Brilliant. This is another piece of evidence on the pile of why we got Wayland: it's because people who understood X11 mostly retired and everyone else couldn't be bothered to learn X11 because it's "yucky C code" or something. And it bothers me that we lose remote rendering with Wayland (unless one fights with waypipe) that was just built-in to X11. Yes, it was slow, but actually if you're running a VM on your local system and using SSH to connect to it, then it works great. Sigh. I'm an old person yelling at clouds.
Not particularly if you are on a low latency network. Modern UI toolkits make applications way less responsive that classical X11 applications running across gigabit ethernet.
And even on a fast network the wayland alternative of 'use RDP' is almost unusable.
For whatever reason X11 shoving pixbufs over the network seems to have orders of magnitude better performance than actual RDP over a high speed network.
How would government realistically preserve a (in hindsight) fragile cultural phenomenon? OTOH a ~difficult mandatory PC/internet operator's license might have done it.
Now that reminds of the weird Internetführerschein ("internet driver's license") courses for nontechnical folk in Germany. Though these were entirely optional and so not cool.
That wouldn't have prevented tech bros from hijacking the cultural momentum or commoditizing attention. Even a maximum fidelity web archive would drown in the noise just the same.
Many recruiters continue to reach out to me on LinkedIn mostly, including FAANG companies. All of the positions are either a 3-2 hybrid or completely on-site. In such cases, these companies want to phone screen and have the first round technical interview via Zoom or something. I've been telling the recruiter that, unless the company allows fully-remote work, I will not allow for a remote interview; however I am happy to interview so long as the entire process is on-site. That includes everything that would normally be done remote, such as the initial phone screen. I'm tired of companies (think of some well-known ones) having it both ways: remote interviews are OK for them but not remote work. If enough smart, technical people told these companies "no, I won't allow you to conduct a remote interview for a non-remote position" then things may change.
1. I had a recruiter from Amazon reach out to me about “exciting opportunities” as an SDE on LinkedIn. The issue was that my profile showed that I was already working at AWS.
2. A recruiter from Google reached out to me about an Engineering Manager position. Not only did I not have any management experience on my profile, my current position then was in the consulting department (full time) at AWS - it wasn’t even officially software development
3. A recruiter from Meta reached out to me about a senior software engineer position in AI. Again, my profile clearly showed a bunch of no name CRUD developer jobs and then working in consulting
Recruiter outreach is no indication of careful targeted outreach
Recruiters, in my case, have either been contractors or employees of the companies for which they're hiring. In the latter case, they're better prepared than those of the former.
I would only assume the other side of this entire conversation, from the recruiters view is that it is also a numbers game. Recruiters are effectively sales jobs just a different contract to close on. Get enough leads and eventually they close.
I'd expect that don't care if the resumes are perfect. There's very little lost for being wrong.
I’m fairly OK financially at this point so my strategy is to make the money I can, while I can, and then when I become unemployable or replaced by LLMs, just retire.
The anti-capitalists have this crazy idea that investment income isn’t “earned” in the same way that labor income is. Of course that’s absurdly anti-capitalist and completely ignores the point of capitalism and the function of risk taking incentivized by potential rewards. Failing to make a coherent argument against active investment income, for instance entrepreneurs, they will then revert to criticism of passive investors and their eventual complaint will come to arguing S&P index investors should be taxed on “unrealized” gains.
Remember it’s all illogical nonsense motivated by Envy which they masquerade as Empathy.
" Earned income is money received as payment for work, including wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, tips, and net earnings from self-employment. For tax purposes, it can also include long-term disability payments, union strike benefits, and, in some cases, payments from certain deferred retirement compensation arrangements.
Income such as investment profits and Social Security payments is considered unearned income, also known as passive income."
That’s all accurate and I was assuming you were referring to passive income exactly as you have clarified.
That doesn’t change any of my observations as your comments imply unearned income deserves higher taxation than current is applied, which is what I object to.
It's motivated by the ideology of wanting a meritocracy - the idea that if you work hard you can reap rewards. Having some people in society that can sit at home and watch the S&P increase while some have to work 50-hour weeks to make ends meet is seen as problematic.
How would that even be possible? Presumably some people get a top up if they are on a tiny wage, but ‘direct contribution to take home pay’ really isn’t the point of tax. It also sounds a fairly inefficient use of money.
Don’t get discouraged. This is a good opportunity to dabble in each of these areas and this is a project that the author shows will work, so you can follow the recipe. There’s some up-front investment for tools, but you may find it fun and challenging.
I've never stopped (moderate) drinking, but I have sometimes spent periods of 3-6 months without drinking for various reasons (e.g. living in countries with expensive alcohol, and/or non-alcoholic beverages that tasted great, or during the pandemic lockdowns when I had no social life) and I have never noticed any change at all, so I'm always surprised by these accounts of stopping drinking being life-changing.
I wonder if all these reports of various changes for the better after stopping drinking (moderately, of course, not talking about people with alcoholism problems) are just placebo effect or it's that people's bodies work differently and for some people a few beers or wines a week may be a big deal whereas others are unaffected.
> I wonder if all these reports of various changes for the better after stopping drinking (moderately, of course, not talking about people with alcoholism problems)
I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of the problem; some families I know consider a glass or two of wine with every dinner to be "moderate". Every Saturday and Sunday involves at least two bottles of wine each of those days, and it's called "moderate".
If they stopped their current habits I would not be surprised to hear that they saw a marked improvement in their health metrics.
I call myself "moderate", and have maybe two or three drinks per year, and never more than a single drink per occasion. I would not expect to see any improvement in my health metrics by cutting that out.
Nights that I have alcohol can easily be seen in my sleep tracker (I fall asleep easily, but then have a very disrupted night of sleep). In my food tracker (Excessive carb intake). And in the fitness tracker (higher average heart-rate with lower distance/weight)
I noticed something similar, in periods in which I don't drink at all, exercise-induced dizziness (when hitting zone 5 and staying there for a while) lasts less.
