Apple refuses to remove things without clear replacements, for better or more often worse.
The 6k XDR has been replaced, apparently they've got something coming for the Mac Pro. I don't know why it wasn't the Mac Studio update last year. Maybe we find out at WWDC this year.
> Replacing human hesitation with machine confidence removes the one safeguard that has prevented nuclear war since 1945. Until militaries implement documented human authorisation...we are blindly automating our own destruction
In the scenario described there literally is a human in the loop: the president is a human?
> You end up working for shitty Fortune 500 company, work on useless/mindless shit, grind for 8 hrs, collect paycheck, eat, sleep, and repeat.
I used to think like this but what if it isn't the case? Maybe the market is making the right decisions after all? Maybe contributing a tiny amount to a successful business really is worth more to society than contributing a huge amount to a project with barely any customers, and that's why we get paid more working for large companies?
(Not suggesting OP's projects have barely any customers, I am more talking about my own forays into small business.)
I'm obviously biased as a small business owner, but I think that logic assumes that the market is perfectly efficient, when it obviously isn't. Large companies have massive advantages in so many dimensions.
As a simple example, imagine that I built a site for buying ebooks that's better in every way than Amazon. I pay authors more, readers pay less, the ebooks are compatible with every device, and it's easier for both authors and readers to use my site than Amazon. I still probably couldn't survive against Amazon because they'd tell their authors that if they sell with me, they can't sell on Amazon.[0] They have such a market dominance that authors would lose money by using my platform, even if it's a demonstrably better product in every way with better pricing.
But it goes beyond that. Big businesses have all these other huge advantages so that they can succeed not because they're offering the most value but because they have a pre-existing advantageous market position:
- It's a small percentage of their costs to hire attorneys to look for tax loopholes
- They can manage the overhead of abusing the H1B visa system to hire workers at below-market rates
- They can sue people and get sued and still have 98% of their employees not paying attention to any lawsuits
- They can afford to sell things at a loss just to choke out smaller competitors
Look at trillion dollar industries where 95% of money goes to just 2-3 companies. The iOS/Android duopoly, the Visa/Mastercard duopoly. Do they control the market because they're just so great at offering value? Or does their market position and terrible government policy prevent anyone from competing with them effectively and offering consumers better choices?
I skimmed the pdf; they show a model where having such an early "filter" is beneficial to the scammer, but doesn't provide any actual evidence that it applies in reality beyond restating the just-so story.
> Can anyone recommend a music discovery service that isn't garbage?
I enjoy using last.fm, although it's not their focus these days. Sign up, connect it to Spotify or whatever you use (incl. a long list of players of local music), after a day or so it'll learn what you like and you can create playlists with suggestions and export them, or browser around recommended artists etc.
> As I dug deeper into these feelings, I realized I was feeling pressured. Except they're not saying this, I am.
That's a great insight.
Once you've realized that, I think the best thing to do is to talk to the person whose pressure you imagine. Then you can find out what they're really thinking. Perhaps they really are thinking that (in which case the pressure is real and you can act on it) or they aren't (hearing them say that will alleviate the pressure).
Once when freelancing I asked a customer what they liked and disliked about my work. They had previously seemed happy with me, so I was pretty sure I know what they'd say. I believed I wrote good stable software. What they actually said was they were a small company, and they had had previous developers who, when there were server problems etc., just shrugged and said they didn't know how to fix it. They felt I wasn't like that, that I'd sit there and get it fixed, call up friends if necessary, etc. So yeah, they were happy, but not for the reason I'd imagined.
So my learning was: So you always have to talk to people to find out what they think. You really can't guess.
Interesting. Yeah I did think maybe this could be solved by more tooling. But at my place it work it isn’t, at least at the moment. Perhaps I could change that.
Do you have any info on what I could use to make the command-line “git diff” and “git rebase” handle this style of formatting? Ideally so the latter merges and produces code which matches “gofmt” output?
On the other hand I suppose my point is that even if there were such tooling, using style of formatting doesn’t offer enough (any?) benefit to justify the effort of introducing the tooling.
Context matters, but this what I would do (and I always apply when landing in a project, own or client, that has no documented or enforced code style):
1/ always have pre-commit hooks running lint/fmt, and document how to implement them in a common fashion in the team,
2/ strive to follow the language conventions (and if not, have those divergences explicitly defined in the linter/formatter tool configuration), this helps the team to align with it,
3/ having a job server-side that blocks merging PRs that do not pass both of these steps.
But that doesn't help when you do "git rebase" and there's a large conflict which you have to resolve manually, caused by two people changing different lines, and one or both of those lines caused the formatting of the whole block to change. That's the source of my frustration.
On the other hand this is the company that sells a Mac Pro for $7k and it comes with an M2-based chip...
reply