Last I tried to run Pijul (IIRC, 2.5yrs ago), there were major, seemingly unresolvable crashes for the simplest of operations on Mac and Linux. Has it gotten better?
I tried it a few weeks ago and found it completely unusable. I do not get how they claim to be using it. I tried what I thought was the intended workflow and it's state got corrupted right away without any warnings.
I think EnPissant has a point regarding the overhead. Mapping semantic dependencies at the patch layer sounds great in theory, but the computational cost of resolving those graphs in a repository with thousands of changes is non-trivial.
In my work with high-performance engines, 'on-the-fly' graph resolution is usually the first thing to hit a performance wall compared to simple snapshot-based lookups. Pijul is a brilliant experiment in Category Theory applied to VCS, but until it can demonstrate that it doesn't degrade linearly with history size, Git's 'dumb' but fast snapshots will likely win the network effect battle.
None of these stats (including the person you're replying to) are directly comparable.
- Median net worth is $193k, of which $185k is in their home. Suppose a $10k emergency crops up. Well...you're fucked. If you're lucky you can take out a loan against the accrued value relatively quickly, but otherwise you're taking a 10% haircut having to sell quickly, another 10% in transaction fees, and another $10k in the sudden move/storage/renting/loss-of-work/etc situation you found yourself in liquidating your home to cover an extortionist colonoscopy+lawyer pricing or something. You're _fine_, but when minor road bumps can cause $45k setbacks ($55k if we count the $10k expense this depended on) you're not not living paycheck to paycheck.
- You can't compare the median savings to the median net worth. They're not the same person, and the cross-terms can take almost any distribution.
- The 54% stat is based on self-reported vibes and is pretty blatantly wrong. The median household also has $5200 in unavoidable (without delinquency, losing your home, etc) expenses, which doesn't jive very well with $8k in savings somehow lasting 3 months (assuming the cross terms I complained about aren't too terribly distributed). You would expect 2+ paychecks of stability (which, incidentally, is also the usual prompt for "paycheck-to-paycheck" stability -- not whether it takes one paycheck to be screwed but two), but then you're hosed.
And so on.
You're _right_; the median US household won't go broke missing a paycheck; but 2-3 paychecks is enough to cause major problems at the 50th percentile, give or take friends and family stepping in to soften the blow.
You can quibble with the details but ultimately GP is wrong; the median American isn’t broke or living paycheck to paycheck — which were the claims made — and it isn’t close.
I know a number of people who view basically any kind of aid as morally wrong, ultimately leading to the downfall of the people you're trying to help. Even with their own kids, once they're 18 they're on their own -- no help with college, no inheritance, no etc. They really believe that handouts create a situation worse than whatever ill they're solving.
Mind you, they still think poverty is bad, but they'd object to something like paying for basic infrastructure and be happy to create the modern-day equivalent of CCC camps to pay the poor people to build that infrastructure. That sort of thing.
How does that work mechanically? If I have a home to rent out, why don't I reduce prices to $19k to guarantee zero occupancy-related losses, and why doesn't somebody else out-compete me?
People come in all sorts of different shapes, sizes, and configurations. I don't have any pressure on the sharp edges in my normal day-to-day, and I'm having a little trouble figuring out how I'd contort myself to change that, so that particular issue is fine.
The glare is annoying. I would like to work outside more often.
Mind you, I don't really like the poor isolation and floating ground causing a tingling sensation when you touch it while charging, the lid hinge doesn't quite have enough internal resistance, the keys get stuck way too easily, etc. The sharp-corners build defect is fine for me though.
I’m really flummoxed at why the MacBooks continue to be spicy. When using then laptop with a charger using the grounded cable on the socket side there used to be no spice. Now that adapters are mostly only used with two prong connectors the spicyness is ubiquitous.
I recall audio equipment also not being grounded because the industry prefers not being grounded over being accidentally grounded to two different grounds causing voltage transients. Maybe the same reason now also applies to MacBooks? Or does someone know another reason why the outer shell of a MacBook is still spicy.
Yes, the electrical shocks are very annoying! I don't know if it's related to an older/failing battery but I've certainly noticed this on an old Macbook Pro. Thanks for mentioning this - I guess at 24VDC it isn't a regulatory issue but it really does feel like a small insect sting or something and it's irritating.
My newer Air doesn't seem to have this problem. Also the screen is brighter, together with a mat finish it is better for using outside.
It happens new too, and it's not the DC side of things. The AC -> DC component has some AC leakage, and the default of bad two-prong charging blocks basically guarantees you'll have issues.
I normally "fix" it by using a USB-C charging brick and cord from a better company (somehow they're all fine even ungrounded), but the factory default is bad.
Companies have to inform affected individuals of data breaches, especially when HIPAA gets involved. Brokers have to inform clients of transaction errors. Auto manufacturers have to inform owners of recalls. Retirement funds have to inform plan participants of lawsuits involving those funds.
You don't even have to invoke the idea that Meta is big enough to be regulated as a public utility for this to have broad precedent in favor of forcing a malicious actor to inform its victims that they might be entitled to a small fraction of their losses in compensation.
Well we aren’t discussing the government requiring meta to inform users. We are discussing whether meta can choose which private actors’ ads to allow. It would seem silly that a platform would be forced to allow all ads.
Aha, how clever. We aren't discussing whether they can be forced to display messaging; we're discussing whether they're going to later get slapped down for blocking that messaging.
I get that the distinction matters a bit from time to time (court cases keep blurring the line in the US though), but:
1. With all the other shit that makes it through the filter, this was pretty clearly a targeted, strategic takedown rather than some sort of broad "we don't allow bad ads on the platform." Allowing "all ads" isn't the thing being argued; it's allowing "this ad."
2. The non-offensive idea of "abusers shouldn't be allowed to deceive and gaslight their victims" is pretty strongly in favor of this being a bad move on Meta's part if it was an intentional act. Maybe it shakes out fine for them legally in this particular instance, but the fact that as a society we routinely require companies and individuals to behave with more appearance of moral standing than this suggests that blocking this particular ad is over the line, and it's neither naive nor utopianistic to think so. Even if it's legally in the light-grey, it's an abuse of power worth talking about, and hopefully it inspires more people to leave their platform.
They're still maybe right. In CA, it's pretty common for the best plan you can buy as an individual to be half as good as whatever your employer offers and to cost twice as much as the combined employee+employer contribution.
How does ICHRA fix that? What's this "contracting with certain networks" you're referring to?
Cold applying works reasonably well IME, but you have to be able to nail the interviews for it to make sense. I'm great at what I do, I only apply to jobs which should be a good fit, and I still only get interviews 1-2% of the time. I then get offers 95% of the time, which keeps the process manageable.
I've gotten 3/4 of my tech jobs through cold applying though [0], and been offered many, many more. I know it's possible.
Ok that note, I love my current job, and I would've never found anything like it through my network. Cold applying was a literal game-changer in that regard.
[0] One was through Google Foo Bar, and one was through Codefights (now Codesignal or something), so those were slightly more tailored than cold applying.
I had chronic pain in various parts of my feet for years from fairly tame activities (biking 20mi/day, hiking 10-20mi Saturday and Sunday, etc). I'd been fairly conscientious about "good" shoes that fit well, and it didn't make a difference. My in-laws had me go to a running shop, and the founder studied my gait for a bit and picked out shoes which would help. A month or two later, all the pain finally disappeared, and I haven't had issues in years.
That's just an n=1 anecdote, but years of pain followed by years of non-pain with a single, obvious intervention in between seems like a reasonably strong signal.
Assuming I'm not reading too much into my experience, if you're feeling fine I think your strategy probably works, and my only concern might be long-term damage you're not recognizing immediately. Other people will be more knowledgeable as to how you'd test that, but if you're comfortable and not injuring yourself then I don't think you're missing out on anything.
That sounds a lot like my experience as an Apple Developer too, with the added bonus (unclear from your description if you experienced this too) that they took my money before the verification process was finished and wouldn't refund it once their AI couldn't connect my face to my ID and wouldn't let me connect with a real person (the first dozen times were on them, but after that it was maybe my fault for including a middle finger in the photographs).
Going through hell with Apple Developer too. I didn't have to do much in terms of verification (probably because I created an account as an individual) but app submission is another story:
- first time I got rejected for mentioning a name of a third party in my app description. The app description said: DISCLAIMER: not affiliated with xxx
- after fixing the app description I got rejected for using my app name(?!), multiple back and forths with the reviewer got me nowhere, they just copy pasted the same response not addressing my messages at all
- filled the app store review board appeal, it's been 5 days and I've got no response.
At this point I'm seriously considering rewriting the app for MacOS and distributing myself. I can't imagine going through all of this with every app update, it's beyond ridiculous.
Lieutenant Appleby rejected my submission almost immediately. The notice informed me that I had committed the grave offense of impersonating a third party in the description.
"I didn't impersonate a third party," I explained in my message to Lieutenant Appleby. "I only wrote a disclaimer stating: Not affiliated with ACME."
"Exactly," lieutenant appleby replied. "By stating you have nothing to do with ACME, you have involved ACME. Therefore, you are unlawfully impersonating an unaffiliated party."
"But I only mentioned them to prove I wasn't affiliated with them!"
"Which is a violation," Lieutenant Appleby pointed out.
It was a Catch-22. The Guidelines stated that to prove you were not affiliated with a third party, you had to write a disclaimer. But to write the disclaimer, you had to type the third party’s name, which was a strict violation of the rule against mentioning third parties you were not affiliated with.
I deleted the disclaimer, thereby making myself safely affiliated with nobody by refusing to acknowledge anyone. I resubmitted the app.
Lieutenant Appleby rejected it again.
"What is it this time?" I asked.
"You are using your app's name," Lieutenant Appleby replied.
"Of course I am using my app's name," I replied back. "It is the name of my app."
"You cannot use that name. It is trademark infringement."
"Infringing on whose trademark?"
"The app's."
"But I am the app! It is my app!"
"Which is exactly why you cannot use it," Lieutenant Appleby wrote patiently. "If you use the app's name, you are impersonating the app. And impersonation is strictly forbidden by the Guidelines. An app cannot go around pretending to be itself!"
At this point, my phone is PDA level, mostly useful for quick checks. I use a laptop for computing. I know as a tech nerd, I’m far out of the bell curve, but I can’t really bother with those shenanigans unless they’re paying me for it.
Develop only Web applications, that are mobile friendly, notice I said mobile friendly, not PWA.
However, thanks to many of us that only favour Chrome like IE of yore, and ship it alongside their "native" applications, the Web is nowadays ChromeOS Application Platform, so we are only a couple of years away of Google owning that as well.
You might not have a way to actually file a complaint against them but quite often, their legal department will just have a quick look at your case and just give you what you want without bothering to tell you anything. Worth a shot.
I am doing leatherworking as well as woodworking. No idea if it is possible to actually make money with this¹, but damned if I'm not giving it a go just to have skills in an area where AI is not a threat for the coming decade. At the very least these crafts allow me to make things which do not exist and cannot be purchased off the shelf.
1: I mean, it is, certainly. I'm just not sure if I can make money by making leather gear.
If you are in EU you could try complaining to your local DPA. That certainly sounds like "automated decision which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her" which is against article 22 of GDPR. Or you could consider suing them directly at least for the refund.
Outside of EU maybe try passing law like GDPR to actually get some rights back.
reply