You should seriously watch the three part video Kurzgesast did on nuclear. You need a slightly more balanced view on the issue.
You should seriously watch the three part video Kurzgesast did on nuclear. You need a slightly more balanced view on the issue.
Didn't someone once say something about sealed hoods? Comparison to Microsoft... Something, something... I must not be remembering all the details correctly because Google isn't returning anything on my search queries. If I remember correctly it wasn't someone predicting something but more like a jab at how Microsoft was running their company. For some reason, all that just felt appropriate here. But I could be remembering it all wrong and I'll take the down vote to hell for my lack of recall.
It's not a question of, "if you still need them." You do still need them, just need fewer of them. I can't speak for all the other parts but I can speak for the coding part. There's just too many things to list that's made making programs way easier today. Heck, even some of our engineers will do up BPMN and we'll just take it and run it through a processor to produce a lot of the skeletons.
I know off-topic, but you can do this in Firefox via an about:config setting called media.autoplay.enabled. Setting the value to false kills auto-play for everything.
What would be great is if website's allowed a white list for auto-play and banned everything else from auto-playing. And I mean it in the sense that "by default" or at the very least "built in", yes extensions are great but a browser packing something in indicates that they actually care about whatever it is they are packing in. Mozilla brought us pop-up blocker packed into the browser and eventually pop-ups died off because everyone hated them greatly. I would argue that video auto-play is the modern pop-up. Browsers should have "built in" methods to stop it. Browsers should indicated that they care about their users by listening to one of the biggest pain points about being on the web.
Okay I'll admit, I've heard this before. However, and this just may be me, I've not had a problem with my pair of bluetooth headphones sitting here on my desk. My Moto X and my laptop both are paired to the headphones, but they usually figure out between the two of them who needs to be in control. So I throw my hands up and say, black magic, but apparently I've got some magical setup that avoids this for some reason.
But from what I've heard and seen with co-workers and what not, I'm apparently the 0.000001% case here of a seamless case.
If anything I think it's the timing of the layoffs. Typically going into October, you should delay massive layoffs till January as you start running into the holidays. If you just have to by Q4, then at least offer some job assistance, letters of recommendation, etc to help them place as quickly as possible. Still though its hard to be mad at how small a cut this is for a merger with companies of this size.
get rid of the drivers and their cars and move to their own self driven vehicles
This is the thing that a lot of people quote as being the thing that will help Uber turn the corner but if anything it'll make turning a profit that much more difficult. As it currently stands Uber is deferring a lot of business costs to drivers. Things like equipment, insurance, fuel, repair, and so on. When they have their own fleet of self driving cars, they take on all of those things that they haven't been paying for. Not only that, depending on the regulation a state/city might have for self driving cars, there might be a very high cost associated with self driving taxis. Yes, Philadelphia is all too happy to jump on, but that's because of the novelty. Years from now when it goes mundane, I'm pretty sure governments will be less affable to companies wanting to have a lot of self driving autos crowding their streets wearing down their roads. Switching over to self driving isn't going to be this panacea that allows them to go crazy insane profitable, there's a lot of costs involved and Uber will have to switch (or pivot since that's the fun word this season) from being just a purely service based company to a more complex company altogether. Pair with that, the ever evolving attitude of governments that will ultimately wane as time marches on, with ever increasing expectations from locals. If they don't have that mental change happen early in the game as they go self driving, they won't last long. I've seen tons of companies try automation and them not fully understanding what they're getting into is a killer (worst case)/hindrance (best case) for most of them.
I'll add this, what Uber wants to do is of a scale that I've never dealt with personally, so something this large might have totally different challenges and I'm just talking out my butt. So that said, take all the above with grains of salt. But I do think that those are rationale challenges that they're going to run into down the road which will prevent them from being insta-profitable the second a robot hits the street.
Define component then.
Scripts might have not been a single monolith, but they sure functionally acted as one. Most admins tossed crap in rc.local because touching the actual init scripts was playing with black magic.
You can make write a single object file to do one thing and do it well. You can then take several other one thing done well object files and compile them into a library of really useful stuff. Does this act of compiling them all into a single thing suddenly break the one thing done well ethos of the objects within? So this whole thing of one thing done well, is just people cutting arbitrary lines in sand.
systemd fails in that department; just look at a few of the thousands of bug reports against it.
That's a ridiculous metric. The project is a very large one and projects of similar size have large amounts of bug reports as well.
Very frequently, if the designer decomposed it well, the nature of the failure will make it pretty obvious which part is failing.
Which is why we dumped scripts, trying to make heads of tails of where a change went wrong took an inordinate amount of time of swimming through script after script to see where the one thing that was supposed to be done, didn't happen. The very arguments that you've used against systemd are the exact same ones leveled against the very thing that everyone seems so damn certain to want to go back to. I'm just fully convinced at this point that haters going to hate and that's all there is to it.
Yes it does have systemd and here's the person who made that call on Reddit saying why he made that call.
Also we have three out of six digits in common in our user IDs, that doesn't happen often for me and I have issues because that's the first thing I noticed about your comment. Cheers!
The greatly depends on who your local service provider is. The Washington state and Oregon providers seem to be more relaxed on the encryption than anyone else. The type of encryption is called 5C and basically your local provider is the one who turns it on or off by show, channel, time slot, etc..
I don't argue your point per se, but I will add that I agree with the person from the Copyright office. Here's my rub on it though. There's those third parties that play nice and we love them, but then there's the others and what-not that are trying to build a company and make massive money with other people's copyright.
I totally agree with the idea of making a backup copy, I disagree with some dude making millions on exploiting that idea to the fullest extent. If third party boxes became a thing, I just imagine that 99% of them would be 1% popular and play nice. 1% would be 99% popular and try to nickel and dime everyone for "features" based around content that's copyrighted. I don't have any kind of problem with the first group, however, it's always the second group that comes and ruins it for everyone and tries to call it capitalism, freedom, fighting the man or whatever...
Based on that, I would say the Copyright office is doing something we're all asking government to actually do and be proactive. The FCC really needs to head back to the drawing board on this, they've got a great idea, it's just massively flawed and they just need to iron those out. And yes, I'm pretty sure that no matter how good the FCC makes the rules, the cable companies will be there to ruin the party.
it's tragic what burning man has to pay for permits now, especially when it takes place on land that supposedly belongs to all of us.
That is because Burning Man treats the land like it is theirs and theirs alone. That event is mostly the "man" and long left whatever it once stood for. Now it's just a way for 20-30 somethings to burn through mad amounts of cash, all while feeling like they're somehow counter cultural. When the event is over the land looks and smells like human waste and takes an insane amount of resources to reclaim, clean, and restore it to some remote resemblance of what state it use to be in. If there's anything tragic about Burning Man, it's what it has become.
Being a Mac and Linux user for sometime, I like working on my Mac but it is not my "go to" system and macOS will ensure that it stays that way. So a disclaimer, I am a programmer, so the majority of my work is not Photoshop or whatever grade A software everyone touts about as working perfectly on Mac. Compilers and mostly command line and IDE tools are what I mostly work with and things like Eclipse, Atom, and so on work pretty well across platforms. So I do get real work done on either platform. I get that's not the majority of users but at the same time I am not going to be able to relate to all the crazies out there that are like, "ZOMG, Linux has no Photoshop, you CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!11!111one1111!!!!". What kind of work I get done on each platform is not the point I am going to be going for though if you bear with me for a bit.
Mac and its ecosystem are nice, but that is also the catch. A lot of the new features with macOS talk about how seamlessly it works for iPhone, iPad, Apple watch, and so on. In other words, those features don't exist unless you have those things. Additionally, you don't get cloud integration unless you are using their cloud. That's 5GB free and the pricing while reasonable does mean that you need to pay that per month/year to access that feature built into the OS as well. Also, the notes, calendar (to a lesser extent), mail (again to a lesser extent), maps, photo, and on and on applications only work well so long as you use that application. You can transfer your stuff from Evernote to Apple's notes, but you can only use Apple's notes on Apple's stuff. Using Evernote or some other program works across platforms but it's not "optimize" or doesn't integrate well into the OS. And there's several other examples where it's Apple's ecosystem or a less than ideal experience or just some features of the OS just don't happen.
And that's what ultimately puts me off from Apple as the "go to" system, why am I buying (which I only did once and man my Apple has been kicking for quite some years now) this hardware and OS for features I'll never get to use unless I get deeper into the ecosystem? Perhaps if I already had an iPhone (I don't) or an Apple Watch (I'm an old fuddy duddy who likes ticking watches still) some of this would make more sense. But I'm not that person and maybe it is just me but I do not feel like I should have to be that type of person in order to get all the features from my hardware/OS. I get that macOS does "more" in a sense than say my Linux box, but I get 100% of my Linux box and maybe that biases me toward it more often than not for things like gaming, programming, and just randomly looking at cat videos on the Internet. The Mac is nice, but I'm never going to use notes or photos the way Apple wants me to use them because I am just not going to go that deep into their ecosystem.
So all that said, seeing macOS tout more/tighter integration of their ecosystem and hardware into the mix of their OS is just off putting to me, and that may only extend as far as me for all it is worth. I get that this is the way things are moving, until they stop moving in that direction one day. However, I just don't see the justification for the cost of getting everything Apple just to get those features. I have an Android phone and use Dropbox for files, whatever the thing is with Google for photos and what-not, and my music comes from Amazon/Google/Apple depending on whatever I'm signed into at the time I decide to buy something. Netflix and HBO have mostly supplanted my need for videos (maybe I'm just tired of the stuff that comes out now a days). All of that works pretty well across whatever devices I use, so there's even less reason to just drop everything and move to Apple. That brings me to the point, macOS is really built for people who aren't in any ecosystem right now or people who are already Mac deep. It's not bringing anything that says to people Android/Linux/Windows entrenched, "Hey this is something you'd drop who you have now for us!" And that's a shame because they could honestly do something that would entice folks to make the jump but they're making their garden walls so high, that the bar is getting harder and harder to cross. That's my take on all of this and I get that it is not a universally felt take, but I do hope that it somewhat resonates with some who like their Macs but become disenchanted by the ever increasing trend for Apple to make users go all in.
Shock and surprise, I'm going to try and be helpful. I don't know who I am anymore.
Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it.