elgar1212
Joined 3 years ago
Joined 3 years ago
afaik they all are, but this was a purchase from several years ago
Future gens of mbp might not be made in China (but afaik they still are)
This is the most notable bit of information in the article
The whole big tech thing has three camps: big tech itself, other corporations like telecoms which want to buy out tech companies like verizon bought out yahoo, and politicians in DC who want to blackmail tech companies and control the flow of information[0]
government regulation is a double edged sword, and wherever there's a bunch of money there's a bunch of people who want to take it
[0] https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...
- mbp isn't dead (yet)
- x1 is made in china, human rights issues
- x1 is less repairable than other thinkpad models such as t14 or p14 (which are still made in china, however)
- now there is linux support for mbp for dual booting
http://wikiwho.ailef.tech/diffs/156bbb833d79c589d7791bc8d02f...
Reason why isn't necessarily because of the specifics of the 2013 leaks, but because he documents the interaction between government and press (and how he was demonized and threatened afterwards). Tl;dr the government blackmailed journalists to keep the story from getting published
Also (on a related note because both are about obscure bureaucracy), Kafka's Castle. Kafka bored me at first, but he writes situations that are just a little "off" in a way that's really unique. It's incredibly hard to describe and definitely very surreal, he takes certain aspects of human nature and amplifies them to the point of absurdity
A "youth-culture consultant" trying to predict the future? How scientific
Since this whole article is just one big hot take, here's another hot take: eponymous social media as a whole is on the way out. The only stuff anyone can put on eponymous social media is personal brand stuff (think LinkedIn), never anything actually genuine
It's impossible for people to have real engagements under eponymous social media because anything they can say could be turned against them
IG is predominantly just marketing, whether it's people showing off (like LinkedIn), pages trying to build a following with e.g. pet videos so they can make money from ads, annoying influencer "content", or actual overt ads
Going from this to just having meetings, training people, looking at dashboards... I can't imagine anyone doing this who genuinely likes programming. Even if the pay is better
The people who are the most inspiring (and also the best at getting shit done) are the ones who make it very far in the IC path and become team leads. Team leads are the best managers, the actual managers are just there to do boilerplate shit and politicking that team leads aren't interested in
(disclaimer: not talking about all managers or all companies, just the ones I've personally experienced)
What's the tl;dr of what happened here? It looks to me like someone in the US military raped a Filipino girl, and then either blackmailed her family or did something shady in order to get her to recant. Meanwhile there were edits on the page to disregard her initial allegations[0]
[0] http://wikiwho.ailef.tech/diffs/c5885fe11dbfd31923f7554cf41c...
A modern spin on this: history is no longer written by the victors, but by people with literally no life outside of writing crap on the internet
So because bootcamps are an insufficient means of testing, standardized testing in general is inadequate? And not just this specific test in particular?
> Training someone to pass a test to get in is not the same as finding the right person to go there.
Only if the test is insufficient. "finding the right person" is just a racist, classist dog whistle from a group of people that feel entitled to the right to discriminate
You want to see a living example of this entitlement? Listen to the audio from the recent Supreme court verbal argument regarding the Harvard case. Specifically the "oboe players" comment. Juxtapose this with the historical racist and antisemitic discrimination and ask yourself whether Harvard should be trusted to "find the right person" in this sort of way
> George Leef, the director of research at the Center for Higher Education Policy, has described the funding of higher education as “a boondoggle” that robs taxpayers, and Shaw has demanded that the legislature “starve the beast.”[0] (George Leef is director of editorial content for the site linked)
In this case, it seems like the underlying motive is to undermine trust in higher education in order to increase support for broader budget cuts.
As much as I dislike university presidents, provosts, etc, the author of that article simply brings up a bunch of grievances and offers no clear indication of a solution
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/state-for-sale