I wake up every morning and thank God I am not working on or near Microsoft code. There is nothing about this code or anything about this story that is in any way sensible or pleasing. Take a simple, well-solved problem. Forgot all prior solutions. Solve it badly, with bad systems and bad ideas. Write the code in the ugliest, most opaque, most brittle and fragile manner imaginable. Now sit back and enjoy the satisfaction of getting to debug and resolve problems that never should have happened in the first place. The miracle is that Microsoft, built as it is to such a degree on this kind of trashy thinking and trashy source, still makes its annual billions. That right there is the power of incumbents.
Yes, as other commenters have said, this game is a great example of the design error where the tutorial careful prepares the player for not-this-game. There’s another game out there somewhere that the tutorial has made us competent to play. Meanwhile we need a different tutorial for this game.
You’ve drawn a false dichotomy. It is possible both for the existing system to be full of waste and for the process of shining the sun onto “blight” (good word) to raise significant, even catastrophic, security concerns with lasting implications. Bad + bad doesn’t necessarily = good.
Am I wrong in thinking that the visual below “Finally with 5 the self-similarity continues as expected” is wrong? I’m thinking that the second-to-right and rightmost subtrees need to be larger, to have a sequence of four and five nodes respectively in their rightmost branches.
The clickbaity title is misleading. The article does not argue that monkeys have a strong election prediction ability. It merely argues that there is some gentle correlation between monkey gaze behavior and election outcomes. That’s not surprising. Almost any reasonable hypothesized factor—number of letters in candidate’s name, for example—will have some correlation. The title and tone of the article are overblown.
There is one other analysis that would, I suspect, adjust the OP’s conclusions: age. Hypothesis: sitters vs standers, and other measures of the quality of the job (danger, flexibility…) correlate substantially with the age of the worker. As you go from your teens to 20s to 30s and beyond you tend on average to get better jobs. It’s not absolute, but I bet it’s a very strong trend, perhaps stronger than racial factors. That’s a hypothesis I wish this analysis examined.
They were too busy making weird barely coherent points like "someday it will be too hot to venture outside" and "America is rich because of black people and the Chinese."
Source? The two claims you listed have some elements of truth behind them, so without seeing the exact claim made, it's impossible to tell whether you're giving an uncharitable summary, or they're actually making absurd claims.
>Standers are more likely to be exposed to the outdoors—something that will become more and more dangerous as our planet warms.
and
>America got rich selling cotton picked by enslaved Black people. America built the Transcontinental Railroad with Chinese immigrant labor, only to ban Chinese immigration a few decades later. And America feeds itself with animals killed and processed by Black and Hispanic meatpackers.
? If so, I'm not sure how either of those points are "barely coherent", and the characterization made by the gp is a gross misrepresentation of site's claims.
The main message I take from this story is that a decent quorum of consumers want Apple to offer a smaller phone in each generation. The OP seems not to have minded having to upgrade eventually, just not to a “virtual tablet.” I’ve heard others express the same desire.
+1 for the 13 mini if form factor is your primary concern (and given the sizes of even the 'small' mobile phone offerings of recent years I completely understand why that would be).
I upgraded an eight year old SE (first generation) to an SE3 thinking it would be the obvious choice, then promptly replaced it with the 13 mini within a week (fortunately still available at the time).
The difference is small on paper but noticable in your hands, and I honestly feel like the 13 mini is the spiritual successor to the SE series while the SE3 is a weird relative that you don't really want to have to interact with.
For some reason the slightly more boxy and grip friendly design of the SE1 and SE2 was changed in the SE3 to have the curves that were introduced in (I think?) the iPhone 6, despite the SE series having a slightly more square design up to that point. But the SE3 also inherited the lower raw technical specs that were expected from the SE series.
So somehow the 13 mini wins in terms of both form factor _and_ tech capabilities/new Apple features (such as Face ID over Touch ID).
The problem with the 13 mini is it's lack of touchid. it's fine otherwise and I'd pick one up in a heartbeat if it did, but it doesn't, so I won't. really waiting to see how the SE4 goes. I'm. envious of some of android's devices and features, the main thing keeping me locked into apple's ecosystem is iMessage.
Agree, Touch ID is the one thing I still really miss from the SE. Face ID is usually not an issue, but there are always cases that result in more friction than with Touch ID.
Sometimes you don't quite catch it at the right angle (and sometimes it sees you when you're not even looking), and other times you just don't quite have enough fave visible for it to work (for me usually when I'm doomscrolling in bed with my face squished into a pillow, so maybe that's a sign).
Yea I really want the iPad Air 4th gen TouchID on the power button which would keep the screen layout and size but still have the security of a fingerprint.
The only, only reason I ever buy anything but the smallest phone they offer is because the best cameras are never on the smallest devices. The extra size is pure down-side for me, and I don't really give a shit about slightly faster processors or what have you (I hardly burden the low-end ones), but I do find when looking back at older photos I always appreciate when I've had better cameras, so I hesitate to go too low-end on those.
I'd pay about the same (or maybe even exactly the same, but feel a little annoyed about it) for a small Apple phone with the same camera as the expensive big models.
I choose the cheapest technically up-to-date one. I really don't care about the camera, the gap between generation is mostly not interesting. Actually the only reason I had to replace the last one is that Apple stopped supporting it with the latest iOS...
I'd be scared to break the thing: it is so big and directly connected. It wouldn't fit into a pocket anyway...
Also I wouldn't choose one with a lightning connector, better with a USB-C (or A) female port, so I could also use it for some other devices too if necessary.
The impression I get is that these consumers who want a smaller phone are a very loud minority. They also often seem to overlap with the set of consumers who are extremely cheap. To Apple they are just bad customers who they will always have a hard time making money from -- not super worth catering to.
> they are just bad customers who they will always have a hard time making money from
The iPhone 12 mini still ended as one of the top 10 smartphone models sold in January 2021.[0]
There was also a new iPhone SE model that was half the price and roughly the same size. I wouldn't be surprised that most decided the iPhone SE was a better deal at the time. In fact, the iPhone 11 and iPhone SE were the top-selling iPhone models of 2020.[1]
Both of those sources paint the picture GP was telling. For 2020 the iPhone SE sells 2nd place in unit count... nearly tied with a unit that was out for 6 fewer months that year with twice the ASP. Nearly 1/3 the sales of the previous generation model that year. Same for the top 10 best selling models in Jan 2021, combine both the iPhone SE 2020 and iPhone 12 Mini and you've got the monthly sale volume of the previous generation iPhone 11 at half the sale price and 2 models worth of R&D. This data for a the year after a slump of smaller models not being available.
If this was OnePlus or someone those would be decent numbers. The problem is they are Apple, they already held the top 4 spots by significantly larger margin with premium devices. Building low cost devices to only make 8th and 10th place with them isn't necessarily a win for them. They can just cut margin on the older versions of the popular models if they want to capture that price point without stifling their focus on their new products each year.
The way people talk about smaller phones around here you'd expect the 2020 model was outselling new models through this day and the masses were waiting with bated breath for updates. Truth is there is just a smaller portion of the market that actually wants such phones when it comes time to upgrade but you here from them more often because they are one of the least common and least valuable segments of the market to try to service.
I also suspect that (at least on HN), the loud minority are heavy users of laptops and desktops. For the average person who has an old laptop for writing reports for school, or a crappy locked down laptop from their job, the phone is their main computing interface, so they want it to be bigger and nicer.
I would gladly pay a bit more for a phone with a more manageable form factor and if I could be so lucky a battery life that's more than two days. Sadly it seems like I have to pay more for a product I want _less_, just because the demand for large form factor phones is high enough for Apple to consider just not bothering with. I understand market supply and demand, but eh...
Funny how the German word for mobile phones exactly what most modern mobile phones aren't. Handy.
I was going thru a box of old things the other day and came upon an old iPhone 4. God, what a beautiful device. In my opinion, the peak of iPhone design. I would love to have a phone that small again.
I felt like 3GS was the best form-factor. Fits so nicely in the hand and you can reach almost the entire screen with your thumb while holding it (more or less). I wish I could have just kept using that forever.
I'm not clear where that read comes from? There is a single mention of "veritable tablets" in this post, and I'm not at all seeing this backed up with any evidence of latent demand?
The author appears to be someone who gets angry or very annoyed when he does not get his way. The author may also just not like change. Basically, he is upset he had to buy a new phone after 6 years and the new phone was different from his old phone. I do not think his behavior is productive or helpful.
Which, to be fair and clear, there is nothing wrong with getting upset about having to upgrade. Nothing wrong with complaining. Sometimes, can probably be good?
I'm just confused as this article doesn't even try to present this as a latent demand from others. Such that I don't understand the opening comment. Reminds me hearing folks complain about bad pockets in formal wear. Is largely a true statement, but I think it is also clear that the demand does not exist for it. Despite how vocal some people can be.
1. The article outright states that hes not pissed at Apple for 'only' supporting the phone for 6 years.
I read that criticism as aimed at the software developers withdrawing support for older OS versions.
I read the article more as a lament, rather than angry or annoyed. The author had a perfectly usable phone that he was forced from due to external factors, and the replacement doesn't improve upon its predecessor.
And really "every other generation" would be pretty nice too. An actually small phone, actually supported for a few years (included in the guidelines for app writers and to remind web page designers that this exists). We could live with "every other generation".
That would be better than "Eh, we don't believe in it anyway" kind of reluctance.
I'd be happy with a new mini even every third generation. My 12 mini is still great except for the battery life (even after getting a new battery less than a year ago).
I’m missing something. Why would privately propagating an endangered plant be any kind of theft, crime, or immoral action? I get that cutting or tearing off a piece of someone’s plant is wrong, but if the plant has dropped a piece that can be propagated, where is the harm in taking it?
No, you have it right, but you're missing human nature.
If there are a lot of people who want to propagate a rare plant... especially easily accessible ones in open-to-the-public gardens... not all people will wait for a leaf to fall.
Also, if you're in a private place (such as a plant nursery or a supermarket), you don't have a right to a dropped piece - everything of the shop belongs to the shop, even if you think they'll treat it as rubbish. If a bolt falls out of the display racks, you can't just say "ooh, free bolt on the floor, I'm keeping it", you know?
My partner works at a botanic gardens and they have to deal with this a lot.
For most plants, taking discarded material would be fine, but they have some rare plants that are subject to international diplomatic agreements - to paraphrase, "we will give you a specimen of this plant, usually in exchange for some other favour, but only you may grow it". If those get loose, it can spark an incident and potentially cause that international cooperation to cease.
These kinds of agreements sometimes happen for countries where previous expeditions have taken commercially valuable crops home and built an industry around them - e.g. the British stealing rubber tree seeds from Brazil in 1876, in order to set up competing plantations in south-east Asia.
And of course it's difficult to know which plants are covered by something like that, unless you're very up on your international botanical politics and are extremely good at telling similar species apart.
Picking stuff up off the ground works for a tiny minority of plants, mostly succulents. Most aroid plants (read: popular tropical houseplants) needs a growth “node” to propagate, and it would be very strange for it to somehow detach a node on its own and still have that node be alive and propagateable.
AFAIK — I’ve stolen many a cutting from my apartment complex (like, 3) but never tried roaming Home Depot.
Also the whole “endangered” bit is just distraction, IMO. Even if these plants were endangered, why do we care about them in particular…? Just because they’re pretty? They’re native to islands in Southeast Asia, I don’t think anything we do to plants in America will change their status — other than supporting poaching industries ofc, which is also a fascinating problem in the aquarium/fish community.
Which can introduce fungal infections, especially if you don't clean your tools beforehand. It would be tragic to take a cutting from someone's plant and then the original plant dies. It's even more tragic if it's a botanical garden where they're trying to preserve some of the plants for everyone to appreciate.
It is, however, possible to patent genetic modifications in the UK (and the EU), and for the duration of the patent, require anyone growing plants produced from those modifications to buy a (compulsary) license from you.
There are packs of grapes with that text printed on the packaging. The same goes for some flowers in pots you can buy where it's printed on the label. I doubt any court of law would consider that legally binding.
The same thing happens in the US. There's a court case where someone put a EULA inside of a CD packaging and made opening the CD sufficient to trigger the EULA. They won, making that an acceptable easy to force a license on someone
1. There was a notice on the outside of the box saying that use of the product was subject to an EULA. Zeidenberg was not bound by that.
2. Zeidenberg opened the box, opened the CD case, put the CD in the drive and ran the software installer on the CD, which presented him with the full EULA and the opportunity to agree to it, or the opportunity to cancel and return the software for a refund. He clicked "Agree" to that.
It was the clicking "Agree" after having a chance to review the EULA that bound him to it, not opening the packaging.
Also, if he was not offered the opportunity to disagree and return the software, it would not be binding.
It's unlikely it will ever be legal to claiming someone's actions before they've been presented the full license text count as assent to said license.
It depends on the software. It's very much like coupons too with their "participating retailers only" clauses, there will be provision for that in the contract between the distributor and the retailer. If the software says you should return it, there'll have be some agreement to allow that, either directly to the retailer or indirectly to the software vendor.
It is insane. But it leaves the question: why are companies doing it? They must believe it’s working for them, or they’d change it. God knows companies are motivated to hire good people. Maybe someone in HR or even a technical manager in one of these companies can answer: on what theory are these processes believed to be effective?
I suspect the answer is that so many people are looking for work, that these unicorns and incredibly desperate people willing to go through 10+ stages of interviews do actually exist in this market.
There are probably at least a few ex senior/staff level FAANG employees desperate enough for work that they're applying to these roles, and a few people with enough invested in their life that a 10 stage interview is seen as worth it to avoid losing the house.
So for these companies, the small chance they might actually get their magical unicorn engineers is enough of an incentive to shoot for the moon and see what happens.
Alternatively, the process isn't working, but they're too stubborn to admit it. I still see many of the same jobs I applied for 6 months ago hanging around on LinkedIn/Indeed/Reed/Otta/WellFound/whatever with no evidence they've filled the position. Maybe if they cut the requirements down, trimmed down the interview process, offered remote work or provided more reasonable take home tests they might actually find someone before 2028.
