dsuth

Honestly updates seems to be a more or less solved problem in Win10, for general use at least.

> We can have magsafe back too. :)

Yes please. Honestly the new format is such a clusterfuck of unwanted features, poor hardware implementation, and removal of wanted features that it makes you wonder how it got out the door.

Hanging onto my circa 2013 MBP until they come up with a more appealing offer, or going elsewhere.

This. I gave up after several rounds of dist-upgrades broke, then fixed, then re-broke things. If you’re making fundamental architectural changes on a regular (monthly) basis, it’s pretty clear you’re not interested in being taken seriously in the business user world.

This is similar to me, but for engineering. Getting jobs via networking is much, much easier than cold-calling an interview.

Talk to your friends and workmates, ex-managers etc. If you've done good work in the past, people will be happy to get you in on the fast track. Companies hate doing interviews, so anything they can do to streamline that process they will generally do.

I'd broaden that to networking in general. Tech presentations also raise your profile, especially with manager types who attend.

> 1. Snapchat's design is remarkable for its hidden features that you discover by social-networking

Honest question: isn't this just bad UI design?

Are there any good breakdowns for laymen you could point to about this behaviour? It sounds fascinating.

I don't believe the tech industry is necessarily worse than other male-dominated industries, but that's not really an excuse not to try and do better, is it? I like to think that geeks are slightly more enlightened than our business, law, and finance brethren, who all have a bad rap when it comes to sexism.

There will always be sexual differences, and that's fine and healthy, but we should be aiming to treat women as people first in a professional setting.

No, it's an implication that the OP is dressed like a prostitute. That's not cool.

It is difficult to teach tech to women when there is a perceived bias against women in the tech industry. That is the point of this article, and others like it.

There are many efforts going into positive reinforcement for women entering the tech industry, but this is a problem that can and should be attacked from multiple angles. One of those angles is educating men about the effects of their actions toward the few women who do brave the tech community.

Also, creating assumptions based on gender, race, and other physical qualities has a name: prejudice. While there may be more women in sales roles than technical, assuming that every woman in the tech community is in a sales role until proven (vociferously) otherwise, is sexist.

There's nothing wrong with asking what a persons role is, but there are very simple ways to do that without causing offence. For example "What does your role at company XYZ encompass?" Is much nicer than "Are you actually technical?".

Men and women in tech need to be sensitive to this issue, because it is an issue which detriments the community as a whole. Better acceptance of women, and their diverse skills and opinions, will strengthen the community as a whole, and this is a goal we should work towards.

That's kinda the whole point of the article - to raise awareness of an issue that women face. This is not about taking sensitivity classes, it's about accepting that there is a problem, and doing something about it as part of a community that wants to be more accepting towards women.

About the same time they move away from the Imperial measurement system.

Because this completely dis-incentivises companies to spend money developing features in the first place, and makes it impossible for them to recoup the sunk cost of development over car sales, since they're competing against companies who did not pay those costs.

It's completely unsustainable.

European car manufacturers are required to develop safety critical software under ISO 26262, which is a derivation of IEC 61508, which absolutely does require formal verification and validation activities.

If you change the code outside of the development process, you could unwittingly compromise the safety of the vehicle. The manufacturer is required to use access controls to prohibit people from changing the software for exactly this reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the last person to defend the overuse of software patents. Where people are genuinely creating extremely complex functionality in software however, I think they deserve some protection for their outlay.

On your point about historically owning vehicles, as a software developer you will understand that there is a very wide gap in competence between being able to tune a standard motor, and being able to inspect and modify software that controls a car safely. Currently this is protected so that only the vendor can change it, precisely because that's how we wrote the standards - vendors are responsible for their code, and responsible for the safety outcomes on the road.

If we moved to an open model where anyone could modify the software in their car - what do you think would happen to the safety and reliability of that software? I don't think any of us could imagine that it would improve.