ffhhttt

Hoe much are they even paying ARM?

> It's not like you can argue that they can't pull off a RISC transition

Apple could also possibly send a spaceship to the moon if they really wanted to. Not sure there are any practical reasons to do that.

They’ve been working on ARM chips for almost a decade to get to where they are now. Throwing that away for some ill defined advantages seems not that rational.

What could Apple possibly gain by switching to RISC-V? They already design their own ARM cores anyway so licensing isn’t an issue

> My advice here

I would assume that most people here do understand that they can close their windows.

Maybe a bit to extreme?

For first few offenses a few days in the stocks sounds reasonable, the second time we take an ear and for third offense you can pick between the gallows or being shipped to Australia.

I’m not so sure. It probably matters a whole lot more when you’re starting and nobody is using your app. Twitter would likely had a much harder time catching up if was called “X” and looked as ugly as now..

And even for a mature product it will probably cost quite a bit of money/users longterm

> career politicians

Possibly preferable to career billionaires (which was the case in every premodern republic like Rome or Venice)

Really hope you’re just trolling..

But just to clarify a bit: I’m not “backing down” from anything I said.

Unfortunately it’s just hard tell what exactly I’m supposed to substantiate because your diatribes are a bit too incoherent.. and it’s quite hard to comprehend what are you trying to say.

I would advise you to tone do the amount of “personal” insults when trying to communicate with other people.

They really obscure your actual points (assuming they exist?) and they they aren’t doing much anyway since I still can’t really tell whether you’re talking to me or somebody else.

Also I generally find that insults are most effective when used sparingly or in a subtle backhanded manner.

> You don't have to eliminate cheating, just keep it acceptably low.

Of course. I just don’t think it would be feasible to keep it acceptably low. Just look at what’s happening in countries like India. The have state wide internet shutdowns in some areas during the exam day amongst other draconian measures..

> That would be the student's incentive but not the teachers

They would align over time due to student/parent pressure to focus entirely on tests (and teachers wouldn’t have any incentive not to do that).

> As for the point - if you're abandoning measuring progress, let's just not educate kids and save ourselves a ton of money.

Tests work fine when they are used an an indicator. Prioritizing the maximization of test scores over everything else is already an issue, your suggestion would just make it much worse.

Also I entirely disagree with the whole premise of this statement. e.g. Finland for instance doesn’t have any standardized tests besides the one you take in your last year before graduating high school.

And yet.. Finland’s educational system is widely considered to be one of the best in the world.

You’d have to spend a fortune on cheating prevention and would still fail.

Also just trying to maximize standardized test scores by ignoring everything else is an outright awful idea. What would even be the point of that?

This would be ruined by cheating and people trying to game the system (and this includes pupils, parents and teachers).

Short term that might be the case. However longterm (as long as the economy continues growing) you would still expect nominal earnings and revenue to increase at least at the same pace.

Also it varies a lot by sector, consumer staples for instance have been doing quite well over the last year.

If you have double digits inflation and can’t/don’t want to buy foreign currency the stock market is probably the best place to be. Just look at Turkey:

https://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/stock-market

> They'll have a much smaller role in my asset allocation going forward.

If you would ever consider bonds wouldn’t now be one of the best time ever to buy them? (unless you believe interest rates could sill go up significantly)

> space exploration should be left completely to the private sector, not just the execution,

If you’re fine with there being no space exploration whatsoever. Which is a reasonable view, it’s very expensive and highly unprofitable.

Why would a (rational) private corporation ever send a rover to mars or a drone to titan? It would be an absurd thing to do..

Why would you want to privatize something that is effectively a natural monopoly? How could consumers ever benefit from that over the longterm?

Also significant inflation = higher stock prices, while your principal would only decrease in value if you buy bonds.

Apple bobs yield just ~0.9% or so kore than 10 year treasuries. You have to go for much riskier companies to get significantly above 5%.

Of course if there is a recession, the stock market tanks and most importantly the Fed starts cutting rates you might do quite well (assuming you’re willing to sell those bonds afterwards).

There is no need to take any comment which is barely even targeted at you so personally.

Being so angry at random people on the internet is not good for you..

> The letter in a distinctive font, though (which is what they're doing), very likely.

But it’s not actually “X”. The symbol while obscure is called “ Mathematical Double-Struck Capital X “. Graphically the logo seems completely identical to the Unicode character. I don’t know if they can register it as a trademark it but would sure seem weird if you could that with something like “ ∫ “

I’m in awe of your seemingly psychic ability to sense people’s emotions over the internet.

However seeing personal insults everywhere and feeling the need to respond in kind seems rather tiresome.

It was satire? Makes sense now..

The Roman legal system was extremely arbitrary and highly dysfunctional by modern standard. Why transporting some random feature of it (which contributed to it being such) to the modern world would ever be a good idea?

> revert that kind of power to its citizens.

It think it’s the inverse and would significantly decrease the “power” a random person has due to obvious reasons.

> fragile and angry

I’m neither angry or fragile. Why would you even use these words? I just shared my observation, that’s it.

> indoctrinated

That generally comments which include this word tend to be at least mildly deranged is another thing I noticed here as well.

> Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enoug

If you were a rich aristocrat it’s likely that you lived under a constant threat of being killed during one of his “stalinist” style purges. Which to be fair wasn’t that odd even the “good” emperors like Claudius engaged in stuff like that.

Rule of law wasn’t much of a thing during the imperial period.

I’m not sure there is anything wrong with having an opinion it’s just a lot of the time any post related to economics/history/other non tech subjects is full of overconfident people offering semi-absurd solutions (some of which have even been tried but they are obviously not aware of that).

Yes but a quite often when you don’t actually understand what you’re looking at those patterns and analogies end up being imaginary.

Right. But turning two things which are bad in different ways into one doesn’t seem to accomplish much besides limit whatever choice is left.

But you don’t have to pay import duties and VAT if you buy from EU countries?

e.g. these day if I order anything from the UK (to an EU country) the package gets stuck in customs and I have to pay VAT(20%) + Import duty (optional depending on product type/value) + random service fee.

Is Uber penalizing him? No.

Any company which would have to directly employ him would certainly penalize him for not accepting work and would not allow him to start his shift whenever he wanted.

That other app he’s using seems to be somewhere in between gig and normal work (so you seem to get the worst from both worlds).

> If they were employing him, penalizing him for declining work would be fine.

Which seems like a huge downside?

Not throughout much of Europe. Not directly anyway, since reforms were often enacted by liberal/conservative parties because they were widely popular.

The unemployment rate is extremely low these days, yes they do have other options in most places. Many choose to work for uber because they prefer the flexibility to having to work shifts with very limited options to alter your schedule.

Why so you think working for uber is fundamentally worse than being a part time low wage worker with almost no flexibility anywhere else?

> and why on earth would they cut their own pay

So market set the pay for services however executive pay is not affected by the market at all?

Uber pays its executives what it does because other comparable companies pay the same. If they cuts that people they’d want to hire will choose to work for other places and they will have to find someone who agrees to work for less (which might or might not be bad a thing)