drzaiusapelord

Because intel saw all the dollars pouring into things like SCCM and other enterprise management solutions and wanted a slice of that pie and the only feasible move to grab that market was a hardware solution, like a poor man's iLO. The same way they saw dollars pouring into RAID controllers and integrated its own soft raid solution into their hardware. Not to mention their other market oddities like their mobile x86 chip, their SSD line, Intel TV, etc.

The promise of dollars makes men do odd things.

Apple and others are already divesting from Qualcomm and have been for some time. This merger most likely won't affect this situation. Apple will most likely effect the merger. Imagine buying up a company that is going to soon lose one of, if not, its biggest customer.

>or more of a merger in practice.

This my thinking as well. Qualcomm's product portfolio is on par or beyond what Broadcom is doing. I imagine this is an "easy" way to suddenly get world-class ARM and cellular modem products and all the world-class talent behind those products.

Maybe this is also an admission that Broadcom can't compete going forward. From my own experience, Broadcom chips and their firmware are by the far the most buggy and poorest performers I've worked with. Broadcom is the only OEM I know of with "special instructions" to put their products in production. Using a hypervisor? Turns out Broadcom cant write VMQ code, so you need to disable that feature. Using a Broadcom N wifi chip, good luck, as its poorly compatible with others and has endless performance issues. Broadcom bluetooth? Get used to disconnects and interference issues.

This might be a "buy to survive" attempt by Broadcom.

>I'd rather live in a world where 20 countries have 50 warheads each, then one where two countries have 4,000 warheads each.

Now instead of two political leaders to worry about, you have 20. Not sure if that's what you really want.

>Microsoft provides guidance on deleting and managing certificates in the Windows certificate store

Microsoft should mark these as malicious and quarantine them using their built-in AV. If the end user needs them he can remove them from quarantine. Posting advisories no end user will ever see isn't helping much.

I still lean on item 1 being the most correct. I know modern society is built on a "do anything" approach but in reality we're under the gun of biology and evolution and as such only certain behavioral patterns are actually successful. I found losing weight and staying fit got a lot easier when I focused on discipline instead of quick fixes like Atkins. There's an art to pushing back on that neurological trigger craving that dopamine shot and it can be learned. (Of course, if a pill comes out to help you with that trigger, then we're golden). Or more practically, a way to produce leptin and ghrelin in the body so hunger and craving response goes way down.

I'm not saying I'm "against" the pill, but no pill is going to magically erase 1,000+ calories of over-eating or clear out all the awful things excess sugar and other carbs may do. It may certainly mitigate them, but like the person I know who got lapband surgery eventually found out, his eating just adapted to his new limitations (ice cream, sweets, etc dont take much room and are very high energy) and he gained weight after a while. We'll pop the pill, eat like pigs, and be at the same weight or higher after a while.

I imagine if this becomes a mass market medicine, its effective applications will be outside of weight control and more towards helping people achieve a certain level of fitness especially those with limited mobility or illness. Its not something you're going to buy able to buy over the counter for 'free' workouts. The same way you can't buy testosterone or steroids OTC.

So when are you going to buy a punch card computer?

Or worse, the practical alternative in a business setting then becomes a "no powerpoint" culture where you're lectured for an hour.

I'm not a robot, I can't just digest an 1 hours worth of spoken data easily or efficiently. We have visual aids and such because of limitations with human attention, how we remember things, etc.

Amazon is famous for its no powerpoint culture, but meetings there start with everyone being handed a 2 page memo, and everyone spends the next 10 minutes reading it and making notes on it. That has practical limitations as 2 pages only covers so much and you are not allowed to ask questions during the read. You can only read silently and hopefully you remember your questions for when Q&A is allowed.

Visual presentations are more fluid, allow for slower intake of longer sets of information, and make an effort to keep the attention of the listener. Not sure why that's so awful. I suspect most people have PP as a placeholder for things they don't like about working a job in general.

Well, it only returns numbers, so padding retired calls with zeros should really break anything other than giving the wrong data. The only other practical alternative is to return 0 bytes and most likely crash the application expecting a result. How many old school apps making invalid stat calls are engineered enough to handle odd exceptions like this? I'd say probably few to none.

>but has now become just a store of value entirely driven by speculation.

and that's why its going to survive. Its a bit like the fine art market. Why are the wealthy buying $20m dollar paintings? Because in 5 years it goes to auction for $25m.

Now whether "survive" means anything more than being the preferred currency of illegal dealings and ransomware is the big question. I suspect bitcoin has found its market niche and will stay here as-is. Fiat currency will be as strong as ever and the social and political aspects of cryptocurrency have pretty much failed outside of these tiny use cases.

I see it a bit like the Commodore 64 from the 80s. It wasn't the best home computer, but it was cheap and passable and lasted far longer than anyone should have rightfully assumed. "Good" tech doesn't always win, say the way the Amiga never took off like the C64 did. Sometimes we get stuck with "bad" tech for a while.

>When the net finally reached the public in France there was no doubt whatsoever which one was the best tech.

That's almost 15 years of technological progress, of course the web/internet would replace it, the same way it replaced all other dial-up/BBS services.

>The Minitel was technically free to get but expensive to use since you had to pay heavily taxed services at the minute instead of data volume.

This, historically, was the telecom model. In the US (pre breakup) the telephone company would hand you a free phone for your home and it would be paid for by monthly fees. You never bought it nor ever owned it. This isn't a novel thing nor a real criticism imo.

>my body doesn’t naturally produce enough “good” acid.

Most acid reflux is due to mechanical action of a sphincter not working correctly. This, if correct, is an edge case.

This is most likely an evolutionary flaw that can't be fixed short of genetic engineering. I also have this my experience is your opposite. Carbs cause excess acid for me and that means my leakage rate is higher. Eating more meats and veg helps a lot. As others have stated, the traditional human diet is relatively low carb, so our modern diets are things our bodies are fairly unequiped to handle (carb crashing, obesity, celiac, etc).

I'm glad you found something that works for you, but most reflux sufferers don't have a "good" vs "bad" acid problem, they have a sphincter problem.

Socialist =! communist. Allende's government doesn't have much in common with Soviet Unions brutal authoritarian communism, which is the only practical form of large scale communism as per history. Allende socialized some small parts of his economy (only coal?), but it was mostly a market economy even during his height of popularity.

Also, there's a lot to say about cybernetics and how a lot of it is pretty dead and for good reasons. I imagine most people see the cool Star Trek-like control room and enjoy Cybersyn on a visual design level than a "this was a good idea for government" level.

I think its obvious that authoritarian governments do poorly with information technology, outside of whats needed for military dominance, due to its democratizing effects. The SU couldn't have a Western-style internet because it would have become a political threat to the SU and strangled in the cradle.

Allende was a little left of, say, France, who had a system like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

France's Minitel network doesn't get enough ink, imo. Its impressive this proto-web network took off. We're talking nearly 10m sales in a country that had about 50m people at the time. France Telecom estimates 25m people had access to Minitels, so half the population. 50% wired in 1980s is very, very impressive.

>This generation AMD is killing the price/performance ratio.

Again, synthetic benchmarks that show atypical tasks like video encoding aren't helping sales. No one buying this stock because sales projections are poor. Turns out per core performance is what the market is biased for due to the benefits of it on typical computing tasks. AMD's big gamble with lots of cores didn't pay off like some assumed, thus the market correction we're literally seeing.

The report is fully factual, maybe it gets some causes wrong, but people are not buying this stock, they're selling it off, thus the price drop and the price drop in the future to a perhaps $8 stock price. Considering AMD floats around $4-5 in general, $8 seems like a decent place to be for an AMD slightly off life support. Thus far you have provided ZERO evidence on why a $14 AMD stock price is rational when all evidence points to it being the height of a hype cycle and nothing more. Or any real criticisms of Moore's analysis. Are you claiming his projections are incorrect? If so, what evidence do you have?

Not to mention, the data they have on seeing the big cryptocurrency GPU buys starting to taper off, on top of miners also buying NVIDIA especially the 1070 which has a strong price/performance ratio for certain types of mining.

Worse, AMD's console bread and butter is only getting worse. 5% reduction may actually be optimistic.

And that's on top of Coffee Lake eating their lunch.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review-benchmar...

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3230369/components-processor...

Again, if Ryzen/Zen is so amazing, where are the sales? All I see are breathless fanboys being especially rude to anyone to calls out Ryzen's flaws or the pros of Intel's offerings. It seems like you guys are giving emotional arguments on what you want to happen in the market and not actually what is happening in the market. You can't will AMD into a proper intel competitor with a strong stock with just angry and misleading social media postings.

and the DC-3 and Boeing 247 and 307 before the Comet.

I don't know why you're arguing we had jet airliners before propliners. In general, props greatly predate jetliners for civil aviation.

Not to mention the decision between more slower cores or less faster cores is a tough calculus for the market. For most use cases you want faster cores, even if you get less of them. Is this why we're seeing lackluster sales projections? Not sure, but its a concern. No gamer I know is lusting after the Ryzen. They want the faster per core i7. No Vmware admins I know want to migrate architectures unless they absolutely have to and Zen isn't that compelling right now. It might be with a price drop or faster per core performance.

Ryzen is a good chip, but it may not be terribly competitive outside of edge cases, specialist builds, or as typical with AMD, budget builds with binned chips with failed cores sold as 3 or 4 core versions.

> they won hard technical and market praises.

But their pricing is on par with intel's offerings, so why should I buy the AMD product? For almost my use cases extra cores aren't helping. Outside of some edge stuff at work, the same applies at work.

When I saw AMD's pricing it more or less justified my decision not to buy their stock. I don't think this article is negative. Its just, from an investor's perspective, AMD stock isn't very attractive. I have no idea if a major price cut would help with this, but I think they need to be more competitive with intel in regards to pricing. None of offerings, per core, really beat my 2011 2500k i5. Why wouldn't I just replace it with the newest i5 or i7?

This is just a market correction from ryzen/zen hype. AMD's stock rose way too fast for their actual market offerings. Congrats to those who rode this wave and sold at the right time, but now we're starting to see some sanity here.

Also the article is little more than blogspam of another article that gives a simple summary of the Morgan Stanley report.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/amd-shares-crater-after-morg...

The Morgan Stanley report's summary isn't rosy for AMD:

---

Moore lowered his price target for AMD shares to $8 from $11, representing 32 percent downside from Friday's close.

The analyst predicts cryptocurrency mining driven sales for AMD's graphics chips will decline by 50 percent next year or a $250 million decline in revenue. He also forecasts video game console demand will decline by 5.5 percent in 2018.

"We expect cryptocurrency to gradually fade from here, consoles to decline, and graphics to be flattish," he wrote. "To be clear, we admire what the company has accomplished on a fraction of its competitors' budgets in both microprocessors and graphics - our cautious view is based entirely on the current stock price, and the limited potential for upside in 2018 and beyond."

---

Also from a market facts perspective:

AMD today: $10.92

AMD a week ago: $14.25

>That report is so negatively biased it's suspicious.

Well, no one is buying the stock for x reasons so the price is falling. How is that not factual?

Moore might be right that $8 is AMD's rational market price considering their current offerings and sales projections. I don't see how anyone can look at AMD's stock performance in the past month and decide that it isn't destined for a downward slope until it hits a new floor.

This is not a pretty picture for a company that just released its latest and highly anticipated offerings, after years of delays and promises, a few months ago:

https://imgur.com/a/uNn1s

edit: oh well, downvotes from fanboys who will be offended at anything but "AMD IS AMAZEBALLS"

Turboprops were developed in the 20's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop#History

and used in popular prop airliners like the Lockheed Electra:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-188_Electra

I'm guessing you're thinking of turbofans.

Poe's Law I suppose.

If there are 10 'good' hires in the initial pile, then cutting out 5 arbitrarily lowers your chance of getting any one of those 10 by half instantly.

This is what I was trying to express. At the end of the day there are only so many 'good' applicants.

> Church groups?

Now you have a defacto "If you're not in the boss's religion or congregation you can just piss right off" thing going on which is toxic for the workplace. Even if you were, say the same Christian denomination as him, are you willing to drive to the boss's wealthy suburb to go to the wealthy suburban church every Sunday solely for your career?

Nothing says the organization doesn't care about merit or diversity than church hiring.

And recruiters and managers wonder why applicants spam hundreds of cookie cutter resumes and cover letters instead of painstakingly crafting each one. Or why they get annoyed at 'job portal' applications where we have to retype our resume into the various little text boxes the web application provides.

Its just a numbers game if you don't have a relationship with someone who can get you a new job.

> refuse to hire unlucky people

Not getting hired there seems to be the 'lucky' move. Arbitrary hiring guarantees, over time, some pretty terrible characters that a proper hiring process would filter out. If you're pissing away 50% of your potential and, say, there's a 20% chance of getting a 'good' person, now there's a 10% chance of that. Over time, a place with such hiring standards would most likely build out a corporate culture that's subpar. The rare 'good' hires would probably take off much earlier than need be because there's so many more 'bad' hires. Eventually the 'bad' hires rule the roost and then people act surprised at gross incompetence as the norm in many companies, shameless dishonesty, and various forms of harassment being normalized.

I worked at a place that didn't take hiring very seriously and this is exactly what ended up happening.

Pre-Jet flight wasn't exactly a suicide run. A turboprop plane with dual engines was as safe as a jet, fixed for a number of factors.

The larger benefit with jets is being able to fly much higher and faster and being able to hit the 30,000-35,000 sweet spot where the air is thinner, the plane is above storms, and jet fuel efficiency for typical planes is pretty good. The larger 'innovation' on the success of jets is the lowered cost per seat. Props at 10k altitude burned a lot of fuel and were slow which hurt their ability to get more fares. Safety didn't hold back the industry. Cost and speed did.

edit: applies to non-turbo prop as well

The 2016 polling models were pretty good, or at least, as good as they are usually[1]. The problem is, it was a very close race by electoral college standards. Trump ultimately won by 80,000 votes in three states in an election with 136m votes cast[2]. So the 'deciding' votes were just 0.06% of the vote total.

I think we can have it both ways. Voter suppression is being done and we have statistical heats in competitive races due to how poorly designed the Electoral College is. This mix is pretty tough to work with.

Probably more reason to abandon the Electoral College outright. The popular candidate lost even though she have 3m more votes. How can pollsters be expected to work properly with such an irrational system? How can they predict where .06% percent of a vote will swing spread across three competitive states?

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-...

[2] http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-came-down-to-7774...

Endless nags don't do end users much good. Battery status is a highly visible UI element on mobile. We don't need extra nagging from within an application. Also even less granular reporting is still an element to perform fingerprinting on.

App developers should be already working on these conditions by default. You should already have a game save system that can expect client shutdown or disconnection at any time.

That said, I could see a 15% or less warning but your mobile OS is doing that anyway, so why bother.

> This is a very literal interpretation of the term "web is dying"

Does smtp 'exist' now that most of it is over google, yahoo, and microsoft? Or linux considering RedHat/Cent/Fedora and Ubuntu/Debian are responsible for most installs.

I think its rational to accept that big players will, naturally, take big slices and that doesn't mean you're kinda sorta making a 'x is dying' argument. If anything, the natural distribution of the network effect probably falls onto a ~80/20 relationship where the bigger players take 80% of the market and many smaller players take the remaining 20%.

The web will be no exception to this. It just took a little while to get here. Its already happened to ISPs, remember early on when every city had multiple competing DSL resellers? PC operating systems (is anyone even pretending that Windows and MacOS as a distant second will ever have real competitors anymore?), PC GPUs (two real players now), 3D game engines (2 non-in house engines dominate), does Linkedin even have competition now?, etc, etc.

Worse, the network effect for Facebook is tremendous. Its power isn't that its a great service, its mediocre at best, but its a such a pita to get everyone you know to switch over that it'll probably never happen.

Back in the old days, bloggers had to get their own domain names, find their own hosting, write their own html/css/whatever, manage their own CMS (and install it on a linux system hosted somewhere and via the commandline/ftp/whatever), etc. This meant a lot of the early web was techie-oriented types who could perform these tasks (endless sites and discussions on who is the best Star Trek captain or which was the worst Star Wars movie, not many on fighting childhood malnutrition in the 3rd world). I'm not sure how this was 'better' than what we have today.

Democratization will often lead to a network effect which will lead to consolidation. Philosophically, to some, a perfectly distributed system is 'better' but to pull that off you'd probably need communist-level social and economic controls and if you had that you most likely would never had the internet or the web.

Just the fact that we use aggregators like HN or Reddit means that we accept a whole lot of consolidation without question and often see it as better than the old system of managing a dozen different topics spread on on various specialist sites and usenet. Or are we giving special exceptions to techie approved sites like Reddit (the 4th most popular site in the USA), which is missing from the article?

Viking 1 landed on Mars only 12 years later. Interesting that a paper about exploring the possibility of a computerized machine on Mars is written a scant 12 years before an actual landing of a fairly complex lander. Life between, say, 1960 and 1980 must have felt at a breakneck pace.

Viking 1 lander's abilities:

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/viking1landata.html

Its published by the Edison Tech Center which is a non-profit in Schenectady, NY. It doesn't need to publish on a more granular level of authorship. I guess it would be nice, but its own editorial policies are what they are and not outside of norms. I don't complain about the Economist doing the same, for example.

>His sources are mostly unverifiable crap

There is a source list at the end of the article.

Sources: -Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930. by Thomas Parke Hughes.1993 (book)

-Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany

-Historisches Museum, Frankfurt Germany

-The General Electric Story - A Hall of Electrical History Publication.1999 (book)

-Archives of the Schenectady Museum: William Stanley files, E.W. Rice Jr. Files

-Great Barrington Historical Society

-Hawkins Electrical Guides (book series)

-Men and Volts. by John Winthrop Hammond. 1941(book)

-Folsom Powerhouse Museum. Folsom, California

-Biography of Elihu Thomson, prepared by E.W. Rice Jr.

-Archives of the Edison Tech Center: Rice Family Archives

-Almost Edison: How William Sawyer and Others Lost the Race to Electrification. by Donald Scott McPartland. 2006

Internet Sources:

-MIT website: Inventor of the Week" William Stanley

-IEEE Global History Network: Milestones: Alternating Current Electrification 1886

-http://profiles.incredible-people.com/galileo-ferraris/

-wikipedia: Nikola Tesla

-wikipedia: Transformers

-wikipedia: Hippolyte Pixii

-wikipedia: Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovsky

Mozilla may not be able to make much headway until these patents expire:

https://www.quora.com/Is-anyone-working-on-an-open-source-ve...

Apparently, the business model for voice services in the past has been to snap up as many broad patents as possible to keep competitors at bay. I read an interview with a google engineer a couple years back claiming the same thing. They have to carefully work around a patent minefield with their own services and how these patents are holding back better voice search on mobile technology.

You're cherrypicking the part of the document that addresses the comic and I do agree the tone could be more professional, but it a fairly serious rebuke of some pretty terrible claims. Ironically, when Hawkings, Linus, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc use the same tone, the tech community seems to not have any problems with it. The factual aspects of this page are pretty good and I'm hard pressed to find any issue here historically. I'm something of a amateur Edison-era historian, love this period, and feel that if we want to properly honor history and the lives of the people who more or less helped build the modern world, then we should be honest about the facts and park the fanboyism.

I do feel they gloss over the elephant electrocution and even by standards of that time was a bit shocking, even if there were almost no animal welfare laws. To be fair to Edison's group, this PR stunt was tasteless, but the elephant was already sentenced to death. My understanding is the alternative would have been a grisly shooting with an elephant gun which is far less humane than electrocution.

Again, the Oatmeal comic is pretty poor representation of the period. I understand its popular and ties in with Tesla fandom and an over-represented demographic on the web, but I think those honest about knowing what these men did should dismiss it and dig into more academic sources. This period is so exciting and interesting, its a shame a lot of youngsters grow up with a simple minded 'Tesla vs Edison' narrative which is such a stupid oversimplification of an amazing and progressive period in US history.

Chicago is 230+ sq miles, its a huge city. Parking on, say, far south side or NW side is very different than parking in hot neighborhoods or downtown. Unless you're paying for a space you're going to have issues with street parking in many areas.

A 210-250" car will absolutely present challenges street parking in many neighborhoods. My 170" car does sometimes due to average street space size. I can't imagine adding another few feet to my car and being happy with street parking experiences.