstairs were pretty much left alone except where it had vaporized the telephone wires. Thank god nobody was on the phone. My little brother was actually unplugging a lamp and still had the plug in his hand. That light bulb blew out despite not being plugged in.
So, if it is windy and you hear a freight train, tornado. If the ground is shaking, earthquake. If neither and you live real close to the water, tsunami. Anything else, just kiss your ass goodbye.
The measures you take aren't likely to help anyway. Prep ahead of time in the form of building codes is the best help. The rest is just to give you a sense that something is being done to protect you so that you'll be a good little sheepy and not learn how to protect yourself.
Not really. Smartphones collect data that was never written before and rarely recorded. It was in people's heads or simply nowhere unless someone followed you every moment of every day carefully recording things. By decrypting that, you've gained more than any search warrant was ever able to achieve. It is approaching the level of violating a person's right to refuse self-incrimination. The phone often remembers more than the target remembers about their own lives.
I agree and long pushed that. But I no longer believe it is a realistic alternative. The system is too entrenched. The best that can be done is to keep wounding the prosecution side.
But Android will never be able to compete with iOS without even more control of the user experience than they already have. To survive, Google must continue to grow at the rates investors expect tech industries to grow at - double digit profit growth yearly at minimum. They can't do that without making a run at the 87% piece of the profit pie that Apple has in the smartphone market. They can't remain an advertising company alone for much longer. This is pushback against that strategy, and besides, it is likely already approaching peak.
before smartphones came along? Why do they not get that the people don't want them to be able to utilize new technology to make solving crimes any easier than before?
Everyone is guilty of something. The only way the system works is if the balance between cost of prosecution and magnitude of the crime worth prosecuting remains stable (or given that we already incarcerate far more than most, shifts a bit in favor of crime). If prosecution becomes cheaper and easier, we can quickly become a police state without changing any laws.
Very few devices today are truly open source software free. The open source community should start rolling anti-weaponization provisions into all open source licenses. Problem solved.
Apple could easily blow this out of the water by reducing their app store commission to one that provably covers cost of managing the app store only. The app store is not a significant source of Apple profit. The greater than 50% profit per phone sold is where most of Apple's profits come from.
They would do this because they can not give up their silo. The security and control over the experience that the silo provides is the source of their profit per phone sold. Without it, people wouldn't want to buy iPhones so much that they will fork over those dollars.
It is wild that the developers would complain. If successful, they will lose everything. On Apple, many users actually pay for apps. On Android, I have hundreds of apps and have never paid for one. It is hard to find one that charges though many of the apps I use charge for their Apple version. If Apple opened up, the exclusivity and the "Apple Experience" that results from their control would die and app sales would be like Android's. Developers wouldn't be able to command any price for an app except from those few who would pay to disable ads.
Slashdot Mirror
But, as a computer engineer, I can say that sounds very familiar. I could have worked 40 if I didn't care to have a career. Few did that. In my early years, I averaged double that and rarely got paid for more than 48 or so. That was just what a "team player" did. If they didn't, nothing was ever said, but the raises and promotions wouldn't be there because they couldn't compete productivity-wise with those that did.
It shocked me a few times when I compared across industries. In 1995, I was making about $55K as a project lead with 9 years of experience at Boeing in St. Louis. I had a friend who was an electrician on the manufacturing floor at Ford in St. Louis making $95K with about the same experience. Also, at the same time, an in-law was making $90K as a construction foreman in Florida. I could have done either of their jobs and, in fact, have been a licensed Journeyman electrician on the side. I just happen to love tech enough to work in the lesser industry.
LOL. California's little project here is not truly THAT big. You need to get a handle on the size of the lithium battery production in the world, both existing and announced projects, before making statements implying this would make a dent in it. Worldwide battery production is on its way to topping the TWh per year mark before this project could possibly get completed - probably before it can get started.
And, there are many utility scale projects already in operation. The US had over 700 MWh or utility scale battery storage at the end of last year. Tesla just built a 129MWh facility in Australia that is already demonstrating unexpectedly rapid payoff. California already has a 120 MWh facility opened last year. There is already over 1 GWh of utility battery storage contracted for the California grid, a large portion of it coming from a 730 MWh Tesla project. And on and on. But all of these projects combined are barely a dent in the worldwide battery production that was over 100 GWh last year and rapidly increasing.
You also seem to think that these require big buildings or something. They are just outdoor fields of relatively small units, with the largest typically being built to a tractor trailer size for obvious reasons. Tesla's look about like refrigerators. Each unit needs a concrete pad and you probably want to put it in a fenced area with gravel for ease of maintenance. How they are deployed is really up to the utility. You could add them to existing substations or buy a little field near an existing power line. There would almost never be a need for any new lines. You just deploy them in existing facilities near existing power lines.
I think you're way wrong. First, note that I'm only talking about a 30% drop to get to 70% of today's prices. The cost of lithium-ion battery packs dropped by half from 2014 to 2016 and have already dropped in half again. And the mass manufacturing curve is really just starting. I said I was using the most conservative estimates. If we drop in half again by sometime in 2020 as the many battery factories around the world start coming on line to serve the auto industry, my estimates will be blown away.
Looking at the cell level, cells were around $0.59/Wh in 1998. They are now under the $0.10/Wh mark with the assembled packs getting ready to drop under that mark - likely this year. That's an amazing move, but if anything, the change may grow quicker.
But, the initial cost isn't the only thing that matters. The batteries are also lasting for many more recharges than they were in '98 and many developments are in that area. Advances in battery lifetime greatly affect the lifecycle costs. Some lab batteries have achieved near infinite recharge cycles. Lab stuff takes a while to move, but we're looking at a decade type time scale, so that's OK.
In addition, in a few years we will be seeing large numbers of batteries from cars needing to be recycled because their capacity is falling below 90%. Utility scale usage could employ those for much longer because there is no concern about the capacity decrease. They can just add some acreage. I believe we will see an industry emerge to just pull those batteries out, put them in outdoor racks and provide utility storage with them. As the capacity drops, you just keep adding acreage to make up for it until the batteries are truly not functional anymore.
But, that is lithium-ion. You'd probably start with that and by the end of a decade you could be building storage with flow batteries. Research into flow battery technology using cheap, plentiful, nontoxic materials is rapidly advancing. That will eventually be the way to go with utility level storage - cities will have lakes of cheap nontoxic electrolytes and a lot of plumbing instead of banks of lithium ion cells.
When looking at something of this scale, you can't use today's prices. I found several estimates of the rate of decline of cost in battery storage over the next few years and even the conservative ones put it at 70% of today's prices in 5 years. Since pumped storage is a very mature technology, it is unlikely to experience any decline.
The 15 vs 26 cent comparison in the article amounts to pumped storage being roughly 60% of the cost of battery storage right now. So, in roughly 7 years, the two should cross. And that doesn't take into account the likelihood of big advancements in utility scale flow battery storage which is likely going to replace lithium because it is not an application that cares about density or weight of the battery system so much as cost.
The likelihood of a project of this magnitude gaining all of its approvals and being completed in 7 years is slim to none.
This is just an attempt to slip some more billions into the old-money major construction industry.
It would be better to build much smaller scale projects with batteries placed closer to demand points. They would start coming online much sooner and each year the new projects can adapt to the latest, most cost-effective technologies. If you spread that same $3 billion over 15 years of battery buildout, the cost of the ones you're building near the end will be much less than that 15 cent per kWH mark and balance out the cost of today's expenditures. In addition, you'll be providing service within the first year. Mega projects always get eaten up by increased costs due to delays. A battery approach actually ends up having a decreased cost with delays.
Apparently, they can only use 16 square inches of that. The areal density of a blu ray layer is 12.5 Gbits / square inch. Each layer holds 25 GBytes. (25*8)/12.5 = 16 square inches of area. Frankly, I'm surprised they can use that much.
Newer tech has allowed them to reach 100GB using three layers with the Ultra Blu Ray. There is also a 4 layer spec for the 128GB.
If the article was interpreting layers as density, it would take near 1000 layers to boost blu ray's native 12.5 gigabits/ square inch to the 12 Tbits/square inch level.
The article has an obvious mistake. Period. It is typical of today's tech articles.
Wow. Modded twice for troll! LOL.
I've been investing for years and read many blogs that are the precursors to these articles. They are almost always written by or based on information pushed forward by shorts.
I have traced the activities of the shorts in social media and found them manipulating through general social media in addition to their activities on the investment boards. I've done well very well the last couple of years by spotting their campaigns in social media, waiting for the stock hit to materialize, buying into the artificially lowered stock, and selling after it recovers the loss (my target is around 10% gain) in a week or two.
This is a real phenomenon and is the reason articles like this are posted. It's all about money.
This "crap" usually originates with people shorting the stock - regardless of who writes the article. Modern "journalists" are an easy tool for manipulating a stock with many already beholden to certain interests. Business Insider is the usual route. They are biased towards attacking because it is easier to create a planned stock swing through attack than through a positive article.
Those shorting stocks are also the ones behind many of the "political" attacks on tech companies. Their are already well-honed systems for manipulating and weaponizing certain political groups. They just jump in and use the existing system to attack a company for the purpose of manipulating the stock that they've shorted.
I have no idea how the Amazon system compares to the Walmart system environmentally and taking one element of the system and making a comparison does not help to rectify that. In fact, this was cherry-picked in a big way. What about some of the other factors?
What's the environmental costs of everyone individually driving to Walmart to pick up goods as opposed to trucks delivering to many people in one pass through a route?
The brick and mortar system has a lot more, well, brick and mortar that has a remarkably short lifetime and takes up much space. Amazon has about 150 fulfillment centers to Walmart's 175 or so distribution centers and 4000+ stores over 3000 of which are in the 140,000 sq ft size range. Walmarts buildings plus parking lots cover over 90 square miles. All of those buildings and parking lots have an environmental cost.
It also appears to be less employee efficient even counting delivery personnel. The total of all Amazon and all UPS employees is less than half of Walmart's while sales have surpassed the halfway point. The environmental cost of the lives of the employees involved should be counted in a full accounting of the cost of an industry. An industry is nothing without employees.
I do not believe that brick and mortar, in general, will ever measure up to delivery if you really dig into the full system environmental costs.
The problem is, it could change back to unsafe as you're pulling it. Computers operate at speeds way to fast for this. You'd have to do something like have a green light, yellow light, red light system where writes wait until a yellow light has been shown for a couple of seconds before they start. That would destroy performance.
I'd like a law that requires all calls made for the purpose of influencing votes be made from numbers that have been registered for them so that I can automatically block them. No further changes in phone laws should be made before addressing that most annoying barrage of calls prior to every election.
In general, instead of laws to regulate how the calls are accomplished, I want laws with real penalties and a mostly automated enforcement system that allow me to block calls by type of content. Whether it is an AI or a person, I do not ever want to receive calls talking about wonderful credit offers. In general, I do not want to receive any marketing call, ever, including from companies that I already do business with.
Also, I get calls all of the time that are illegal under the current laws. For the last year, they have almost always come from spoofed numbers of real people within my local exchange. Because they use a different number for every call, they cannot be blocked. Until this is addressed, no phone law is of any consequence.
I want the telcos to be required to implement system changes to allow them to block illegal call makers and then made responsible for effectively employing those systems. It should not be possible for a device to spoof whatever numbers it wants to spoof without being registered and monitored to make sure it is doing so for a legitimate purpose and limited to the minimum set of numbers required to implement that purpose. If we're concerned about telco abuse, then make the penalties for abuse be loss of license and thus business.
In no case though should we support blocking calls by the type of caller or race of caller or require callers to identify their type or race. Specific identities, fine. But laws specifically focused on maintaining someone's idea of what is a pure human race, forget it. We've been there.
Let's focus on the content and purpose of the calls - not who makes them.
? "+" or not "+" ?
I'd agree. find handles the actual performance of the operation pretty nicely. It was the named parameters, validation, and automatic provision of help that gives powershell a boost. Another nice thing, while using powershell interactively, there was autocompletion on parameter names for commands in the shell. And, I've had issues with find and other linux commands differing from system to system. This wouldn't be as vulnerable to that.
I have to install cygwin on windows to use bash and all of the common GNU commands and I have to install powershell on linux or macOS to use it. So that is a wash.
Ultimately, I'm not able to think of a great non-religion based plus or minus of one over the other when choosing a cross platform shell beyond knowing bash and not knowing powershell.
I installed this Wednesday to check out a challenge someone posted in a forum.
The challenge was to implement the following powershell script using bash:
param(
[Parameter(Mandatory=$True)]
[datetime]$FromDate,
[Parameter(Mandatory=$True)]
[datetime]$ToDate,
[Parameter(Mandatory=$False)]
[ValidateScript({Test-Path -PathType Container $_ })]
[string]$Directory = '.'
)
Get-ChildItem -Include '*.JPG','*.PNG' -Recurse -Path $Directory | Where-Object { $_.CreationTimeUtc -ge $FromDate -and $_.CreationTimeUtc -le $ToDate } | ForEach-Object { $_.FullName }
The challenge author also specified that the bash script should match the functionality of the above including:
Code:
Get-Help
test.ps1 [-FromDate] [-ToDate] [[-Directory] ] []
My first thought was, "I can get a bash script to run on any version of Windows and have been happily using bash and tcsh on Windows since Windows 95 in the 90s. Can that Powershell script run on Linux?" Surprisingly, I installed the powershell core snap, copied the script to test.ps1, and ran it with no issues. It doesn't convert me to powershell, but I was surprised the argument didn't hold.
As long as a company remains profitable they can operate indefinitely.
True - though that is not "thriving". Thriving explicitly means growing.
Also, if the resource difference is too great, they will eventually be swept up or put under by a competitor who is intent on growing - whether they want to be or not. This can happen by buyout, targeted undercutting, and/or use of purchasing power to arm-twist suppliers into better or exclusive deals. Business is war. Reducing this likelihood is one of the major reasons for growth.
I never said that Best Buy has no value. I would prefer shopping at a healthy local Best Buy over Amazon though ours is a bit of a dump in a not-so-great neighborhood. I just said that, by any reasonable definition, they are not thriving - "growing or developing in a vigorous way". Every measure I see clearly indicates that they have flatlined for a decade now despite many competitors going out of business (usually an event that allows growth as you pick up their customer base).
If the change has to be something that could be achieved through breeding, there is no improvement worth making. It will still be a plant and will never achieve the ultimate goal of creating a slig that can take all of my organic garbage in one end and allow fresh pork butt to be sliced off the other forever and ever.
Because this article didn't match my observations of closing and aging Best Buy stores all around me, I looked the facts up.
Their profits are roughly the same as they were a decade ago - before inflation adjustment. And they have less stores than they did at their peak. Any retail operation that isn't even maintaining is well on the path to dying.
Perhaps this article announcing their first new store in seven years this past April justifies the "thriving" label.
Given the collapse in other competition such as Circuit City, Radio Shack, Sears, K-Mart, etc, it is apparent that they have succeeded in picking up no customers from competitors when those competitors collapsed.
This is "thriving"? Was this article written by Best Buy's investor relations folks?
Frankly, I do nothing - same as I do with the alerts on the smartphone.
As a child, we had a tornado go over our house. There was no need for a siren. The freight train sound the tornado makes on approach is pretty unmistakable if you don't live next to tracks. We went to the basement. While in the basement as the tornado passed over, lightning struck a tree right outside the house and travelled through its roots to the basement. The fireballs racing all over the concrete floor shredded the carpet in front of our eyes and we all received severe shocks. The wooden-floored areas upstairs were pretty much left alone except where it had vaporized the telephone wires. Thank god nobody was on the phone. My little brother was actually unplugging a lamp and still had the plug in his hand. That light bulb blew out despite not being plugged in.
So, if it is windy and you hear a freight train, tornado. If the ground is shaking, earthquake. If neither and you live real close to the water, tsunami. Anything else, just kiss your ass goodbye.
The measures you take aren't likely to help anyway. Prep ahead of time in the form of building codes is the best help. The rest is just to give you a sense that something is being done to protect you so that you'll be a good little sheepy and not learn how to protect yourself.
Not really. Smartphones collect data that was never written before and rarely recorded. It was in people's heads or simply nowhere unless someone followed you every moment of every day carefully recording things. By decrypting that, you've gained more than any search warrant was ever able to achieve. It is approaching the level of violating a person's right to refuse self-incrimination. The phone often remembers more than the target remembers about their own lives.
Better to do something than to spend life hoping for the impossible while doing nothing.
I agree and long pushed that. But I no longer believe it is a realistic alternative. The system is too entrenched. The best that can be done is to keep wounding the prosecution side.
But Android will never be able to compete with iOS without even more control of the user experience than they already have. To survive, Google must continue to grow at the rates investors expect tech industries to grow at - double digit profit growth yearly at minimum. They can't do that without making a run at the 87% piece of the profit pie that Apple has in the smartphone market. They can't remain an advertising company alone for much longer. This is pushback against that strategy, and besides, it is likely already approaching peak.
before smartphones came along? Why do they not get that the people don't want them to be able to utilize new technology to make solving crimes any easier than before?
Everyone is guilty of something. The only way the system works is if the balance between cost of prosecution and magnitude of the crime worth prosecuting remains stable (or given that we already incarcerate far more than most, shifts a bit in favor of crime). If prosecution becomes cheaper and easier, we can quickly become a police state without changing any laws.
Very few devices today are truly open source software free. The open source community should start rolling anti-weaponization provisions into all open source licenses. Problem solved.
Apple could easily blow this out of the water by reducing their app store commission to one that provably covers cost of managing the app store only. The app store is not a significant source of Apple profit. The greater than 50% profit per phone sold is where most of Apple's profits come from.
They would do this because they can not give up their silo. The security and control over the experience that the silo provides is the source of their profit per phone sold. Without it, people wouldn't want to buy iPhones so much that they will fork over those dollars.
It is wild that the developers would complain. If successful, they will lose everything. On Apple, many users actually pay for apps. On Android, I have hundreds of apps and have never paid for one. It is hard to find one that charges though many of the apps I use charge for their Apple version. If Apple opened up, the exclusivity and the "Apple Experience" that results from their control would die and app sales would be like Android's. Developers wouldn't be able to command any price for an app except from those few who would pay to disable ads.