I mean during ww2 civilians and supply chains were bombed to hell and back.
now this is a "small", "far away" war, so killing civilians isn't expected, but for them a supplier of agricultural products is feeding the soldiers that will be stomping their heads if this keeps escalating.
I'm not justifying anyone here, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it sounds when we try to define a set of rules to kill each other and then say they are violating them, when we know that the good guys bombed whole cities to the ground, and will bomb whole cities to the ground, when it matters.
there's so much hate in the region that this stuff will only end one way, and I personally don't want to see Iran winning this, but let's call war by it's name.
How should the Israelis be expected to respond if Iran starts deliberately killing large numbers of civilians? You only have to follow the laws of war if your enemy is making an attempt to follow them.
Not at any given time, though. It's okay for Iran to kill Israeli children because they may some day serve in the IDF? Then I guess it's okay for the Israelis to carpet bomb Iranian cities?
my tinfoil hat theory is that they make small features depend on new hardware.
for example, let's say the new os depends on m5's exclusive thumbnail generator accelerator, and let's say it improves speed by a 20%.
now, your M1 notebook than on previous OSes uses standard gpu acceleration for thumbnails will not have this specialized hardware acceleration, it will have software fallback that will be 90% slower.
you won't notice it a first thought because it's stuff, fast, but it eats a bit of the processor.
multiply this by 1000 features and you have a slow machine.
I don't know how else to explain how an ipad pro cannot even scroll a menu without stuttering, it's insane how fast these things were on release
>my tinfoil hat theory is that they make small features depend on new hardware.
The general case is hardly a "tinfoil hat theory". They openly do that, and the major reason is to tie to new hardware adoption.
That said, it doesn't usually work like you call it. It's not adding new features depending on HW optimization to slow older machines down (after all one could just not use those features in an older machine, or toggle them off).
It's rather: you want to get these shiny new features, which is all we advertise for iOS/macOS N+1, and the main new changes? The big ones will only work if you have a newer machine, even though we could trivially enable them on older machines (and some don't even need special hardware, as there are third-party hacks that unlock them and they work fine).
I don't think it's even a broad strategy from PM or higher ups. I actually think it's engineers inside the company who want to play with the coolest hardware and the build features for the newest stuff. Features can be made to work with older hardware but that requires more time and optimization which they never get, so someone takes a call that x and y features only work on newer gen hardware.
In my new position (on a different product) I don't have enough fingers to count how many times the previous guy bullshitted the PO/PM with "that's not possible" of having some features / workflows enabled. Just because he didn't bother thinking through it or just didn't want to do it. Most of the stuff is a bit boring but just a few days of work and test. So yeah I entirely agree with you.
>I don't have enough fingers to count how many times the previous guy bullshitted the PO/PM with "that's not possible" of having some features / workflows enabled. Just because he didn't bother thinking through it or just didn't want to do it.
Or just because if somebody who knows the code inside out doesn't shoot down most new stupid feature requests, the product would end up a slow overcomplicated mess of random features and technical debt.
yes pretty much this. make useless features use up resources and make basic scrolling slow.
the Liquid Glass for example probably is not so great when it comes to resources. Probably works better with latest metal and hardware blocks on the GPU in M5 as opposed to using GPU cores and unified memory on 8gb M1 making latest macOS work not so great. I have the M1 8gb air and it is really slow on Tahoe. It was snappy just a couple of years ago on a fresh install.
For my work device I've disabled Liquid glass completely. The accessibility options to reduce transparency and increase contrast improve the readability of the system a lot.
Booting a 15 year old Mac a while ago had me surprised how clean the interface actually is. The Dock/Desktop look a lot better in the old versions, and the age is mostly showing in apps like Finder which do look a bit dated.
I really hope someone at Apple is going to make the call to drastically reduce the Liquid Glass design and start complying with their own UX guidelines again.
I downgraded today for the first time in my life. Sequoia is crazy fast in my MacBook Air m2 16gb
Not upgrading any of my Macs ever again. I was a fanboy looking for every new update like a present, for 13 years, not anymore. It took one Tahoe burn all that trust. Never upgrading major OS versions on hardware from Apple again.
Same. Been rocking Sonoma on my M1 Mac for years at this point and it’s been great. There’s been almost zero upsides to upgrading MacOS versions lately.
I think this could go equally for Windows as well, and many other software (not just OS). I purpose refrained from Tahoe because I didn't like the design but I wanted to know what the consensus was on it before upgrading. Apparently it's bad!
Win 11 is bad compared to Win 10 as well. I'm fairly new to Linux so I can't really form an opinion there.
> I think this could go equally for Windows as well
Absolutely. Why are all the buttons centred on the task bar for Windows 11? Violation of so many design rules. Literally the worst part of MacOS they took there which contradicted other reasons for the design. Throwing the mouse to the corner for a start button no longer works. I could go on.
> I'm fairly new to Linux so I can't really form an opinion there.
Gnome is great if you want something that gets out of your way. Some folks lament that its not as UI feature rich as KDE, but for me thats a bonus. The minimal UI combined with concentrating on UI features such as better mixed monitor scaling, etc. Love it.
KDE is extremely flexible, and featureful. You don't like the Windows default look and feel, make it a dock. Make it similar to Windows 8. Go wild. Not my thing these days but I can completely understand the draw to not be beholden to other peoples design choices if they don't fit your style.
I haven't used XFCE for a long time, as it didn't keep up with my high resolution monitors. But it was fast and flexible, and I hear that they are addressing this stuff now.
i3 was great. I drifted away during the great Wayland migration when i had to upgrade my laptop, found a bunch of neat updates to Gnome for my hardware, and just haven't found the time to return.
But the main point is that you are not forced into any one person/corporate point of view.
> Some folks lament that its not as UI feature rich as KDE, but for me thats a bonus.
Yep, I know it is opinionated and I really like a lot of their decisions. Most of what he says in that is "it doesn't clone Windows therefore it breaks my muscle memory". I don't care about your opinions and it isn't the same as mine.
Long time ago I had a 10km 2.4ghz wifi link with directional antennas, it worked very well but the throughtput improved with rain.
Directional antenas are far from directional, they pick noise from everywhere.
In my opinion rain reduces that noise, and if the point to point has more than enough signal margin to keep operating at full speed, it ends up improving the link.
> Month 2: The Cracks Start Showing
> First production issue: a service kept crashing with OOMKilled errors.
> ...
> I spent three hours figuring out:
> ...
> What the difference between requests and limits even means
so he says before this he wouldn't shut up about k8s, but obviously didn't even read the documentation.
how do you expect to use a tool as encompassing as k8s without even understanding basic concepts?
give these guys an airplane and they will start googling how to take off when they are already speeding up on the runway.
you can ask the LLM for an adhoc report. it can look at the schema, run the queries and give you the results. of course you can just give it read access.
now this is a "small", "far away" war, so killing civilians isn't expected, but for them a supplier of agricultural products is feeding the soldiers that will be stomping their heads if this keeps escalating.
I'm not justifying anyone here, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it sounds when we try to define a set of rules to kill each other and then say they are violating them, when we know that the good guys bombed whole cities to the ground, and will bomb whole cities to the ground, when it matters.
there's so much hate in the region that this stuff will only end one way, and I personally don't want to see Iran winning this, but let's call war by it's name.
reply