Maybe you don't use the mouse because it just doesn't work as expected? ;)
> So I am wondering, are people fighting using a Mac in the most effective way simply because of old patterns and habit
"Most effective" doesn't mean "most intuitive". I don't want to learn keyboard shortcuts just to move or resize a window. That's the entire premise of graphical user interfaces.
What if your needs aren't as simple and you want to increase the size just a bit to fit more text than the tile permits and you don't want to waste the whole screen for that?
I really hate this type of blog. It pollutes the world with this attitude of “I messed up, how I have to frame the problem in a way, and write a blog that lets my ego stay intact”, which results in blogs like this showing in decision making process as “why you should not use go”. And mostly people never look past the title.
The fact is go is portable, it provides the ability to cross compile out of the box and reasonably executed on other platforms it supports. But in this case, a decision that had little to do with go, the desire to use c code, a non go project, with their go project made things harder.
These are not “just a set of constraints you only notice once you trip over them”, this is trivializing the mistake.
Entire blog can be simplified to the following.
We were ignorant, and then had to do a bunch of work because we were ignorant. It’s a common story in software. I don’t expect everybody to get it right the first time. But what we don’t need is sensational titled blogs full of fluff to try to reason readers out of concluding the obvious. Somebody in charge made decisions uninformed and as a result the project became more complicated and probably took longer.
What is happening to this person sucks for sure. But one thing I have learned in this industry is the thing being replaced is always better than the thing replacing it when you talk to the team who built and run the thing being replaced.
They might try. But nobody is going to pay for a sub par experience.
Some executives will get a big bonus for pushing this out, and later another for reverting back.
I won’t buy a car that does not have CarPlay. And I know many who are the same. My phone is a centerpiece of my life (gahh I hate saying that), my car however is not.
> AI will be the worst thing to happen to society in a very long time.
Maybe. Keep going back and forth.
On one hand I might loose my job. On then other hand everybody might loose their job.
Ai is tricky. If we have a singularity event maybe one or two combines might take all the jobs overnight. Fine. But economies are weird. Once those jobs are automated and nobody has a job we probably won’t even need the jobs that were replaced.
Like today. We have jobs because some other thing came along and “made something easy”. Think about how many jobs we have simply because we as humans write bad software. If this goes away it’s not even about automation taking jobs, it’s about simply not needing huge swaths of jobs at all.
So I think about this and ponder. I’d all Job are basically worthless, then the “rich” people like to complain about, won’t be rich. They won’t have anything either. Simply put, nobody will have any money to buy things and thus the “rich” won’t have anybody to buy things to keep them rich.
So I think more. It’s really not an advantage for the rich and powerful to basically destroy what makes them rich.
For people to be rich they have to have a bunch of people to extract small amounts of money from. A starving and angry population is not going to be a fun place to live for anybody.
I actually think the last point isn’t exactly true. I mean certainly in aggregate, but not at the margins. If the new tech billionaire elite just want to get to space, then they just need enough people to mine a some minerals and metal and make their space ships. If you control all the AI bots you can make money that way.
Kinda the point being, a small number of companies could control all the resources and a few of the people and be rich that way. Yes you’re right, maybe the Walton’s and the other families who made their money on people having money won’t go away, but in theory you could have a group of super rich people just giving money to each other to build space ships and nuclear power plants and the like.
Finally. It’s not a cut and dry as one side or the other. People have lost their minds. It’s case by case for every product and every consumer.
Some companies might chose to loose the margin (few but still passable ). Some might try to pass some or all to the sale price (which creates all sorts another dynamics) and finally the customer does not have to buy that product. There are many note breakdowns that all adjust who pays and when they pay.
The buyer might pay more. If the importer (which is often a foreign institution) tries to pass the cost along to the customer. And the customer looks at the product group and decides to buy the higher priced item. But on average the tariff is doing what it was meant to do.
Promote the consumption products provided by a different vendor. Namely ones that tariffs don’t apply to.
It’s not a hard concept to understand, and talking about who pays is a distraction. Namely because it will be case by case involving 3 or more parties who won’t all chose the same choices they have every time.
So why would the Swiss company care then? Care so much to make a special watch? It’s no skin off their back, they don’t pay the tariff right? Americans are the only ones affected right?
It obviously affects Swiss companies too, because their products become more expensive to American consumers, which makes it more unlikely they will buy them. No one said Americans are the only ones affected. But it’s Americans that pay the tariffs.
That's way too simplistic. When a tariff raises the price of competition, everyone else raises their prices too. It just increases costs to consumers, and raises government revenues.
You have to look at the elasticity of demand across every component to determine the correct ratio.
What i can tell you, as a GSM, from a CapEx perspective, sensors, motors, cables, and batterys made in the US just got significantly more competitive. It was already trending that way due to JIT demands and rapid factory buildouts, but the tarrifs were a huge marketing boon for american supply chains.
And i can tell you for the first time as someone in the supply chain business i can confidently ask the question "Should we be buying this bolt from Insert country here?".
It's almost like i've been given the authority to source products from the United States even if we are paying some percent higher.
You'd be correct in an economy not tumbling towards recesssion due to said tarrifs being universal, and not just focusing on specific industries to make american ones more competitive.
As it is, American spending is way down and hurts everyone. A small stock crash (the thing propping the US up as of now) would truly hit with a 2nd depression at this point.
The very short of it is that a lot of bus bull market is propped up by AI. To such an extent that the top 10 companies of the S&P 500 have half the value right now.
Combine this knowledge with some maneuvers as of late that reflect the Dotcom bubble and we're rife for a crash that will take the world economy with it once the bubble pops. Its a bull asset market right now, but its certainly not a healthy one
And that's just the economic side of it.When you consider the history of such extreme wealth inequality, ignoring rising unemployment and disresr among the working class can get ugly quickly. That can also go down an expensive route if taken to the extreme.
These companies are absolutely money printing machines at the scale we have never seen.
Some of the individual standout figures:
Apple’s trailing 12-month net income is around US$99 billion.
Microsoft’s trailing 12-month net income is about US$101 billion.
Alphabet (Google) is estimated around US$111 billion net income.
On revenue, one list shows: Amazon ~$670 billion, Apple ~$408 billion, Alphabet ~$371 billion, Microsoft ~$281.7 billion.
Have you ever read the soverign individual? He kinda predicted this. Tech companies will rise into unfathomably rich while the countries inability to tax foreign revenues will lead to the collapse of the nationstate.
This assumes there are competitive domestic alternatives. For the vast majority of tariffed products, there are not.
For one example, the domestic PCB manufacturing industry is a joke. Even with tariffs, China is literally ten times cheaper than domestic. I recently sent an order to both, and the China fab had my boards in production inside a week. The US fab took three weeks to give us a quote, which was five times higher than China for half the quantity, in twice the time.
The US is not independent. We don't have a domestic industry competing on the global market. We make very little and rely very heavily on imports. What we do make is heinously expensive and not any higher quality than the much cheaper imported goods.
The current trade war also doesn't spur domestic industry growth because all the materials and equipment to build out industry.... is tariffed. Plus the tariffs change too frequently for any sane person to make any kind of long term investment.
Industry will wait to scale until economic forces stabilize.
I almost always never use a mouse for more than maybe moving a tab to another window.
So I am wondering, are people fighting using a Mac in the most effective way simply because of old patterns and habits?
reply