Oh, very interesting, I wasn't even aware this was a thing. I mean, I guess it's obvious but after trying third-party keyboards years ago (and finding them too buggy) I never really kept up with them. I'll check that out!
The author stated that their human assistant is located in another country which adds a huge layer of complexity to the accountability equation.
In fact, if I wanted to implement a large-scale identity theft operation targeting rich people, I would set up an 'offshore' personal-assistant-as-a-service company. I would then use a tool like OpenClaw to do the actual work, while pretending to be a human, meanwhile harvesting personal information at scale.
Used lenses from 30 years ago plus a DSLR from 15 years ago plus a suitable adapter will do the job, and may be in the price range with a bit of bargain hunting.
That is a very disingenuous take on the comment. We should of course target a higher level of proficiency than that, but the point is that many humans make stupid driving decisions every day. We can hold machines to a higher standard, but perfection is an unrealistic standard.
I don't think I was being disingenuous but I did try to specifically call out aiming for a middling (and not perfect) proficiency. Driving onto tram tracks on a clear day is unacceptably poor performance. This is something that a good driver is unlikely to ever do in their lifetime and - if it happened - likely involved some extreme circumstances.
Not a dumb question at all. I grew up using actual green screen terminals, and the advent of high-resolution colour monitors and applications with dark text on a white background felt like a blessing. I truly do not understand the regression to dark mode. It's eyestrain hell for me.
Unfortunately, I was unable to test in my light-background terminal, since the application crashes on startup.
If I'm working in a dark room, then light mode is eye strain hell. With dark mode, the minimum brightness I can achieve is about 100x lower than with light mode.
OLED monitors will bring green screen terminals back in style quite soon (with occasional orange and red highlights for that Hollywood haxx0r UX effect)
I briefly test-drove Windows 2, but have been a solid Windows user since 3.1 too.
I have been forced to use Windows 11 on a succession of work PCs, but I stayed 10 at home due to the lack of a movable task bar and the terrible right-click menu in 11.
When Microsoft started pushing hard against remaining on 10 this year, I made the switch - to MacOS. It was an easy decision, since I was finally able to get a MacBook for work, too, so no context-switching required. I run a copy of Win11 in a VM for apps that need it, but find that I rarely have to spin it up.
As a product manager, I cannot image the decision-making behind building a product update so shitty that you drive away 35-year customers.
I've been trying out different distros, but still using windows 10 ltsc as my main OS. I've got 2 additional partitions containing popos with cosmic and kde fedora that I've narrowed it down to, but both need just a little more bugfixing to to become perfect for me. LTSC is still supported for a while, but if my computer stopped working, I feel like macOS would be a no-brainer for most people.
Not always- see Costco. But in a world where every company is trying to minimize expenses to maximize profits, paying significantly above market is at the very least an indicator that there may be something fishy going on.
It's a valid business strategy to hire the best and brightest in the field, and to pay higher than average to attract that talent -- if you can afford it.
"Big law" firms are a good example of this too: they pay way more than some random family law practice.
The "if you can afford it" is pulling all the weight there. Why can certain companies afford it more than others in the same market? The context of this thread is suggesting that those companies are doing more crime or crime-adjacent activities.
Sure, I understand the thread's implication and I'm certainly not saying that it's never true.
But some companies have the choice of hiring, for example, one really great engineer for $500k, and one very solid one for $250k.
Another organization might want to hire three engineers for $250k.
A third, perhaps, wants to hire seven at $100k.
They're all spending the same amount of money, but not every company can "afford" that spend -- especially if they need several engineers working on unique feature sets.
I just think it's a leap to say that every company paying more than average market value is criminal.
Kirkland is a Seattle 'burb and IT/software pay in Seattle is competitive (FAANGM, etc.).
Costco has a rep for paying their cashiers, food handlers, and stocker teams well, comparatively speaking. Their IT teams are mostly outsourced, like all large companies, and aren't impressive by Seattle rates.
How I understood OP - is that Costco pays better than other big retailers. Also probably not only for IT department, but on average (including cashiers and such).
But the context of the conversation is white collar crime, corruption, or unfair practices, and paying significantly above market rate.
Costco is a very egalitarian organization. They pay is flatter across the entire hierarchy. Lower rank people are paid more, higher ranked people are paid less. They are a super ethical organization, I'm a big fan (though they could do better at incentivizing innovation).
It's just not the same pattern as paying gigantic amounts of money to hoard up "CS grads" or lawyers.
I have a different perspective. The worst types of cancer kill slowly and cause agonizing suffering.
Alzheimer's leads to negative outcomes for your caregivers, but by many accounts many affected individuals do not suffer all that much, if at all, due to their lack of awareness.
Right? And not even a way to get a transcript, that I can see. Who has an hour to listen to some dudes talk about a question that could and has been answered in a few seconds?
