Very true. I’ve started talking to older generations about their Socialism Security checks. “That’s different! The government taxes me and then… uses it… to support me when I’m not making money… Oh.”
Lots of people detest socialism until you show them how they’re already benefitting from it. I’m not even really pro-socialism, except in the simplified case where you have a number line with “capitalism” on one end, “communism” on the other, and “socialism” as the range in the middle. I definitely wouldn’t want to live on either end of that spectrum, and a mixed economy where private enterprise handles wants with a government handling needs for those who can’t do it on their own — i.e. socialism — is a reasonable alternative.
Social Security is a really bad example though. It doesn’t support a living wage, and everybody depending on it would have been better off if they could have invested those taxes instead.
I don’t really appreciate being assumed to be a troll just because I’m holding a contrary opinion. That’s very much against the guidelines of this site.
I think if you are the type who is interested in digging up comment history you’ll find plenty of comments from me that show that I’m pretty much a regular person who has respectful conversations.
I apologize if I didn’t follow the popular “corporation bad” narrative. Like, I do recognize that ink is grossly overpriced and all that. At the same time, I don’t really think we are held hostage by printer companies these days. I buy ink once a year or less and it’s not even a laser printer. It isn’t a significant expense or inconvenience.
Sounds a bit disproportionate. If you do that, you better hope the vendor's CEO and your company's CEO are not golfing buddies.
And in my mind, one email alert or pop-up to all current users letting them know the service is going away (in case they had not been told which is as I've said before often the case in large orgs) is very far from the definition of spam.
Conversely, I would not work for a CEO who would block me from doing my job duties. I'm hired to do a job. If I can't do that job, there's no point in being here. Other companies will pay me for my judgment.
If this happened in real life, I'd say "Joe," (because I'm on a first-name basis with the CEO and chat with him daily), "we had to block communications from Tom's company because they're pulling some bonkers stuff. You might let him know that he's pissing off customers right and left and needs to knock it off."
And yes, this is 100% the definition of spam. It's literally unsolicited commercial communication. Sending these mass instructions to flood the local IT admins is an enormous breech of trust.
It’s not cheapness. My kid couldn’t print her homework because I was low on cyan. It’s not that I don’t want to buy more ink, but that the thing I was printing only needed black. If it weren’t a color printer, the output would’ve been identical and it wouldn’t have needed cyan.
Alternatively, the printer allows you to keep going regardless of status of the print ink and then the printer gets bad reviews and complaints about bad print quality.
Your unpreparedness on your kids’ homework isn’t the fault of the manufacturer. I can’t blame Ticonderoga if I run out of pencils.
If you ran out of black ink you’d be similarly in trouble.
> Your unpreparedness on your kids’ homework isn’t the fault of the manufacturer. I can’t blame Ticonderoga if I run out of pencils.
That analogy doesn’t hold up. You have other colour pencils at hand, but you can’t use them because the blue pencil is worn down. Let me use my goshdarn pencils.
Because it has a different ink formulation that’s designed for mono-colored printing.
Let’s make another analogy: two wheels fall off my car. You tell me “hey, motorcycles exist, you can still use that car!!”
But my car isn’t a motorcycle, it’s a car.
If you buy a printer that requires two cartridges to function then you keep both cartridges filled to keep it functioning.
I’ve always felt like this whole discussion has mostly surrounded people who are penny pinching to an extreme level that doesn’t make sense. You didn’t run out of color ink because you never printed in color. And if you never printed in color you wouldn’t have bought a color printer. You’ve gotta refill your color ink eventually.
This is the same thing as people who add water to their liquid hand soap to try and make it last longer. It just makes the soap gross and saves 10 cents at best.
The reason to buy a colour inkjet printer is that it's the cheapest thing you can get your hands on. Usually because the various education systems throughout the world somehow fail to centrally handle printing of course material. Either that, or you're one of the couple of dozen people who prints photos, and additionally in the subset that hasn't also decided to pay for someone else to deal with the cursed product category.
I looked at FileMaker a few years ago because it would’ve been a nice setup for a semi-technical acquaintance. And then I saw its pricing, and we went in a different direction.
Access is a whole package with form designers, widgets, scripting, etc. so that you can build an entire distributable app from it. SQLite's a brilliant little DB but it only covers a tiny portion of what Access does.
I kinda loathe access for any number of reasons, but appreciate the dev tools it put into the hands of non-developers. A great many people who'd be passive users on most systems were able to build apps to meet their business and requirements, and although Access was janky as hell, that's very, very cool. I think it's most spiritually similar to HyperCard on Mac: you wouldn't want to write a whole large app in it, and if you're an experienced developer there are any number of tools you'd rather write programs with. But if you weren't a traditional developer (e.g. an office worker or a student or a home computer enthusiast, etc.) it gave you a pleasant hand-holding process for making your ideas come to life. I respect that.
Gambas was neat. I think we also looked at Kivy at the time, and I think there were a couple of other Python RAD systems that aimed to be similar to VFP in spirit, although not even slightly compatible.
Hey, I got to mention this recently! One of my bizarre claims to fame was writing this little tool[0] a few employers back to convert Visual FoxPro database files to PostgreSQL as part of a migration. For a while we had to run it as a cron job so that people could to data entry in an old VFP app but others could run fast reports on our web app with a postgres backend. It wasn't pretty, but it worked great and helped us get off that ancient stack.
Whenever I see an ad in Apple Maps, I leave a bad review for the advertiser, specifically giving them a thumbs-down in customer service. They are making the service worse for me, the customer. I can dream that this would become common practice such that these ads get the reputation of providing negative value to the companies who buy them.
They urgently need to rip the ads out of the App Store and news, too. One of my "favorite" App Store ads[0] was straight out of a "DARE" program. Nothing like browsing through the store looking for a fun new game to fidget with and stumbling across a PSA that fentanyl can kill you. And Gruber was right[1] about the awful, awful ads in News. It's common to see five articles in a row, each packed with multiple copies of the exact same dumb ad for a young, pretty, AI-looking woman wearing hearing aids.
Apple doesn't care. Most people ignore the ads, which is why Apple can keep adding them to first-party apps without pushback. Rage-protesting ad campaigns probably pumps the Apple ads KPIs.
There will never be a mea culpa from Apple because this has long been their end goal. Tim Cook made it extremely clear that services would be an internal pivot for Apple. It's a lifeline for their quarterly reports, a neverending frontier of captive users that all pay a premium to participate in status games. Apple customers might be the most lucrative advertising audience in the world, all Apple has to do is "protect" them from the bad advertisements and expose curated, trusted promotions that Apple users are sure to love. Then they sell it as part of the trust ecosystem, so that anyone questioning the value of advertisements gets called a malcontent that wants to force Apple users into an wild-west maelstrom of disrespectful, uncurated ads.
This sort of false equivocation "oh-we-can't-fix-it" attitude is how Apple kept their App Store monopoly, and it's how they continue to deny ecosystem integration to respectful alternative software. It's an insult to capable users and the core reason why I had to leave the ecosystem. There is no reason to pay a price premium versus Microsoft if my OEM begs me to Try the new Safari! or Get Three Months of <garbage you don't want> for FREE! My blood pressure goes up just remembering the stupid shit that Microsoft and Apple imposed onto "my" computer.
I mean, News is a collection of newspapers who pretty famously have supported themselves via advertising basically since forever, so complaining about ads in News to me is like complaining that a hamburger combo on a fast food menu includes soda. If you read the news, you get ads is a pretty normal social contract.
Sure, and the App Store is traditionally a place where advertisements appear above top search results. That's a normalized social contract, and it fucking sucks. It's a deliberately misleading design pattern that prioritizes ad sales over user clarity and immediacy. iTunes and Quicktime were never half as scummy as their modern counterparts are.
If you continue down this road of legitimizing user-hostile design, you will sacrifice everything you love about Apple. It's a Procrustean bed upon which good apps are hammered into service revenue.
The “Apple only does X better because they do Y” thing has been a meme for ages. I remember dismissals like “PowerPC is only faster at math because it has more integer units” or something along those lines, and thinking, uh, isn’t that a good thing?
There's a qualitative difference between "they're doing a different thing" and "they're doing the same thing, tuned differently". GP is saying that this is a case of "they just tuned it differently".
This distinction doesn't change what the performance numbers look like today, but it does inform what changes would be necessary for those numbers to look different tomorrow. E.g. Apple Silicon isn't fundamentally orders of magnitude more efficient than x86, they just used smaller features. Newer Intel and AMD chips made on equivalent processes _also_ get similar efficiency gains.
There are AMD and Intel devices on similar process (not talking about A20Pro or M6 which are set to ship later this week), and they do not get the same gains.
And honestly, they have historically had different markets.
When the design is for only one customer, you don't need to generalize things, and those things you generalize to give different customers different options has costs.
AMD will soon be a larger customer for TSMC than Apple (NVIDIA is already there) so Apple's pre-booking new processes is likely to be gone in the near future.
I am just saying it's not magic and x86 is capable of doing the same. Quad channel memory used to be more common in consumer hardware but now it looks like you don't even have the option anymore for desktops. AMD's Strix Halo was the first sign to reversing that (it has quad channel memory!) and hopefully we see more of that in the future.
AMD does market segmentation and limits consumer chips to dual-channel. You need to cough up the dough and get Threadripper for quad-channel. Or even more for Threadripper Pro to get octa-channel.
Kind of but not really. DDR5 splits your typical 64-bit channel into two 32-bit subchannels meaning the bus width is not increased. These subchannels are not always advertised because it's a just a feature of DDR5. Actually adding more channels increases bus width, which is what meaningfully improves memory bandwidth.
Confession: Whenever I hear an American say "an historic...", pronouncing the "h", I roll my eyes at the pretense. That's the only word I think I've ever heard someone swap in "an" for "a" before a pronounced consonant.
Now, if they used the British-style "an 'istoric event", that's fine. In American we don't pronounce the "h" in "herb", so someone here saying "an herb garden" would follow the rule correctly and sound normal.
But "history" with the full "h"? To me it screams "this person memorizes without understanding", or at least "this person desperately wants to sound posh but fails". It's the verbal equivalent of wearing a polo shirt with a giant logo, imagining if a tiny one is fancy, then an enormous one must surely be exactly what rich people would wear.
thanks for the confession, you are simply guilty of ignorance. I on the other hand am guilty of thinking the English and the French both sound pretentious about pretty much everything: they are both always judging people.
including "The Google Ngram Viewer provides an interesting look at the progress of “an historic” vs “a historic.” In 1800, “a historic” barely shows. It begins its rise in the 1820s. In 1869, “a historic” is neck and neck with “an historic.” The two travel along fairly close together until the First World War when “an historic” pulls ahead and dominates until 1938. After that, “a historic” becomes the clear winner, although “an historic” and “an historical” remain in use. Here are two recent examples of the use of “an historical” in the context of educated English..."
> Style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style, The AP Stylebook, and The Penguin Writer’s Manual regard the following as correct in modern usage:
“a historical event”
“a historic event.”
If you don’t pronounce the h, “an” is the clear winner. Now that most people do in America, “a” is the obviously correct spelling.
I feel the same way about "an homage". The H is normally pronounced on "homage" - for example, you would not say "pay homage to" with the faux-French pronunciation. So you therefore would say "a homage". It sounds so pretentious when people pronounce it the other way.
Lots of people detest socialism until you show them how they’re already benefitting from it. I’m not even really pro-socialism, except in the simplified case where you have a number line with “capitalism” on one end, “communism” on the other, and “socialism” as the range in the middle. I definitely wouldn’t want to live on either end of that spectrum, and a mixed economy where private enterprise handles wants with a government handling needs for those who can’t do it on their own — i.e. socialism — is a reasonable alternative.
reply