This sounds more like a case where you need a “break-the-glass” like procedure where some checks don’t apply. Or the checks should be non blocking anyway.
Some images are only available for amd64 still. Like oracle databases. Even if there is an arm64 of a recent version of the app, it may not exist for older versions that you want to test against.
It is my experience that it is easier to create good quality things as an individual than as a team. Especially for the core of a product. Also look at Asahi.
However, to really finish/polish a product you need a larger group of people. To get the UI just right, to get the documentation right, to advocate the product, to support it.
It is easily possible to have 10 people working on the team and only having a single core person. Then find someone to act as product manager while as the core person you can focus on the core of the product while still setting the direction without having to chase all the other work.
It is possible, but not easy to set up in most organisations. You need a lot of individual credit/authority and/or the business case needs to be very evident.
This sounds amazing. But first you say you have been wanting to make diamond blades only to be put off from it by the concern about flaking very sharp micro particles and then proceed that you have made one and cook with it. Aren’t you concerned about the flakes?
Having made diamond cutting tools, Diamond is brittle. It will definitely flake and fracture. It sounds cooler than using cbn though I guess.
In the end if you want something usable you have to match application to material. There is nothing that is good for everything. I would not use diamond for knives except for fun.
Teflon is not very wear resistant itself either. It is very easy to abrade, so seems weird to put it on a knife (the low coefficient of friction is the only thing that protects it)
Market actors are allowed to charge whatever they want. Price controls are super bad. It's not the role of the state to mandate a specific price. It is the role of the state to make sure prices are fair and transparent. Deception cannot be tolerated in an efficient market.
No, the reason they tack on the fee as a "tax" is literally to confuse and otherwise mislead the public to the true cost of the product they're buying, or mislead where the money is directed. they're buying from. If you believe in the Tennant's of capitalism at all, then you must have clear price representation.
Isn't Airbnb a good example of this? In some locations you have to open each listing to get the true price and it's a huge waste of time. In locations, what you see on the map is the real value, cleaning and other, fees included.
I wish sales taxes would be added - some cities charge very large taxes on hotel rooms and so it might be worth staying in a hotel not far away with more reasonable taxes.
And that comparison is important - when junk fees are allowed more honest companies suffer because consumers might shop around and end up choosing the option that is actually more expensive. Those consumers might be on page 12/13 of a form and just accept the fee to avoid the hassle - or they may assume everyone (including what looked like a more expensive competitor) is baking the fees in late in the process and not bother investigating deeper.
Yes it has. And documents created with it have a distinct recognisable look which is instantly recognisable to others that also use it. This goes to the in-group/out-group argument of the GP.
I agree about the recognizable look and its subtle second-order effects, but using LaTex as the typical in-group/out-group example is problematic when its use is a precondition for achieving a workable outcome.
Its like saying that carpenters are using their toolkit to merely signal professionalism.
In fact the same ambiguity applies to in certain cases to the original post (see my other comment). If people are forced to use a certain communication technology / form by technical or legal reasons then this is not a good example of in-group/out-group. Such examples are much better served by discretionary choices.
Intel has been hitting all (or enough of) the right notes for about 30 years. In our industry (perhaps everywhere) we have a constant tension between optimising in the current direction and do the same thing but better (CPU
general, x86 specifically) and trying another approach. This has to be managed while the world around you changes requiring you to pivot into perhaps a completely different direction.
CPUs are still relevant. And x86 can still provide a lot of value and iterate forward. AMD has spent 20 years getting to the front. It is the short term vision that is killing Intel.
AI accelerators are going to be useful and valuable until the point they are commoditised just like CPU. Until then someone (Nvidia) will gain a lot of profit. They used this money to buy their way into the datacenter with companies like mellanox. Nvidia will be on top for a while. And then the cycle continues and we will see a new company on top.
In terms of performance, AMD spent around 10 getting to the front, 2-3 in front, then another 10 getting back in front. However until the introduction of Ryzen (and really EPYC) AMD hadn't been able to make substantial inroads into the market.
Laptops using AMD CPUs are at their most available and they're still lucky to be 20% of any given manufacturer's SKUs.
Intel has an opportunity to reclaim some of those areas with their more power efficient chips, but both they and AMD are facing more competition from non-x86 manufacturers than ever, and that competition is likely only to grow.
Apple's CPUs seemed to be a product of engineering without concern for backwards compatibility, e.g.: analyze current software, make the CPU do those things well. I wonder what Intel could produce if they came at a new line of processors with the same mindset, though that would require engineers to be in charge of the company again.
Itanium was designed to be diferente for difference sake to build a most using patents to prevent competition/commoditization with a pinch of the second-system effect thrown in.
What is needed is a sober look and re-engineering.
reply