snom380

Doesn't services like Pingdom support multiple ping locations? If all of those fail, there's a very high chance there's an actual problem, if not with your server then with your (ISPs) connectivity.

They've always supported third party displays, but this is the first time that I recall that they've included third party displays in an Apple event / presentation. To me, it's a pretty sure sign that an external 5K display from Apple isn't immediately forthcoming (else they would have announced it now and not mentioned the LG display).

Nobody is claming that your're not a professional because you don't need a Mac Pro. Of course the majority of pro tasks will be served by the new Mac laptops. But that's not what we're discussing here.

For the ones that need more performance, it can be a dealbreaker to go so long without updates.

For the ones that have their needs are met today, there's a very clear signal now that if your needs ever grow, Apple won't be there to meet them.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but he was still CEO at that point (his biography has a section about how he dealt with the antennagate issue) after having made a recovery from the transplant.

Yes. And Microsoft was doing extremely well during Ballmers reign, and BlackBerry was doing extremely well for many years after iPhones release.

Current revenue doesn't necessarily say anything about future decline, you need to look deeper than that.

I think that's one thing that would actually make sense. Maybe they're more open to the idea now that they're publicly supporting and advertising third party displays. (edit:spelling)

I also don't think Apple will drop them, but for pro users the lack of updates is a serious problem. It's not like they couldn't have bumped the spec a little every year to keep people happy. People were rightly frustrated by the lack of updates before the Mac Pro was launched, and I think many thought the launch was a signal that Apple took the Pro market seriously. The lack of updates since then serves as another reminder that you can't depend on Apple to deliver up to date hardware in that market.

To the pro users that need more power than what you get from a laptop, there's no compelling alternative from Apple today. Even the iMac has thermal throttling that puts limits on its performance.

I don't understand why you think the article is poorly written, but I certainly can understand and agree with the authors concern. I'm not sure how it's possible to not share that concern after the lack of updates to the desktop line.

Sorry, but Steve Jobs also released lots of products with rough edges like that. (Remember "antennagate"?)

I think we won't see how Apples management really works until there's a new product space that Apple entirely misses, and I don't think we've seen that yet (it could be AI, VR, or something entirely different we haven't thought of). If they miss that just like Microsoft did in the tablet / mobile space, then we can start comparing Tim Cook to Ballmer.

He certainly picked a replacement he believed in. He made very sure that Jony Ive had certain powers inside Apple. He didn't die overnight, and had plenty of time to consider how to set up Apple.

On the other hand, last time he picked a successor in the 80s he picked the wrong guy.

OTOH, since 2005 they've changed the connector _once_, and the adapter is seamless enough that I still use 2006 and 2008 model chargers without giving it a second thought.

From the article, it doesn't seem like he's talking about tools like Slack. If that goes down, maybe it affects your productivity, but probably not your production systems.

What he warns against is betting too early on core technologies like service discovery, deployment systems (Docker etc), database systems (MongoDB) And from reading HN posts, it sure seems like there's no shortage of people being burnt by that.

The future is bluetooth, and they're not making licensing fees off that.

There is no encryption AFAIK, and there wouldn't need to be any compression. Even today, you can connect a regular USB DAC / headphone amp to the iPhone via the USB camera connector dongle and use that. Any device that follows the USB audio standard is supported (depending on power draw, of course).

Is it really the case that languages with more features cause more project failures? Has the success rate of Java (the prototypical blub language) decreased after they've introduced new features like generics?

My experience has often been that whatever feature is lacking in the language tends to be made up for by huge code bases that are impossible to navigate, or using frameworks that abuse whatever dynamic features you have in the language horribly with added complexity in tooling and debugging.

That's not true anymore. Cloudformation supports change sets that you can apply, similar to Terraform. They're not really human readable, but they're there.

They also allow you to manually get out of the UPDATE_ROLLBACK_FAILED state, which was usually where you needed to contact AWS.

Cloudformation also supports Lifecycle events. They are a bit complicated to set up right, but they allow you to tell CloudFormation how to wait and how to proceed in response to resource signals (for instance, the deployment can wait or roll back if new instances in an ASG fail to be deployed). Terraform has none of that. It has "create before destroy", and "depends on", but that's about it AFAIK. If CloudFormation fails it will at least attempt to roll back to a sane state (and usually succeeds). Terraform will give up and leave you to clean up the mess.

Apart from that, Terraform has an advantage because of the modularity, ability to easily bring resources in, reference other resources in remote states etc.

Well, it's not only easier, but it's easy to find others that share your (obnoxious or not) opinions in various groups. So now you're in an echo chamber where your opinions will gather likes and reposts, while your friends and family might try to ignore you as best they can.

And of course, the more you associate and interact with groups that fit your opinions and interests, the more Facebook and other ad-supported services will try to prioritize showing you those posts, so the echo chamber effect is amplified.

And when you step out into the real world, you'll be inclined to think of others that don't share your "informed" opinion as uninformed or naive, after all you have seen all this evidence to back you your opinions and theories. [Edit:spelling]

Ruining it is never the _intention_, but it happens often enough that people are right to worry when a company gets bought out.

I'm pretty sure that if you're considering using Lambda, you'd want to automate creating and deploying the Lambda functions in such a way that you could create any number of them for each developer to play with.

That said, the problem with debugging stands (for AWS lambda, at least).

Pilots do have to monitor the behaviour of the autopilot. Even though they are programmed to do one thing (hold a course or altitude, change to a course or an altitude with a certain rate of change), they rely on potentially faulty sensors and control many parameters to meet the goal. Usually the autopilot will simply disconnect if it detects a problem, but there are examples of autopilots causing passenger injuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72

I guess my question is, yes, you can know that you're still alive, but how can you know that you're still _you_?

The particles that make up your will have a probability of being in a certain place according to some rules. When you move, the particles "disappear" from one place and "appear" at another place. Do you know they are the same particles? Does it matter?

Does it matter more that there's no duplicate particles (ie. no changes of a copy being made)?

In that case, you could device a teleport machine that makes sure to read the state "bit by bit" (particle by particle), then destroys the original particle before creating a new particle in another location. How different would that be compared to what's normally happening to your body?

Why is there no knowing without a you? Won't the clone know just as well as you that he's you?

What defines "you"? The matter you're made of?

Is it a particular arrangement of that matter? (Would you care if your neurons were replaced one by one, while keeping the same arrangement?)

Is it your memories, your thoughts, your inclinations?

Or is it something else?

Going even deeper, from one moment to another - how do you know that you're you? After all, you're not _exactly_ the same, since each moment brings new experiences, ever so slightly changing your memories. Quantum entanglement, perhaps? If not, aren't we a collection of particles with a certain probability distribution that we're able to influence ourselves?

(Maybe this whole discussion is less interesting to Buddhists trained in not-self thinking. :)

Maybe I'm the odd one out, but if that was the original plan that I had intended, I wouldn't object to that (given that it was painless) - after all, minus that conversation the clone would be me "in spirit" if you will.

If I didn't consent to the cloning, that would complicate things. Likewise, my trust in the cloning process would proably affect my decision.

Or put it another way, let's say we live in a software simulation. Do you care whether our sysadmins live migrate our simulation over to a new Alien Web Services instance?

Banking systems don't need impenetrable security for people to use them. People pay online and use online banking every day from easily compromisable laptops. They do so because banks and credit card companies have good fraud coverage (unless you're negligent).

I think the real reason for Apples worry is that they want people to trust the smartphones for way more then just payments, for instance Health information. And people might just end up much more reluctant to do so if they know the phones are easily hackable.

Isn't it open source?

So clone the last release version you trusted, build that from source and be happy?

..and the same is true for closed source software. Replacing installers and patching binaries isn't difficult.

No, it's not true anymore. From the link you replied to:

"On our production frontend machines, SSL/TLS accounts for less than 1% of the CPU load, less than 10 KB of memory per connection and less than 2% of network overhead. Many people believe that SSL/TLS takes a lot of CPU time and we hope the preceding numbers will help to dispel that." - Adam Langley, Google

Getting an SSL certificate used to be a cost, but that's taken care of now by https://letsencrypt.org/.

Arduino/Wirings value is in what it _removed_ to give a standardised way of programming the microcontrollers.

So the "little more" part is the difference between some art student being able to create something cool vs. giving up after three days banging his head against a wall. But when you're an expert in a field it's hard to appreciate that.