It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention. For me, it's a pretty big convenience during the morning stop-and-go commute as well as on freeways during road trips.
My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.
The way the current law is heavily favors the 9-5 employee over contracting. Which I would venture distorts the number of jobs that could and should be contracting gigs out there.
Someone choosing to contract over being a W-2 truly is disadvantaged in many ways. This includes taxation (pays the full FICA tax), benefits (no individual health insurance market worth a damn), worker protection, vacation/sick/parental leave and retirement savings (401k's way superior to IRA's).
Even if the hourly rate is 2x, it still isn't quite enough to close that gap.
This is why I favor things like UBI and UHC. It takes the burden of providing that kind of baseline stuff away from companies so they don't have to be required by law to provide things like minimum wage, health coverage, etc. while providing said benefits to a much broader range of people.
The reason people are slow to adopt the various *Kits from Apple compared to Amazon is how incredibly limited the API is.
Compare what you can do with SiriKit vs Alexa: SiriKit only lets you "bucket" your commands into things like "messages", "mail", and various other very mundane stuff. There isn't even a "remember this" category.
Alexa lets you do practically anything. It's not surprising that Alexa has so much more developer support.
Cuisinart or Target don't rely on first-movers experience to sell their products. Nobody waits in lines in anticipation for a new blender model. They just buy it.
Apple does not sell commodities; they sell to people willing to pay a premium for new and shiny. Thus they're much more susceptible to lack of sales due to product delays.
So when it comes to Gerrymandering, most of the more "liberal" or even "purple" States have long had laws against it. Many (including CA) have independent councils that must have representatives from both parties in roughly equal proportion drawing the maps.
Only a handful of States (which all happen to be battleground States for elections) have this kind of gerrymandering where the majority legislature controls the maps as well. And they almost all are Republican controlled.
Democrats gerrymander too, don't get me wrong. But they haven't abused it to the extend like the Republicans in NC did. The State has 2.7M (as of 2016) registered Democrats and 2.0M registered Republicans. Yet has 10 R congressmen vs 3 D congressmen.
The actual evidence they used (had you RTFA) is to measure the number of registered Democrats/Republicans in a State in aggregate and then compare it with congressional seats.
It's not going to be exactly equal but you'd expect a State with 70% of the population as registered Democrats compared to 30% Republicans to roughly have a 7:3 (or 6:4, even 5:5) mix of elected Congress-people.
Instead, NC has a heavy 10:3 ratio of Republican vs Democrat Congress-people. And it moved this way after the maps were redrawn after the 2010 census.
I think the point is that it's not comparing Apple vs its competitors but Apple under Cook vs Apple under Jobs.
When major form factor changes for, say, the iPhone 4 or iPhone 5 first occurred, there wasn't nearly as much of a wait compared to the iPhone X or even iPhone 7+.
Part of this can be attributed to the fact that there are simply more buyers of iPhones now than there were before. But the job of a good supply manager (and CEO, especially if that CEO used to be head of supply chain) is to make sure manufacturing can scale such that it lead times don't increase with increased demand.
To say nothing of the difference in innovation speed under Cook...
For this specific case, it looks like the method of virus delivery and CRISPR gene modification can be used for a whole host of diseases. This just happens to be the first application.
Except in this case, CRISPR is a versatile method that can be used for a whole wide range of things. It's just that this drug is one of the first to use it.
The issue with emulation across processor architectures isn't so much the instructions with a 1-to-1 (or 1-to-n) mapping. That's easy enough to substitute (even keep a small software cache of, so you don't need to repeat it).
The problem is the odd behaviors of each architecture. For example, ARM has a very relaxed memory ordering requirement for performance reasons. While x86 does total store ordering (all writes to memory are guaranteed to be ordered). Oftentimes, ARM processor designs rely on said ordering requirements (or lack thereof) to squeeze performance and perf/watt. If software has to enforce stricter memory ordering, it can have a relatively large impact on performance since the processor wasn't designed for that.
I don't know how much lead-time QCOM had in designing the 835 with Windows emulation in mind. But if they took an off-the-shelf, not-designed-for-emu processor, it's very possible multi-threading on this thing will suck balls.
And that's just one example of assumptions architectures make. There are many others.
If you have a business plan that isn't economically feasible you shouldn't blame your employees.
Since when is paying someone a market price "blaming"? Look, the choice isn't between some razor-sharp-margin business paying "well" and "paying bare minimum".
The choice is some razor-sharp-margin business "paying bare minimum" or "pay nothing at all".
And if margins are so razor thin why does anybody bother?
Do you understand the implication of this sentence? I means instead of being paid "bare minimum", that person isn't paid at all. Because the business doesn't exist.
People act like there's some infinite amount of money or fat-margin business ideas out there and that we can all be employed by fat-margined Apples and Microsofts.
The reality isn't so bright. The choice is between being paid minimally or not being paid at all because that job isn't economically feasible at a higher wage level. So basically, you got mass unemployment. Congrats.
I'm all for fracking. And if coal goes the way of the dinosoar for purely economic reasons, so be it.
I -- and realistically the Trump admin -- have absolutely no attachment to "laissez faire purism". People see what they want to see but this Administration has been very market manipulative. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it's being manipulative *against* economic trends. Which is very counterproductive.
What I have a problem with was Obama's decision to kill coal because Green. He put his thumb on the scales pretty hard to do it.
Really? You consider the Clean Power Plan "pretty hard"? You don't know pretty hard. Pretty hard is China shutting down coal reactors and leaving cities without heating during the winter.
The clean power plan was a light touch at its most extreme and happened to mirror the way the economy was going anyway. Because, well, somebody did their homework.
"The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.[23] States are free to reduce emissions by various means, and must submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016, or, with an extension approval, by September 2018.[24] If a state has not submitted a plan by then, the EPA will impose its own plan on that state."
"States are to implement their plans by focusing on three building blocks: increasing the generation efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, substituting lower carbon dioxide emitting natural gas generation for coal powered generation, and substituting generation from new zero carbon dioxide emitting renewable sources for fossil fuel powered generation."
BTW, because of the way regulations work, the Clean Power Plan is still in place today. Undoing a rule takes as long as setting a rule in place.
If Trump is doing too much of the opposite...well that's the pendulum swinging too far the other way, which is what you get if you give in to some fool notion to start it swinging in the first place. Beyond that minor point of agreement, the treehuggers can go screw themselves.
I don't disagree with the screw the treehuggers part. I want a good environment but I like being realistic about how to get there. But I disagree with the laissez faire purity idea. Governments *can* make smart regulations that both benefit the environment *and* matches the economic realities (maybe accelerate it a bit).
Making regulations *in the opposite direction of economic trends* is terribly stupid. I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe government *can* be smart -- and it has been in some occasions in the past. Whereas you would like to avoid any of the dumb phases altogether by not having government do anything. I can empathize with that to some extend, but I'll disagree with it.
Actual plan from "the cheerleaders": baseload wean off coal (use natural gas). Germany failed to do this but the US is well under way.
Address peak load with solar/wind/geothermal/hydro and some amount of storage.
Trump's actual plan (not one you've projected): "clean coal". Which he doesn't think will be too expensive to compete against fracked natural gas. The natural gas which he's derailed by nationalistic "you must buy non-existent, expensive US steel" idiocy. Oh and tariff on solar panels because the 5% of solar employment in the US from manufacturing is obviously more important than the 95% of solar employment in the US for installation.
But the economics have a way of working things out despite idiotic governments. Fracking will -- sooner or later -- displace most of the remaining uses for coal-for-electricity. That both reduces carbon/methane emissions *and* produces cheap, reliable power.
Countries should also embrace Nuclear but alas, that one doesn't really make economic sense (cost of capital too high for return) so it's out the window.
China is kind of a coin-toss. Their central planning has enough power to make good on the direction they want to take but as with all central planning, it can be horribly inefficient when it comes to immediate cost/benefit feedback.
The underlying supposition to your statement is that the only reason anybody doesn't pay "bare legal minimum" -- assuming it's even an employer/employee relationship -- is "to buy a 3rd Mercedes".
While that's true of large multi-nationals, it's not true of the majority of businesses, with razor sharp margins.
Perhaps these laws should instead mandate some minimum percentage of *profit* be paid to employees. So that it accurately ensures fair wages when there is actually money being made.
If I understand my international trade (and I'll admit, I'm armchairing this), that's exactly the case. If whoever is storing Apple's $$ in the Island of Jersey decides to just shift it somewhere, Apple would have to appeal to the authorities in the Island of Jersey to get it back. The US government has no jurisdiction there.
The thing is, if your gravy train is Apple Inc, you can be sure they can bribe enough of the local government officials to come after you and it's a much easier path to profit just to be the guy holding the bag for them.
Libertarians would call this free market security. And surprise surprise it only works for those who are already wealthy.
IMO it's not so much Spain they depend on as the EU. So it really depends on whether the newly formed Catalonia can get membership into the EU and/or strike trade deals with the US/Japan/China.
IIRC, they resemble California a lot in this regard -- their economy depends on international trade and the rest of Spain is (in their view) holding them back.
If only we could vote against the party that supports outsourcing everything to China. Oh wait, they both support that. Economic Nationalism really needs to find a good home. It resonates strongly enough that it allowed even a generally unelectable person like Trump to get elected. If a decent candidate got behind it they would certainly win.
There's nothing wrong with outsourcing to China/Vietnam/India per se. You just don't want to do it for your advanced stuff and you don't want to legislate it using a blunt hammer (tariffs, political bullying, etc.). It'd be silly to try to bring t-shirt production to the US and it'd be silly to refuse to import computers from China.
Ideally we'd want politicians (and voters) to recognize this important nuance. Economic Nationalism (like any Nationalism) can be easily as harmful as it can be helpful depending on what you strategically apply it to.
For instance, look at what Argentina tried to do to force all smartphone production into their country. Their President proudly introduced a 2-year old Blackberry model "made in Argentina" in the age of the iPhone.
All it did was slow down domestic commerce and create a black market.
The way to grow a domestic industry is to train a labor force that can service that industry and create lasting reasons for companies to choose to start a new production line in the US. Lasting as in not tax credits (which expire). Good infrastructure so they can get their workers in and out. Good protection (IP, physical protection and otherwise) and good distribution channels.
When it comes to the advanced stuff, the cost of those absolutely dwarfs the difference in labor cost. Tesla is a good example of this today. Apple was an example of what happens when you don't have the domestic labor force needed.
Ya but while you are leading, you reap the rewards. It's good the be the king (while it lasts).
You could say the same about Apple, Google, MSFT (in its day) or hell, Exxon, Walmart or post-WW2 US. Ya, you have to expend effort innovating and improving; but being first and best means you can sell to the world and be the richest in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the difference between constant, can't-miss-a-second attention vs check-it-once-a-minute attention. For me, it's a pretty big convenience during the morning stop-and-go commute as well as on freeways during road trips.
My brain wanders more, I'm able to glance to the side for a few seconds to look at something interesting on the road and I'm not constantly adjusting speed/steering.
Makes longer drives far more tolerable.
The way the current law is heavily favors the 9-5 employee over contracting. Which I would venture distorts the number of jobs that could and should be contracting gigs out there.
Someone choosing to contract over being a W-2 truly is disadvantaged in many ways. This includes taxation (pays the full FICA tax), benefits (no individual health insurance market worth a damn), worker protection, vacation/sick/parental leave and retirement savings (401k's way superior to IRA's).
Even if the hourly rate is 2x, it still isn't quite enough to close that gap.
This is why I favor things like UBI and UHC. It takes the burden of providing that kind of baseline stuff away from companies so they don't have to be required by law to provide things like minimum wage, health coverage, etc. while providing said benefits to a much broader range of people.
The reason people are slow to adopt the various *Kits from Apple compared to Amazon is how incredibly limited the API is.
Compare what you can do with SiriKit vs Alexa: SiriKit only lets you "bucket" your commands into things like "messages", "mail", and various other very mundane stuff. There isn't even a "remember this" category.
Alexa lets you do practically anything. It's not surprising that Alexa has so much more developer support.
Cuisinart or Target don't rely on first-movers experience to sell their products. Nobody waits in lines in anticipation for a new blender model. They just buy it.
Apple does not sell commodities; they sell to people willing to pay a premium for new and shiny. Thus they're much more susceptible to lack of sales due to product delays.
So when it comes to Gerrymandering, most of the more "liberal" or even "purple" States have long had laws against it. Many (including CA) have independent councils that must have representatives from both parties in roughly equal proportion drawing the maps.
Only a handful of States (which all happen to be battleground States for elections) have this kind of gerrymandering where the majority legislature controls the maps as well. And they almost all are Republican controlled.
Democrats gerrymander too, don't get me wrong. But they haven't abused it to the extend like the Republicans in NC did. The State has 2.7M (as of 2016) registered Democrats and 2.0M registered Republicans. Yet has 10 R congressmen vs 3 D congressmen.
The actual evidence they used (had you RTFA) is to measure the number of registered Democrats/Republicans in a State in aggregate and then compare it with congressional seats.
It's not going to be exactly equal but you'd expect a State with 70% of the population as registered Democrats compared to 30% Republicans to roughly have a 7:3 (or 6:4, even 5:5) mix of elected Congress-people.
Instead, NC has a heavy 10:3 ratio of Republican vs Democrat Congress-people. And it moved this way after the maps were redrawn after the 2010 census.
I think the point is that it's not comparing Apple vs its competitors but Apple under Cook vs Apple under Jobs.
When major form factor changes for, say, the iPhone 4 or iPhone 5 first occurred, there wasn't nearly as much of a wait compared to the iPhone X or even iPhone 7+.
Part of this can be attributed to the fact that there are simply more buyers of iPhones now than there were before. But the job of a good supply manager (and CEO, especially if that CEO used to be head of supply chain) is to make sure manufacturing can scale such that it lead times don't increase with increased demand.
To say nothing of the difference in innovation speed under Cook...
For this specific case, it looks like the method of virus delivery and CRISPR gene modification can be used for a whole host of diseases. This just happens to be the first application.
Except in this case, CRISPR is a versatile method that can be used for a whole wide range of things. It's just that this drug is one of the first to use it.
So think of it as the Intel 4004 or some such.
That's kinda like saying the Turing machine was invented at a public university on public dime. So why is Intel charging $350 for a processor.
The issue with emulation across processor architectures isn't so much the instructions with a 1-to-1 (or 1-to-n) mapping. That's easy enough to substitute (even keep a small software cache of, so you don't need to repeat it).
The problem is the odd behaviors of each architecture. For example, ARM has a very relaxed memory ordering requirement for performance reasons. While x86 does total store ordering (all writes to memory are guaranteed to be ordered). Oftentimes, ARM processor designs rely on said ordering requirements (or lack thereof) to squeeze performance and perf/watt. If software has to enforce stricter memory ordering, it can have a relatively large impact on performance since the processor wasn't designed for that.
I don't know how much lead-time QCOM had in designing the 835 with Windows emulation in mind. But if they took an off-the-shelf, not-designed-for-emu processor, it's very possible multi-threading on this thing will suck balls.
And that's just one example of assumptions architectures make. There are many others.
If everyone is third world, then everyone is first world.
In the end, absolute quality of life is what matters. And that'll only increase (assuming we tax the wealthy appropriately).
If you have a business plan that isn't economically feasible you shouldn't blame your employees.
Since when is paying someone a market price "blaming"? Look, the choice isn't between some razor-sharp-margin business paying "well" and "paying bare minimum".
The choice is some razor-sharp-margin business "paying bare minimum" or "pay nothing at all".
And if margins are so razor thin why does anybody bother?
Do you understand the implication of this sentence? I means instead of being paid "bare minimum", that person isn't paid at all. Because the business doesn't exist.
People act like there's some infinite amount of money or fat-margin business ideas out there and that we can all be employed by fat-margined Apples and Microsofts.
The reality isn't so bright. The choice is between being paid minimally or not being paid at all because that job isn't economically feasible at a higher wage level. So basically, you got mass unemployment. Congrats.
I'm all for fracking. And if coal goes the way of the dinosoar for purely economic reasons, so be it.
I -- and realistically the Trump admin -- have absolutely no attachment to "laissez faire purism". People see what they want to see but this Administration has been very market manipulative. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it's being manipulative *against* economic trends. Which is very counterproductive.
What I have a problem with was Obama's decision to kill coal because Green. He put his thumb on the scales pretty hard to do it.
Really? You consider the Clean Power Plan "pretty hard"? You don't know pretty hard. Pretty hard is China shutting down coal reactors and leaving cities without heating during the winter.
The clean power plan was a light touch at its most extreme and happened to mirror the way the economy was going anyway. Because, well, somebody did their homework.
"The plan will require individual states to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.[23] States are free to reduce emissions by various means, and must submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016, or, with an extension approval, by September 2018.[24] If a state has not submitted a plan by then, the EPA will impose its own plan on that state."
"States are to implement their plans by focusing on three building blocks: increasing the generation efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, substituting lower carbon dioxide emitting natural gas generation for coal powered generation, and substituting generation from new zero carbon dioxide emitting renewable sources for fossil fuel powered generation."
BTW, because of the way regulations work, the Clean Power Plan is still in place today. Undoing a rule takes as long as setting a rule in place.
If Trump is doing too much of the opposite...well that's the pendulum swinging too far the other way, which is what you get if you give in to some fool notion to start it swinging in the first place. Beyond that minor point of agreement, the treehuggers can go screw themselves.
I don't disagree with the screw the treehuggers part. I want a good environment but I like being realistic about how to get there. But I disagree with the laissez faire purity idea. Governments *can* make smart regulations that both benefit the environment *and* matches the economic realities (maybe accelerate it a bit).
Making regulations *in the opposite direction of economic trends* is terribly stupid. I guess the difference between you and me is that I believe government *can* be smart -- and it has been in some occasions in the past. Whereas you would like to avoid any of the dumb phases altogether by not having government do anything. I can empathize with that to some extend, but I'll disagree with it.
Ya, no.
Actual plan from "the cheerleaders": baseload wean off coal (use natural gas). Germany failed to do this but the US is well under way.
Address peak load with solar/wind/geothermal/hydro and some amount of storage.
Trump's actual plan (not one you've projected): "clean coal". Which he doesn't think will be too expensive to compete against fracked natural gas. The natural gas which he's derailed by nationalistic "you must buy non-existent, expensive US steel" idiocy. Oh and tariff on solar panels because the 5% of solar employment in the US from manufacturing is obviously more important than the 95% of solar employment in the US for installation.
But the economics have a way of working things out despite idiotic governments. Fracking will -- sooner or later -- displace most of the remaining uses for coal-for-electricity. That both reduces carbon/methane emissions *and* produces cheap, reliable power.
Countries should also embrace Nuclear but alas, that one doesn't really make economic sense (cost of capital too high for return) so it's out the window.
China is kind of a coin-toss. Their central planning has enough power to make good on the direction they want to take but as with all central planning, it can be horribly inefficient when it comes to immediate cost/benefit feedback.
I can only think of:
https://xkcd.com/605/
The underlying supposition to your statement is that the only reason anybody doesn't pay "bare legal minimum" -- assuming it's even an employer/employee relationship -- is "to buy a 3rd Mercedes".
While that's true of large multi-nationals, it's not true of the majority of businesses, with razor sharp margins.
Perhaps these laws should instead mandate some minimum percentage of *profit* be paid to employees. So that it accurately ensures fair wages when there is actually money being made.
BTW, Uber bleeds like $1B per year.
And? Eventually, the world runs out of third world workers.
Depends on your usage scenario.
I got the Daydream from Google and tried using it with my GS7. The resolution needs to increase at least 4x for it to be anywhere near realistic.
For using it as just a smartphone, I absolutely agree we've reached Peak Pixel.
If I understand my international trade (and I'll admit, I'm armchairing this), that's exactly the case. If whoever is storing Apple's $$ in the Island of Jersey decides to just shift it somewhere, Apple would have to appeal to the authorities in the Island of Jersey to get it back. The US government has no jurisdiction there.
The thing is, if your gravy train is Apple Inc, you can be sure they can bribe enough of the local government officials to come after you and it's a much easier path to profit just to be the guy holding the bag for them.
Libertarians would call this free market security. And surprise surprise it only works for those who are already wealthy.
To play Devil's Advocate. Gilead Sciences, because they're at the size and scale they are, were able to completely cure Hepatitis-B....
That likely wouldn't happen with "small companies with small profits".
IMO it's not so much Spain they depend on as the EU. So it really depends on whether the newly formed Catalonia can get membership into the EU and/or strike trade deals with the US/Japan/China.
IIRC, they resemble California a lot in this regard -- their economy depends on international trade and the rest of Spain is (in their view) holding them back.
If only we could vote against the party that supports outsourcing everything to China. Oh wait, they both support that. Economic Nationalism really needs to find a good home. It resonates strongly enough that it allowed even a generally unelectable person like Trump to get elected. If a decent candidate got behind it they would certainly win.
There's nothing wrong with outsourcing to China/Vietnam/India per se. You just don't want to do it for your advanced stuff and you don't want to legislate it using a blunt hammer (tariffs, political bullying, etc.). It'd be silly to try to bring t-shirt production to the US and it'd be silly to refuse to import computers from China.
Ideally we'd want politicians (and voters) to recognize this important nuance. Economic Nationalism (like any Nationalism) can be easily as harmful as it can be helpful depending on what you strategically apply it to.
For instance, look at what Argentina tried to do to force all smartphone production into their country. Their President proudly introduced a 2-year old Blackberry model "made in Argentina" in the age of the iPhone.
All it did was slow down domestic commerce and create a black market.
The way to grow a domestic industry is to train a labor force that can service that industry and create lasting reasons for companies to choose to start a new production line in the US. Lasting as in not tax credits (which expire). Good infrastructure so they can get their workers in and out. Good protection (IP, physical protection and otherwise) and good distribution channels.
When it comes to the advanced stuff, the cost of those absolutely dwarfs the difference in labor cost. Tesla is a good example of this today. Apple was an example of what happens when you don't have the domestic labor force needed.
Thats your opinion. My wife even likes it, which is not true of any previous trek series.
That should tell you 100% who its aimed at: NOT TREKKIES.
Congrats for making our point.
good.jpg
Trekkies seriously ruin Trek.
Ya but while you are leading, you reap the rewards. It's good the be the king (while it lasts).
You could say the same about Apple, Google, MSFT (in its day) or hell, Exxon, Walmart or post-WW2 US. Ya, you have to expend effort innovating and improving; but being first and best means you can sell to the world and be the richest in the world.