> Tell me you have zero clue what a monopoly is or what the law is, without telling me.
Monopoly law is subject to reinterpretation over time and anybody who has studied the history of it knows this. The only people argue for "strict" interpretations of current monopoly law are those who currently benefit from the status quo.
> Monopoly law relies on broad categories, not narrow ones.
And this is currently a gigantic problem. Because of relying on broad categories to define "monopoly", every single supply chain has been allowed to collapse into a small handful of suppliers who have no downstream capacity thanks to Always Late Inventory(tm). This prevents businesses from mounting effective competition since their upstream suppliers have no ability to support such activities thanks to over-optimization.
To be effective on the modern incarnation of businesses, monopoly law needs to bust every single consolidated narrow vertical over and over and over until they have enough downstream capacity to support competition again.
Look at commute length. When families had a maximum of one car, you simply couldn't live very far from work. As soon as you got two cars per family, commute times and traffic exploded.
If you can simply sleep during the trip, how much further will people be willing to commute? I suspect quite a bit.
The TI PRUs demonstrate that what you need for hard real time is 2 processors and the ability to completely transfer your register file in a single clock cycle instruction.
This lets your first processor be deterministic hard real time while your second processor is soft real time.
I really wish somebody who makes M-series microcontrollers would get the message already.
> I'm genuinely confused at what the value prop of Oracle is.
Legal blame transfer.
Oracle has every single compliance checkbox you need for any certification you can name.
So, if your end customer (generally BigCorp or BigGovt) wants "NitWit Certification v4007", you call up the Oracle sales rep, get a quote, and pass the cost along with a significant markup.
> So much of what drives chart success is what is in fashion at the time. Trend setting will always be the domain of youngsters.
I would suggest it's more the demands of poverty that make it a young person's game. So, so, so many pop musicians were "I was living in squalor for a decade plus was extremely depressed and was about to hang it up when <thing happened> and we got popular." Huey Lewis, Annie Lennox, ... I can go on and on.
There was a metal artist that was being interviewed about when they were going to tour again and was "Yeah, we'll consider it. But I've got a lot of work at my tattoo business right now." There was another guy that was like "Yeah, had this fame hit in our 20s this would be nice but in our late 30s it isn't really useful. We figured out how to do life by now, and we're not going to disrupt that."
> So even if you sign that clause you are not bound by it.
Jimmy John's was making its low-level employees sign non-competes, for example. This was ridiculous on its face, and probably wouldn't hold up in court. However, the people affected by it were least able to take it to court.
The fact that KiCad still has a ton of highly upvoted missing features and the fact that FreeCAD still hasn't solved the topological renumbering problem are existence proofs to the contrary.
That's fine in math. Math is true or it is not. People who overturn popular conjectures in math get fame, not approbation.
Being able to prove things in something like Lean means that stuff like Mochizuki's work on the abc conjecture could be verified or disproven in spite of its impenetrability. Or, at the very least, it could be tackled piecemeal by legions of students tackling a couple of pages every semester.
Don't blame this one on programming techies. This one is ALL the fault of shitty UI designers abusing modal dialog boxes.
A modal dialog is supposed to be for something damn near irreversible--like about to blow away your application because of error. You are supposed to STOP and go get the guru or you are about to lose, badly.
Unfortunately, UI designers throw them up for everything and people get used to simply clicking "OK" to make them go away so that they can get back to doing their task. So, when the user gets an actual error, they've already blown away the dialog box with information.
Your 'Saving this image as a JPG will not preserve the transparency used in the image. Save anyway?' line is a horrifically excellent example. That is a standard "Save As..." response, and it should NEVER have been. That should have always been under "Export..." as saving should never throw away information and it would be perfectly fine to regenerate a JPG as long as you have the full information still available in the original file.
This is the stuff that infuriates me about the UI designers. Your job is about interactions, first, and pixels, second.
Okay, that got my attention. What harnesses are those?
reply