Because TSMC can't compete with their customers and of them is AMD, I believe. TSMC promised not to build their chips, AFAIK, for exactly non-competition reason.
This a meaningless post. Nobody can argue here in favor of professor without getting istaflagged and banned. So what is the point? Just mutual admiration in conformity?
Fine I’ll argue it.
He used a common Chinese phrase. It sounds bad in English.
There’s no mention of any history of problems on this professor. The opposite in fact.
Now it’s a drag em though the mans reputation through the mud and make a sacrifice to the politically correct gods.
People are looking to be offended, they will find anything they can.
These people are sick.
The ones that give in and throw their own under
The bus are just as
bad.
I noticed it said this was from the National Review in small print.
I'm not saying this proves it's fake, but it raises doubt in my mind about how much it might be distorted or decontextualized since it's clearly right wing propaganda.
I followed a link to campusreform.org where I read:
"The radical left will stop at nothing to intimidate conservative students on college campuses"
The link to "further reporting" also goes to the National Review.
I think a reasonable person would need to read something that is not from a right wing extremist source to have an idea of what happened. If there is a link that I haven't noticed yet, maybe you or someone could post it.
As an aside, I almost think in the past week or two, I've noticed in general a lot of crap showing up in Yahoo news, as though they are a channel that's being exploited for not being as toxic a brand as many things.
The sources that are "politically correct" usually leave clues when they are distorting things, because they have more of an allegiance to truth and facts even when they are misleading people.
It also allows one to metaphorically triangulate, even assuming everyone is dishonest.
It doesn't matter whose propaganda you like, you need more than one vantage point if you have any interest in the truth behind the bullshit.
LinkedIn is pure cancer. They actively tempt you to message your contacts in a way where you think that the recepient would welcome your message right now but it's an opposite situation. This at best creates a communication gap and is at worst rude and might break up communication.
I'm shocked that Microsoft which is primarily bases on trust as far as corporate stuff is concerned went for linkedin. I hope they sell them or just burn them.
Nothing good can ever come out of linkedin they have less ethics than facebook and twitter.
I'm always surprised at the number of people in infosec or _really interesting_ defense positions who have linkedin profiles.
It's the lowest rung of where nation states target and you've just handed it to them on a platter.
As horrible as it sounds you all sort of deserve it for selling your soul to such a horrendous platform hellbent on fucking with its users. For some reason we're all worried about tiktok now though.
It suspect the Facebook DBA+backup teams are the most diverse team in the planet. They surely have representatives from every worthy intelligence service on earth working in perfect harmony.
People describe their company's entire tech stack, in detail on LinkedIn.
And the little shot of dopamine they get from being LinkedIn popular would probably make them happy to answer any questions you have about things they left out.
There's a difference between knowing all the pieces that go into a working machine, and knowing how, in what order, to what end, and all the little interactions and knock-on effects in the form of of unwritten knowledge that keep a company cranking along.
Go ahead and set yourself up a Tomcat cluster, an internal Tomcat cluster, some Oracle databases, and even go so far as to reverse-engineer a UI and maybe a data model if we're being extra ambitious.
IDK. A decade ago, I made a love connection. I apologized for misusing the medium. She said "Not necessary. I'm glad LinkedIn is good for something." We lasted about 6 months.
I don't disagree with you on Anny point but you cheat when you say you want to run it on phone. Windows Phone was a miles ahead of droid and iOS and lost only due to the anti-microsoft culture of silicon valley. (Unless you want torun windows desktop on phone in which case just buy a netbook)
> Windows Phone was a miles ahead of droid and iOS and lost only due to the anti-microsoft culture of silicon valley.
It was painful as hell to develop for Windows Phone. You had to use Windows on the laptop you were developing on, and go through licensing crap for that. Then you had to install Visual Studio, and then some weird addon to that. They were losing developers at every stage of this process, and would never admit that the process was a pain or try to simplify it. (My guess is that all three of these were handled by different departments at Microsoft who were forced to integrate with each other's products).
So in my opinion, it has nothing to do with anti-Microsoft culture, but more to do with the fact that Microsoft was too arrogant to realize that they were the underdog in this race by a significant margin.
Former WincCE 2.x/3.x dev here. I had to work in this platform for a few years due the hardware my company wanted to ship.
MS really could have owned that market. ActiveSync made sure they didn't. They were a good 3-4 years ahead of everyone else tech wise. However, their dev stack was awful and full of gotchas. Apple and Google imploded that and made it easy to dev for. Their crazy BOM build system was a fork of visual studio 6 which was cobbled together with CMD scripts. Then on top of that the OS arch was different than pretty much anything else. There were some seriously bad spots where if you used the wrong system dll you could crash the box. Oh you need a new firmware to fix that good luck as there is no built in firmware update on your box. Have fun spending 2 months getting that patched firmware out of the company too.
Your guess about different depts is almost right. They also outsourced portions of it. Some parts were internal. The licencing around it was byzantine. Also portability was shoddy. That was due to the MIPS/ARM ISA environment. Every phone was slightly different from each other (you can see similar issues today with ARM dev boards). x86 did not end up there as IBM compat was king and if you didnt have that no one bought your board, ARM/MIPS do not have that type of market force. You had to in some cases ship an executable for each phone. Then on top of that the phone carriers wanted to charge 40-50 dollars per megabyte sent/recv.
@sumtechguy: “Former WincCE 2.x/3.x dev here. I had to work in this platform for a few years due the hardware my company wanted to ship. MS really could have owned that market”
WincCE, WinCE, you cannot be serious. WinCE was produced as a response to the ‘Palm Pilot’. WinCE ran on a “Palm PC”, not to be confused with the “Palm Pilot”. Palm sued and Microsoft renamed it to "Palm-sized PC" or the ‘Palm PC’. MS really could have owned the market with the TRON real-time operating. Microsoft did joint the TRON consortium and then lobbied to have it excluded from the North American market.
Firstly, around the time this started (~2009), Apple was starting to make OS upgrades free for a bunch of users for instance. Their software rarely failed to install, and almost never threw weird errors around licensing. Neither did Android's.
And secondly, remember what I said around being the underdog. Apple had first mover advantage in this field, they could afford to make their tools a little more annoying and still have developers sign up. Microsoft was the underdog, they should have given away a free copy of Windows with all the Visual Studio crap preloaded to developers; that would have gone a long way towards getting developer mindshare. But that would not have made sense to the revenue obsessed execs at Microsoft, and so did not happen.
Reddit front page is deliberately designed to keep you agitated on one hand and then keep coming back for some soothing oxytocin rush as the antidote on the same page.
Not all relationship/interactions with social media will be positive or neutral. Everybody knows about social media addiction already, for example. The analogy of abusive relationship IRL with various web dark patterns seems new.
Its interesting to contemplate if entirely new mental illnesses will eventually be discovered via toxic social media sites. I mean entirely new modes of dysfunction not merely "it used to be rare".
Rofi is great, but it's still adding several extra keystrokes for something that alt-tab essentially does in 2 (alt, hold tab till you get to a window you want, release to go to it. on rofi, you'd have to press alt-tab to invoke the window dialog, then type a portion of window name or navigate down to it, then press enter) .
> (alt, hold tab till you get to a window you want, release to go to it.
madness :) I could never manage to get to my window like that, it's alt + tab tab tab tab tab tab tab until I get where I want when on windows vs alt + tab down down down down on rofi so I don't see a lot of difference
Haha, fair enough. Also turns out tab tab tab tab works on rofi -show window (my fault for not using it much hence not knowing) so maybe it's not all that different after all!
It looks like a fork of Luxi Mono with slashed zero, which is available in ttf. And there is a more modern version of it with better character coverage -- Go Mono.
Hitler: What's a monad anyway? No one who understands monads can explain what they are
Underling (hurriedly): A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors
> A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors
A helpful analogy can be drawn by comparing two facts: a composition of something with its inverse produces the identity (a.k.a. unity, to use the Latin root), while a composition of something (e.g. a functor) with its "adjoint" (not quite the inverse) produces something similar that is better said in Greek.
