I honestly don't want anything they're selling up there except uncompromised performance. I want to see larger DRAM capacity and more I/O bandwidth, on a larger range of their product portfolio than it presently has.
I've got a smart-phone, I don't want it to be my laptop or desktop, nor vice versa.
Additionally while AI for example is quite old, it's been recent advances in AI that have really put it back on the map. The broad study course I took 20 years ago probably isn't going to qualify me for these things without substantial study. Access to education & retraining for people in technical fields that are either outdated or offshored is expensive and hard to obtain. It might not be hard to take a person with a graduate degree in computer science from one field and retrain him to do AI for example. It might just take a year or less of dedicated study but who is going to pay for that, particularly if he can (and probably did) find a job that isn't great but puts food on the table?
Retraining people for the bleeding edge really should be the expectation. Finding people who happen to have picked buzzword X to be expert in really doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation. A lot of it is which school they happened to go to, and which professor they either found compelling or were pushed to. For a technology that put itself on the map 5 years ago and became a significant industry force, kids are just now using as a decisive factor in their education choices. And us "old" farts are probably watching, but unless we fall on very hard times and are willing to take a huge hit and lifestyle reduction, are probably not going to bite on.
I am aware of that about SSL, but if you are going to offer any sort of interaction with the user that requires a sign in, I feel you are obligated to use SSL, even if you're not holding sensitive information. People continue to use the same damn credentials everywhere, expect security and get really upset if their bad habits lead to unfortunate results.
I did not know about Let's Encrypt, the last time I pursued this they did not exist.
Still, for most people, even technically savvy people, I would advocate using a hosting service outside of your home.
Youtube ISN'T just watchers. Parent's of kids everywhere are being told their kids want to stream on youtube. Most of them will never have more than a few viewers, it's the ones that get popular suddenly that make you nervous. If only youtube was just watchers, it wouldn't make me so nervous.
Plus the question of whether you really want to open a port on your firewall to run your website which you will inevitably want to use any of a number of software packages of very dubious quality, but high user friendliness, and thus expose your entire home network, dick pics, toaster, bank records etc. to some rando hacker on the interwebs? Do you want to pay all that extra money for an SSL cert from someone? Couple that with highly asymmetric bandwidth, and the answer becomes no.
Your website you pay for someone to host, if it gets hacked and it was important, hopefully you have backups. If it wasn't important, well it's probably gone forever.
Still, I don't think I'd go back to 1991, AOL and dial-up. The internet changed the world, we just can't have the nice things we thought we could have had.
But you are not fighting that corrupt dictatorship, you are fighting the people there.
If those people are actively working to get rid of their government, then I'm all for them. But they're not, so they're part of the problem. If they like it, great, but it makes us enemies. Tough shit.
And American employees want to stop seeing their jobs shipped overseas. I know and have actively resisted the Chinese invasion in several "American" companies who realized that engineers are cheaper in China just like everything else. That said, in three past employers I have seen technology blatantly stolen by a certain Chinese company, and those statements are backed by arrests and convictions.
So yes, absolutely they're correct. So what? Want it to stop? Simple, throw out your government, replace it with a democracy, adopt something like the bill of rights, and stop being so blatantly evil. Then my resistance will be substantially less. But as long as it's a corrupt dictatorship, we absolutely should fight them to the death.
Your logic suggests we can have the government simply print twice as much cash, give the second half out to the poor, and cure poverty. Why didn't anyone think of that!
Kind of hard to apply for a job you don't know exists.....
Why would Facebook be your goto job-hunting source? It is close to my last choice, right above maybe the help-wanted ads in the old fashioned physical newspaper thing.
Honestly now that linked-in has become pretentious facebook I can hardly use that anymore, but even LinkedIn isn't the best source, even ignoring MS having taken over. Most of the jobs through these sources are the kinds of things where they collect your resume, find a reason to not hire you to justify their cheaper H1B hire, and use your resume as evidence. They just need a lot of applicants, and it's easier to find unqualified ones by broadcasting their openings in unlikely places. Facebook job hunting: If you wouldn't shit where you eat, don't go to eat where people shit.
You're way better off, if you have >10 years, using your peers and former coworkers. Often there is cash incentive to refer you, so they'll be on-board. After that, start looking around in popular industry websites/material/etc.
more women rake in lots of dosh on instagram and such than men do.
Also don't mention it because they might try to make instagram appeal to men, and there's no universe where that goes well.
I am all for promoting workplace equality when it comes to situations where applicant may be treated unfairly. But when it comes to free selection, we're talking about marketing. I don't think there's anything wrong with segmentation, one size never fits all equally well. If anything video games in particular have already become too homogenized and generic. They've really fallen hard since the 90s, thanks to too-large budgets and attempts to appeal to too generic of an audience.
Isn't livestream an example of free selection rather than some evil cadre of boys trying to keep women in their place?
I couldn't care less about live-streaming of anything at all, but I've noticed definite differences between how men and women view, play and relate to video games. It's not surprising to me that women are less popular to watch amongst my peer group, I can't stand listening to most of them. First of all because most women live-streamers are half my age, creating at the very least a generation divide, second because how they interact with games does not at all resemble how I want to interact with them. If I watch a livestream, which is very rare, I'm looking for someone who is taking apart the mechanics and min-maxing. That is not very common amongst most female livestreamers that I've seen, who either because of age or gender are usually more interested in the cosmetics. They're out there, but it seems like about 1/20 of the male population based on a sample size of about 200.
The article also left out statistics about game purchases by gender, focusing instead on age. Female streamers would likely be more popular and relatable to female gamers. I still do not see anything even remotely like a representative gender representation in gaming. Certainly not in my peer group, but I've noticed even with my kids the girls just aren't playing as much. It's *better* than when I was a kid, but it's still vastly skewed towards boys.
So no, I don't see any real problem here, except that female representation in video games continues to be low, but in an environment where the females can exert their own free will. No one is forcing them to play or not play, no one is selecting them unfairly. They're simply choosing not to. That's not a problem, except to marketing who would like their bucks. And marketing is clearly failing to earn them.
I'm not even sure why it is news. The "news" part is about a do-nothing roomate which many of us have endured and had to part ways with. All over the country roomates are taking one action or another against such people, daily. This happens to be parents versus children, but they wouldn't be doing him favors to allow this to continue.
The editorial in the last sentence is dumb, It's common in America for kids to leave their parents at 18ish, but it's fairly uncommon in many other places, particularly in very urban areas where living costs are high. We're just seeing America become very urban and very expensive to live.
If you give me a free movie ticket, I might go to a movie
I wouldn't, necessarily. If I was bored and needed to kill 2 hours perhaps. But bothering with a theater at any cost is an unpleasant experience. This seems like something you might use for something you "kinda want to see", but you know is probably mediocre at best, or outright bad. Something best watched on some cheap DVD service, or borrowed from someone.
Just wait, I'm going to patent a smartphone with sharp corners and then sue everyone who isn't using round corners!;)
Rethink this. You'll end up with a documented record of assets to litigate for by the class action suit filed by men who cut their wieners off when putting your phone in their pockets.
Think circle-phone. Circles never hurt anyone. Except nooses. Avoid nooses.
I don't think that's lost on him. What I wonder is if he's interested in Truth or whether he's interested in Party Line. Picking the name he did I wonder what his intent is.
Democrats will be allowed to block because hate speech. Which will be defined in any way that favors Democrat or SJW ideology.
And republicans will still be allowed to block offensive hate speech as well. They are saying he can't simply block people who are off message but are within protected free speech. If you get on there just to abuse him or try to propagate some sort of hateful message, he can still block you.
I only wish that this ruling could be used in general, for all people. Emperor Tangerine is maybe an important special case, but there are plenty of people out there with extreme views on things who are able to silence their opposition. Twitter does seem to exercise arbitrary control of its moderation, they either need to be a platform where free (protected) speech is always tolerated, or they need to go quietly into the night.
How did law enforcement solve crimes before smartphones were a thing?
According to my misspent youth, apparently they spent a lot of time shaking down hookers with hearts of gold. Maybe they need to return to their roots, encryption is hard, but hookers are easy.
No it won't. Companies always claim things like this but it never happens. They can't even deliver relevant advertising.
There's no way they won't let marketing $ dominate the decision process to the point where the AI is basically useless. Every one of these services keeps trying to force-feed me popular crap that I keep disliking (where possible), and cannot be trained off of it. Even the AIs I wrote for undergrad projects 20 years ago worked better than that (or I'd have flunked). There's no way this is an accident.
It's an important distinction, arrests mean nothing. Convictions mean you were found guilty, plead guilty or chose not to fight it (nolo contendere). The latter I think falls in the public right to know, and while I understand the intent behind forcing someone to a courthouse, I don't think that's reasonable.
But putting up arrest photos is just sleazy. Anyone can be arrested because some cop got a bug up his ass, it doesn't mean you were remotely guilty but posting it might have adverse effects on your life.
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't want anything they're selling up there except uncompromised performance. I want to see larger DRAM capacity and more I/O bandwidth, on a larger range of their product portfolio than it presently has.
I've got a smart-phone, I don't want it to be my laptop or desktop, nor vice versa.
Additionally while AI for example is quite old, it's been recent advances in AI that have really put it back on the map. The broad study course I took 20 years ago probably isn't going to qualify me for these things without substantial study. Access to education & retraining for people in technical fields that are either outdated or offshored is expensive and hard to obtain. It might not be hard to take a person with a graduate degree in computer science from one field and retrain him to do AI for example. It might just take a year or less of dedicated study but who is going to pay for that, particularly if he can (and probably did) find a job that isn't great but puts food on the table?
Retraining people for the bleeding edge really should be the expectation. Finding people who happen to have picked buzzword X to be expert in really doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation. A lot of it is which school they happened to go to, and which professor they either found compelling or were pushed to. For a technology that put itself on the map 5 years ago and became a significant industry force, kids are just now using as a decisive factor in their education choices. And us "old" farts are probably watching, but unless we fall on very hard times and are willing to take a huge hit and lifestyle reduction, are probably not going to bite on.
I am aware of that about SSL, but if you are going to offer any sort of interaction with the user that requires a sign in, I feel you are obligated to use SSL, even if you're not holding sensitive information. People continue to use the same damn credentials everywhere, expect security and get really upset if their bad habits lead to unfortunate results.
I did not know about Let's Encrypt, the last time I pursued this they did not exist.
Still, for most people, even technically savvy people, I would advocate using a hosting service outside of your home.
Youtube ISN'T just watchers. Parent's of kids everywhere are being told their kids want to stream on youtube. Most of them will never have more than a few viewers, it's the ones that get popular suddenly that make you nervous. If only youtube was just watchers, it wouldn't make me so nervous.
So you're saying the tide pod challenge wasn't a pandemic?
Plus the question of whether you really want to open a port on your firewall to run your website which you will inevitably want to use any of a number of software packages of very dubious quality, but high user friendliness, and thus expose your entire home network, dick pics, toaster, bank records etc. to some rando hacker on the interwebs? Do you want to pay all that extra money for an SSL cert from someone? Couple that with highly asymmetric bandwidth, and the answer becomes no.
Your website you pay for someone to host, if it gets hacked and it was important, hopefully you have backups. If it wasn't important, well it's probably gone forever.
Still, I don't think I'd go back to 1991, AOL and dial-up. The internet changed the world, we just can't have the nice things we thought we could have had.
A valid point, but the resulting real estate crash would probably be the end of us.
But you are not fighting that corrupt dictatorship, you are fighting the people there.
If those people are actively working to get rid of their government, then I'm all for them. But they're not, so they're part of the problem. If they like it, great, but it makes us enemies. Tough shit.
And American employees want to stop seeing their jobs shipped overseas. I know and have actively resisted the Chinese invasion in several "American" companies who realized that engineers are cheaper in China just like everything else. That said, in three past employers I have seen technology blatantly stolen by a certain Chinese company, and those statements are backed by arrests and convictions.
So yes, absolutely they're correct. So what? Want it to stop? Simple, throw out your government, replace it with a democracy, adopt something like the bill of rights, and stop being so blatantly evil. Then my resistance will be substantially less. But as long as it's a corrupt dictatorship, we absolutely should fight them to the death.
Your logic suggests we can have the government simply print twice as much cash, give the second half out to the poor, and cure poverty. Why didn't anyone think of that!
Kind of hard to apply for a job you don't know exists.....
Why would Facebook be your goto job-hunting source? It is close to my last choice, right above maybe the help-wanted ads in the old fashioned physical newspaper thing.
Honestly now that linked-in has become pretentious facebook I can hardly use that anymore, but even LinkedIn isn't the best source, even ignoring MS having taken over. Most of the jobs through these sources are the kinds of things where they collect your resume, find a reason to not hire you to justify their cheaper H1B hire, and use your resume as evidence. They just need a lot of applicants, and it's easier to find unqualified ones by broadcasting their openings in unlikely places. Facebook job hunting: If you wouldn't shit where you eat, don't go to eat where people shit.
You're way better off, if you have >10 years, using your peers and former coworkers. Often there is cash incentive to refer you, so they'll be on-board. After that, start looking around in popular industry websites/material/etc.
more women rake in lots of dosh on instagram and such than men do.
Also don't mention it because they might try to make instagram appeal to men, and there's no universe where that goes well.
I am all for promoting workplace equality when it comes to situations where applicant may be treated unfairly. But when it comes to free selection, we're talking about marketing. I don't think there's anything wrong with segmentation, one size never fits all equally well. If anything video games in particular have already become too homogenized and generic. They've really fallen hard since the 90s, thanks to too-large budgets and attempts to appeal to too generic of an audience.
Isn't livestream an example of free selection rather than some evil cadre of boys trying to keep women in their place?
I couldn't care less about live-streaming of anything at all, but I've noticed definite differences between how men and women view, play and relate to video games. It's not surprising to me that women are less popular to watch amongst my peer group, I can't stand listening to most of them. First of all because most women live-streamers are half my age, creating at the very least a generation divide, second because how they interact with games does not at all resemble how I want to interact with them. If I watch a livestream, which is very rare, I'm looking for someone who is taking apart the mechanics and min-maxing. That is not very common amongst most female livestreamers that I've seen, who either because of age or gender are usually more interested in the cosmetics. They're out there, but it seems like about 1/20 of the male population based on a sample size of about 200.
The article also left out statistics about game purchases by gender, focusing instead on age. Female streamers would likely be more popular and relatable to female gamers. I still do not see anything even remotely like a representative gender representation in gaming. Certainly not in my peer group, but I've noticed even with my kids the girls just aren't playing as much. It's *better* than when I was a kid, but it's still vastly skewed towards boys.
So no, I don't see any real problem here, except that female representation in video games continues to be low, but in an environment where the females can exert their own free will. No one is forcing them to play or not play, no one is selecting them unfairly. They're simply choosing not to. That's not a problem, except to marketing who would like their bucks. And marketing is clearly failing to earn them.
I'm not even sure why it is news. The "news" part is about a do-nothing roomate which many of us have endured and had to part ways with. All over the country roomates are taking one action or another against such people, daily. This happens to be parents versus children, but they wouldn't be doing him favors to allow this to continue.
The editorial in the last sentence is dumb, It's common in America for kids to leave their parents at 18ish, but it's fairly uncommon in many other places, particularly in very urban areas where living costs are high. We're just seeing America become very urban and very expensive to live.
If you give me a free movie ticket, I might go to a movie
I wouldn't, necessarily. If I was bored and needed to kill 2 hours perhaps. But bothering with a theater at any cost is an unpleasant experience. This seems like something you might use for something you "kinda want to see", but you know is probably mediocre at best, or outright bad. Something best watched on some cheap DVD service, or borrowed from someone.
Just wait, I'm going to patent a smartphone with sharp corners and then sue everyone who isn't using round corners! ;)
Rethink this. You'll end up with a documented record of assets to litigate for by the class action suit filed by men who cut their wieners off when putting your phone in their pockets.
Think circle-phone. Circles never hurt anyone. Except nooses. Avoid nooses.
I don't think that's lost on him. What I wonder is if he's interested in Truth or whether he's interested in Party Line. Picking the name he did I wonder what his intent is.
Democrats will be allowed to block because hate speech. Which will be defined in any way that favors Democrat or SJW ideology.
And republicans will still be allowed to block offensive hate speech as well. They are saying he can't simply block people who are off message but are within protected free speech. If you get on there just to abuse him or try to propagate some sort of hateful message, he can still block you.
I only wish that this ruling could be used in general, for all people. Emperor Tangerine is maybe an important special case, but there are plenty of people out there with extreme views on things who are able to silence their opposition. Twitter does seem to exercise arbitrary control of its moderation, they either need to be a platform where free (protected) speech is always tolerated, or they need to go quietly into the night.
How did law enforcement solve crimes before smartphones were a thing?
According to my misspent youth, apparently they spent a lot of time shaking down hookers with hearts of gold. Maybe they need to return to their roots, encryption is hard, but hookers are easy.
No it won't. Companies always claim things like this but it never happens. They can't even deliver relevant advertising.
There's no way they won't let marketing $ dominate the decision process to the point where the AI is basically useless. Every one of these services keeps trying to force-feed me popular crap that I keep disliking (where possible), and cannot be trained off of it. Even the AIs I wrote for undergrad projects 20 years ago worked better than that (or I'd have flunked). There's no way this is an accident.
The real reason why Americans sympathize more with the bosses is because that's where the paycheck comes from.
No, Americans expect that they will one day take their job and don't want to shit the bed. Everything about that expectation is wrong.
To be American, is to be a temporarily embarrassed billionaire.
Unions have a lot of problems that union members should solve, but the world would be worse without them.
Wait a minute, someone who actually READ Asimov. Marketing did not anticipate this.
It's an important distinction, arrests mean nothing. Convictions mean you were found guilty, plead guilty or chose not to fight it (nolo contendere). The latter I think falls in the public right to know, and while I understand the intent behind forcing someone to a courthouse, I don't think that's reasonable.
But putting up arrest photos is just sleazy. Anyone can be arrested because some cop got a bug up his ass, it doesn't mean you were remotely guilty but posting it might have adverse effects on your life.
Apple definitely cares about sales through their store. The question is whether the apps in question represent enough $ to matter.