RandomThoughts3

> So in your weird business view, you think Apple is doing all of that regardless of market share. For what purpose?

Yes, very much and that’s a good question. I guess they consider the iMac to be important in the branding they want to maintain but money wise, hard to explain.

They believe in it so much they are already discounting it right now. A brand new product.

It was made completely irrelevant by the Mac Mini lineup with which is a better alternative if you want a desktop.

> Then beyond that, they also spend significant money to market it

Apple barely does any marketing for the iMac.

I quite like having proper sound and a good webcam which sometimes is my phone connected to my computer, yes. Cables are not an issue because I can properly run them being the huge monitor in front of me. Plus I can undock my laptop from the setup when I’m done and you know, carry it with me somewhere else.

I can’t believe some people are arguing in good faith here than the iMac is an improvement on this. I find it funny because I thought Apple fanboys somehow died but apparently no.

The issue here is not so much that it’s flowery but that it’s completely unremarkable, bordering on a truism, in its content. The sentence literally means: sound is relevant because you constantly hear it.

The iMac webcam has always been quite meh. So is the microphone. Speakers are good for inbuilt speakers which is to say they are average.

> Or are you both claiming that Apple has an entire multi decade line of products it keeps refreshing without a market?

Yes, pretty much.

That’s why they still use the same 2021 screen, they now only have one size, the board is basically a Mac mini glued inside a screen and they barely produce any.

It’s not even stocked at most retailers.

> The market for these doesn’t care about any of the stuff you mentioned.

Yes, that’s because this market basically doesn’t exist which is indeed the Verge point.

The most important part of my comment is "and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor" and your reply about cable unplugging (really?) lets me think you know it is.

I am not even commenting about the ecological disaster than gluing all this together is because, well, it's Apple and Apple never cared anyway. Still disappointing.

> Why?

Because you then also have a laptop for the same price and as a bonus you can upgrade the monitore and computer separately.

It's so obvious I don't understand what you are missing there. Why do you think the market for desktop literaly cratered outside of the gaming segment?

I don't understand your rambling about mechanical keyboards and Ubuntu. You can simply buy a Macbook Pro (or god forbid a Mac mini) and an Apple screen for a cost which is roughly equivalent to this iMac and a net gain of functionality.

Average consumers stopped buying desktop two decades ago by the way.

> Still basically everyone!

I will hasard that the amount of people who would like a desktop computer with no customisability whatsoever and wouldn't be better served by actually pluging a laptop to a monitor is basically zero.

And well, that's what the article is pointing. That and the uter irrelevance of the base model and how extremely marked up the actually useful model is, all par for the course with Apple.

> The worst thing so far is that you have to declare and define functions before using them.

That's an extremely good thing.

Unordered definitions and where are some of Haskell worst decisions with lazy by default, overuse of operators and a community which sadly think point-free is desirable.

That's the kind of choices which makes Ocaml a lot more readable.

I also worked on an ocaml codebase for a roughly similar time frame and found it extremely pleasant. Probably the best time I spent as a dev with working on an Ada project with a great architecture.

It's not more reasonable. It explicitely designed to look like JS which is, well, bad. Some of the choices are extremely annoying and overall useless like reintroducing parentheses for function arguments.

There is a reason - pun intended - it didn't take off at all with the community.

> An actual serious problem with Ocaml’s syntax is that matches don’t have a terminator, leading people to mess up nested matches frequently. Pair that with the parser’s poor error reporting/recovery and things can become unpleasant quickly.

Yes, it's clearly one of the syntax weak point. You can surround them with parentheses or begin ... end to make things explicit but the default is definitely error prone.

Germany has been leaching off the EU for so long through the weak Euro, they now think it will always work. They are clearly putting France on a fast track to an exit via a far right government with the whole Mercosur agreement debacle.

> The official is that something must be returned to nature before climate change destroys everything.

Nature is an abstraction, not a weird angry god. We need to capture GHG and stop emitting more but that’s pretty much it. That will most likely involve reforestation as it’s a good carbon sink but using the expression “returning thing to nature” is not a correct way to frame it.

Everything you are listing is indeed very much strategic and Europe was indeed extremely stupid to let that go. The end of your paragraph is a demonstration of that. It doesn’t go against the core idea.

> I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong

You are actually arguing that it was right.

> The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive

That’s not really an excuse for abuse. This kind of comment is why we need a CoC committee in the first place. There is something deeply wrong when community members openly state that insulting other people is ok because they are not productive.

> You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.

You can and should just ignore them. It is not mandatory to engage with people you disagree with and find unproductive especially on the internet where filtering them out is not that difficult.

Less extreme but also working is to just engage them less often. If you slow down the conversation, there is less space for them to annoy you.

I have never worked for a company where people building the software and people supporting it when it is critical were the same. The idea is weird to me.

Plus any large enough company should have team in spread out timezones eliminating the need for on call if it’s correctly managed.

Sorry for the poor grammar, I meant could and not would and I hope you took my comment as good intended (it was). I value your contribution a lot. Reading you just reminds me of myself when I had postponed time off far too long at a previous job. I hope you don’t take it too badly and see the occasion as a good time to take a step back and rest even if it’s not your choice.

The CoC committee was long overdue. The decision here is both lenient - it’s only one release - pragmatic and necessary. We should aspire to more friendless not some weird tolerance for behaviour which would he unacceptable everywhere else.

Just to be clear, Overstreet wrote an email asking someone to “get their head checked” and “get the fuck out of here with this shit”.

I don’t think it’s the CoC committee overreacting. I would reach to HR advising termination if a member of my team did this to someone in writing. This is straight up illegal in my country. If you write this to someone, you will lose if they sue. A lenient sanction and some probation seems fine for someone with a history of good contribution but doing nothing would be wrong.

I’m not sure comparing that to the NKVD is wise.

Kent is only prevented to merge for a version and mostly because he refused to actually apologise and kind of dig his heels.

Reading his comment on LWN, he seems really really tired. A mandatory break doesn’t look like the worst thing which would happen to him. I don’t think he is a bad person.

To give some context, Overstreet insulted another maintainer in an LKML email and despite being asked to do so by the CoC committee has yet to issue an actual apology and mostly seems to be digging his heels.

Reading the LWN comments where he interacts, he seems very very tired so a mandatory vacation might not be the worst thing. He doesn’t seem like a bad person but some time off is probably more than overdue.

It’s nice to see the CoC committee starting to act.

There is nothing wrong with using print debugging but if you are only using print debugging, finding yourself doing a ton of compiler round trip, and don’t know how to use a debugger, you are doing yourself a massive disservice.

> The juniors only get to run the show and introduce exotic, non-boring technology (asynchronicity, event-sourcing, eventual consistency, CQRS etc.)

That’s decade old technologies. So is most of the functional niceties which are somehow finally hype nowadays by the way.

The idea that junior are somehow better able is as old as the field and every junior ends up seeing the light at some point.

It generally goes like this: junior thinks they are smart and have a good solution for an apparently new complex problem. They build it and it fails because of some unexpected edge case. They reluctantly go to see the senior expert with the problem who immediately understands the issue, tells them not to do what they just did - they tried this apparently good idea ten years ago - and proceed to give them a solution which will work. Junior dev finally realises that senior are just people who have been there long enough to already have done the obvious mistakes and they can gain considerable time by just learning from them.

Obviously it only works if your senior are actually senior and not slightly older junior with ego boosting title.

Pointing that Ukraine benefited most from the sabotage is not a conspiracy theory. It would be if there was another significantly more likely explanation but there isn’t.

Russian involvement is a bit far fetched to me. It severely limited their ability to export at a good price when gaz sell is how they finance the war in the first place, and removed their main pressure point on Europe therefore making the war considerably harder to win.

A third party would be more likely (there is a long list: could be the USA, a European country which wants the block to align strongly with the USA, or another power benefiting).

> them losing and that result being recognized implies that warmongering is acceptable

You do realise that the US has more or less constently been at war for the past fifty years. "The west" - whatever that means - can't take a stand against warmongering when they are themselves warmongering all the time. War and the threat of force is part of diplomacy like it or not.

Support to Ukraine is a part of global geo-strategical calculus of which taking a stand against tyranny and defending the sanctity of borders is but a minor part of.

Europe is not at war with another nuclear power, no. Ukraine is at war and Europe is giving support to Ukraine as that's aligned with its interest. This support is neither unconditional nor total and doesn't include going to war with Russia.

Nordstream is also special because its destruction was not aligned with Russia interests. It limited Europe capacity to import Russian gaz lifting one of the reason which might have made the EU reluctent to fully support Ukraine (and causing a major economic crisis in Europe as a side effect).

Between this and the coyness of most European countries governments at the time to comment on investigation, it's not too far fetch to think that Ukraine might be involved.

Don’t use product with EULA you refuse to read. Then people will stop including them. Especially when it’s a game.

Anyway I’m all for outlawing the inclusion of predatory clauses in EULA but this is not one of this case.

People just want to have their cake and eat it to.