I think the poster's point was that he spends a lot of money on apple products, relative to his income. To understand apple's success, one should look at how much money ordinary people with ordinary jobs spend disproportionate money on products they wouldn't otherwise.
There's a graph somewhere of yearly sales figures of various cars vs the cost of those cars. There's a general exponential decline from say the toyota camry, which costs reasonably and sells a lot, to a Bentley, which is the opposite. But there's an irregular data point with the BMW 3-series, because many, many people stretch to afford it. It sells disproportionately well for that reason.
I'm not assigning judgment on how anyone spends their money, just pointing out that there are human reasons for business success and failure.
I make a little more that the parent, but still don't think of Apple products as affordable. It's almost always a stretch for me to purchase them, but I wouldn't be happy with many of the other options.
In the case of my recent upgrade, I justified it as an investment in my future. I don't consider the money I spent on it to be a purchase that I would be comfortable making frequently.
Wether you are a college student of an independent developer, the technology you use affects your success. Apple has a reputation in both industries as being above-average, further demonstrated by the loyalty many users have.
It's not a chiclet keyboard. Looks like the keyboard for the thinkpad X220. in my experience it's a very good keyboard. of course I would pay a lot of money for a mechanically-keyed laptop.
Aristotle said that the rhetorician is a rhetorician not because he absolutely can convince someone of something, but because he is aware of all the means of persuasion.
likewise, there's no guarantee that a doctor can heal /you/. but you go to the doctor because he is aware of the various means of achieving health. this is different from evolutionary biology, where firm predictions can be relied on.
same goes for lawyers; they can't guarantee a victory, but they are aware of all the methods in the courtroom. These are professions and fields of study whose variables are humans. i agree with the parent commentor that the distinction is worth investigating.
yeah something is wrong. I ran the test on my lenovo x200s with an intel core 2 duo and intel GMA 4500 graphics and got 3700 "objects" and with a "tickcount" of 1400. I'm assuming objects are sprites--the test itself doesn't use the term.
If his HD4000 is getting 1250 objects, I shouldn't get 3700.
It's fine to edit for length and clarity if you recognize that by removing context you're creating a new context. It's up to the editor to be careful.
The editor can't say "I am the editor and I have perfectly preserved pg's comments" knowing that valleywag will call him a sexist, when the editor knows him not to be one. If the editor thinks pg is, they should talk. I'm convinced by pg's rebuttal.
But (just a guess) I hypothesize 4K comes from the film industry, while 720p and 1080[ip] come from TV and computer industries. So the two systems of measuring resolution were created independently and both have historical precedents, and the marketing mishap stems from blithely conflating the two. So I guess my explanation is: coincidence
Yes. Representing resolution by horizontal pixel count has been standard in digital cinema for years[1][2]. So they have 2k, 4k and a number of subvariants.
So I guess we're just seeing a conflation of cinema, TV and computing, at least when it comes to displays and resolutions, so the marketing terminology is conflating too.
Especially since 4k is an exisiting standard, I'm willing to give them a pass for keeping the naming convention. (Although the 4k TV standard, which most 4k monitors will be using, is slightly different: It's the cinema standard cropped to a 16:9 aspect ratio.)
Look up the Pentagon Papers and Woodward and Bernstein (and Rathergate, though that criticism was erroneous) for examples of established media sharply and consequentially criticizing the US government.
The media /are/ capable of it, and they /used/ to do it.
There's a graph somewhere of yearly sales figures of various cars vs the cost of those cars. There's a general exponential decline from say the toyota camry, which costs reasonably and sells a lot, to a Bentley, which is the opposite. But there's an irregular data point with the BMW 3-series, because many, many people stretch to afford it. It sells disproportionately well for that reason.
I'm not assigning judgment on how anyone spends their money, just pointing out that there are human reasons for business success and failure.