The population of any closed system, whether country, continent, or even planet, cannot grow indefinitely. And any system that expects indefinite growth to sustain itself will invariably become exhausted when rate out exceeds rate in for a sufficient duration.
Immigration alone may be a stopgap, but it is by no means a solution.
You assume too much. There is frequently no asking. There has been (in my personal experience) a lot of demanding, and (yes) entitlement to expect that an opinion from one is more salient than a fact from another, owing only to the heritage or physical characteristics of those that voiced it.
I'm willing to take that risk when the deescalation is to prevent WW3. The time for a world sheriff passed, and using proxy wars is like playing with matches next to dynamite. Why are we bristling for a status quo foreign policy, which was shown repeatedly to be predicated on false terms of engagement?
Can you cite the studies of which you are referring? I had not heard that the efficacy of pair programming is correlated with member seniority prior to this comment.
Sorry, last time I looked for references I couldn't find them. But I did read of at least one study to that effect. To me it seems like proving the sky was blue, though.
Remember, to be efficient, pair programming has to produce more correct code than two developers would have done programming individually. Mob programming would need to produce 5x the correct output of 5 developers. It just seems insanely unlikely that me and another developer pairing could be more than 2x as efficient as me on my own. I just don't miss that many things or get stuck almost ever.
People come to me for design advice, so I don't think having someone there to work with me on the design side would be useful either; I don't spend a lot of time flailing, I just write out really solid code, really quickly. Aside from that: I am fully in support of design meetings to sketch out architecture.
Today in ~6 hours of programming so far I would have saved about 4 minutes tracking down something that I typed wrong and that broke the tests that a second developer might (probably would) have caught. But another senior developer could have written code for 6 hours as well if they hadn't been watching over my shoulder. If we're talking about senior developers, how can you not assume they'd be able to create more code with a keyboard and no interruptions?
It really just doesn't make sense that experienced developers could possibly be more efficient if only one person is typing. Junior developers? Sure, at least that's a reasonable assumption. They have so little idea what they're doing, putting two inexperienced brains together on the problem might mean they produce more than twice as much, because they collectively know enough to work far more efficiently together.
But for experienced senior level developers? I think the burden of proof is on the advocates of pair programming. Extraordinary claims and all.
The main exception is when you have two distinct subject matter experts working together on a problem. Even then I like to have two keyboards, so it's not strictly pair programming, but collaborative/synchronized programming, with expected frequent questions and back-and-forth. I did that once recently when connecting a C/C++ low latency video and audio streaming library to Unity3d and C#; I worked with a Unity expert and while he wired up the Unity side I wired up the C++ side. I laid out what the Unity part needed to look like, and he told me how Unity interfaces to DLLs on Windows. We frequently bounced ideas back and forth but were working on different parts of the code. Worked great; had the integration working in a couple hours, plus or minus.
> to be efficient, pair programming has to produce more correct code... how can you not assume they'd be able to create more code with a keyboard and no interruptions
I use it for kitchen related lookups, timers, and music. The music selection sucks, so I often end up just connecting my phone via bluetooth.
My only custom use was to write a WOL task that targets my Steam Machine so I can turn it on without leaving the couch. The machine is a frankenstein, so it doesn't have any fancy IR receiver or whatever people typically use to remotely turn on a game console.
That drive certainly is a bit strange. For one, I would imagine lot of the potential performance is wasted by a SAS connector.
That said, it might be of interest to enterprises from a few different angles (largest drive available for that form factor, easier to manage, great performance, etc). Anything that widens adoption will serve to drive prices even lower. SSDs don't necessarily beat HDDs on price per GB, they just have to get close enough that enough people don't care anymore. And as the original poster pointed out, for many that's already the case.
> And as the original poster pointed out, for many that's already the case.
Because we're seeing, at the same time, a drive away from owning media and instead streaming them, and/or storing data increasingly in The Cloud® and only having a small working set locally.
All those off-loaded will have to be stored somewhere by someone, and that someone will most likely keep using spinning rust for its better price.
And if you do want to keep all your data locally (e.g. because you're living in Nowhere Innawoods and ISPs struggle to get you 6 MBit/s), HDDs can't keep getting bigger and cheaper fast enough.
That's an interesting point, though I suspect it's slightly overstated. I'm sure there's several scenarios that demand huge amounts of storage - e.g. storing HD series, etc - but I'd argue that it isn't mainstream in the greater scheme of things. Heck, I have a 2mbit ADSL line (since I'm living in the arse end of nowhere), and my primary PC has 3x250GB spinnies and a 100GB SSD, no cloud storage. I have a 2TB external for long-term backups. I haven't bothered to replace the HDDs, because honestly I don't really need to. And I'm sure I'm not a special case.
> I'm sure there's several scenarios that demand huge amounts of storage - e.g. storing HD series, etc - but I'd argue that it isn't mainstream in the greater scheme of things.
That was my point; almost nobody is storing HD series anymore because people want to (and in many cases legally are only able to) stream them instead.
Lots of people use Plex etc for movie playback. Kids love to rewatch movies, as do some movie lovers. I have a copy of many movies in a disk array so that I can watch them anywhere in the house without digging out a disk.
I do store movies, and quite a few people around me too. I store only truly remarkable and important ones to me that I might watch later (and often I do), currently filling most of my 3 TB drive. I never go back to series, even the best ones are one-time watch for me.
Flac music can fill another 500 GB easily, more depending what you listen to..
Not a lot of people know how/can stream a properly good 1080p stream with high bitrates. oh, you want some subtitles because you're not an english native? Or you have fancy stereo/surround setup that you want to actually use? oh well, you better download some bigger version.
> But if the Cloud is made up of hard drives, then hard drive manufacturers still win.
If drives in the Cloud are, on average, utilized more efficiently (both in terms of less unused drive capacity being purchased, and existing drives being used for more of their design life and not being tossed because the device they are in is end-of-life even if the drive isn't) than traditional locally-deployed (both client and server) drives, then increasing cloud use could mean the manufacturer's still lose (in terms of year-over-year sales) even with total storage increasing, if the increase in average efficiency outpaces the increase in storage, so that annual drive sales drop.
Many technologies have this type of price tiering -- high end costs a fortune and exists for super-niche customers and to build out the manufacturing process. (Recall $25,000 plasma TVs 15 years ago).
If you're making large purchases right now, 3+TB SSDs are pricing out fast spinning disk tiers. You probably will see no 10k/15k drives in 2-3 years.
Going to need you to finish that train of thought. Data aggregation (or power concentration) isn't any more inherently machiavellian than any of the non sequiturs you rattled off.
