When I was little and we'd get ice cream, my mother would get each of the kids a cone but not for herself. Then she'd do rounds and eat a little from each of ours.
We were annoyed, but she explained that this process is called "taxes".
There are permanent staff. The issue of time isn't any individual regulator - it's that there's regulators in every country they operate in. And the company is negotiating with them all simultaneously - figuring out what would make the EU say yes, and then taking that to the US and see if that will let them say yes, then going to Japan and making sure they'll say yes, then going to India - and you don't want some of them knowing that everyone else has already said yes, because then they'll hold out to get some last special thing.
These are complicated negotiations, in many complicated jurisdictions.
How quick do you think they should be? For everyone to understand the potential ramifications and consult appropriate industry experts? Let competitors et al file briefs?
Once they get working on it, I would think they could get consultation and competitor briefs back within a month. Then have an initial answer within two months of the announcement, and if that answer is a "no" they'd have a good idea of what would need to be changed.
And I don't see a great reason that negotiations should more than triple that amount of time. If they're not budging, make the "no" final. So two months initial, six months max, would be good numbers.
If the company wants to negotiate with everyone in serial... that's their problem.
> and you don't want some of them knowing that everyone else has already said yes, because then they'll hold out to get some last special thing
Wasn't the thesis of this comment line that government regulators are being slow or being a problem? This supports that idea, I think.
Yes, and there are more advantages to the Orange Pi 5 SBCs:
- They have full size HDMI
- They have an m.2 connector
- They still have an audio jack
- They have more powerful performance cores
- They have low performance cores
- They have a 6 TOPS NPU
On the other hand, that cheap base model has no built-in wifi, but so you can add it in the m.2 slot.
For me, the Raspberry Pi 5 is quite disappointing.
But hey, the good thing is that maybe this will push more of the community to the RK3588(S) based boards.
Nobody needs that GPU. Alyssa Rosenzweig stopped working on the driver and got poached by Valve.
Also, real time encoding with VP8 (yes, that is the standard for WebRTC) barely works. It has barely enough CPU power to produce a working demo, but too little to actually do anything with it.
Can you expand on this? Is the hardware too slow, too power hungry, or just badly supported? At least coming from ARM there must be some hardware documentation on how they work. I mean, it can't be worse than Broadcom's all-proprietary GPUs.
In fact, she just no longer leads panfrost, but still reviews panfrost-related merge requests from time to time. Boris took over her place, and even panvk2 is on its way. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/bbrezillon
Mali-G610MP4 is known to handle Genshin impact easily. (https://youtu.be/sA55S2Z7gLo?t=56) I doubt VideoCore VII can do that. As of today, there is still no detailed spec sheet for this GPU.
opi5 16gb is about 130 usd, rpi5 is about 80 usd I think? You get twice the cores and RAM so I think they're comparable value. But it's sort of academic for me because rpi5 8GB is not in stock in Australia.
Not sure about “technically” or what the legal situation is. In practice, I know consumer smartphones in the US use a combination of all 4 constellations for positioning. If you have Android, you can easily verify this using various apps. If you're on the west coast (California Bay Area, at least), you can even receive unreliable signals from one or two Japanese QZSS satellites, which are supposed to be regional over the Asia-Oceania region. You can even see a few SBAS satellites (mainly used in aviation.)
Have an American model Android phone. Used it in Mexico, the US and Ireland. In all places it used GLONASS, GPS and Galileo equally (assuming equal satellite visibility, of course).
They only need to change the CDMA codes of the civilian GPS to render it unusable. Also at the beginning of GPS they purposely added inaccuracies into the timing to make it less precise for civilian use, but because of the FAA and other needs (and methods that have been developed to counter the injected inaccuracies) they finally removed it in 2000.
To respond to my question. With long term measurements and the help of the L5 band it is possible to obtain sub-millimeter accuracy [1]!
If you're going to redeem points as cash for flights, the UR portal seems fine IME, there's less variation unless you're booking consolidator fares. You're going to get 1.5c per point using the Reserve card.
To get more than 2c per point, you have to be redeeming against business/first class or otherwise very expensive tickets.
But is it still worth 2c if you would have never paid $11k for the seat in the first place?
> But is it still worth 2c if you would have never paid $11k for the seat in the first place?
Nope. I've even second guessed the Hyatt hotel reservations on this basis (I would likely have selected a different hotel).
The whole thing is really dubious. The banks have a major interest in convincing us that their points are worth more than they're actually typically redeemed for. A whole lot of the travel/point blog sites are essentially astroturfed.
If I could get all of my UR points cashed in at 1.5 cents I'd take the deal. Cash is just so much more flexible.
Maybe the best way to tackle this problem is a survey: "what's your cash-in value?"
Yes and no. There's another view where employees set actually ambitious goals and only get 90% of the way there and are still rewarded and the company also wins.
If you are hitting your goals every quarter, that is a great thing - but I tend to agree, at the other end of the spectrum you have people setting easily achieved goals to check a box.
The real issue is weeding out people just there to check a box when you're small, and when you're large, it's designing a system that internalizes a lot of your employees are there to check a box.
the vast majority of workers do not internalize empathy for their company. They are there for the paycheck. You can either thrash against the entirety of the human race and demand that people lie to your face about how much they care about the company's goals, or you can create a system which takes advantage of the self-serving nature of your employees so that their goals align with your own
For years I was the one who went above and beyond. I thought of brand new ideas, approaches, and wrote so much code some weeks would just fly by.
You know what happened?
1. I got even more work. So much more that I no longer had the freedom to explore and think.
2. The carrot on the stick would be re-attached to a longer stick. It was never enough. I was performing "exceptionally" but my yearly review would never move me closer to my goal.
3. I would end up getting tied down in a bunch of stuff from (1) that ended up leading to burnout because I was no longer working in a place where I felt useful and needed.
4. I still got laid off.
Now, I just go to work and come home. I am pissed I even have to do pagerduty because 9/10 times the problem is someone wasn't given enough time, creating a bug, which was then subsequently never addressed because aGiLe methodology says you only move forward.
"High power" CEOs and PMP-certified project morons are the reason why people's care for your product ends with their paycheck. No amount of "demo days", "email updates", or metrics will fix it. I, and everyone who is like me, will game your metrics until they stop being useful. It's not malicious. It's an optimization. If you want me to do exactly what your metrics ask I will. Nothing more, nothing less. You pay me for 80 hours a check, you get 80 hours. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want me to think I won't. Afterall, I'd rather save my brain cycles for things I enjoy. You're paying me to squander my talent. That's YOUR problem. Not mine.
So, you get another job. With great odds of increasing your salary more than you could at your current position. There's really few downsides for workers in having this attitude.
> Well the paycheck ends when the company folds. "Doing good work" is in the best interest of all parties.
Option A is being an average worker, not trying especially hard, not thinking about work outside of work hours, and having absolutely no emotional investment whatsoever in the wellbeing of the company - and potentially having to get a new job in a few years time, often with a pay increase
Option B is "doing good work", "going the extra mile", "being a rock star", putting in lots extra time and effort and emotional energy (for years!) - just on the tiny chance that your particular efforts will be the difference between the company folding vs. being successful
Option A sounds a hell of a lot better to me than option B.
There are more companies. I also tend to abandon ship before the company folds. I left before the 100mil loss and subsequent layoff.
Additionally, at such a large company (1500 people), my individual efforts have little to no effect on whether or not a multinational corporation goes under.
This is the "I swear communism works, you just need people who actually care about worker life quality and aren't tyrants to lead the revolution" school of org theory.
I mean, that's also probably true. Best form of government is a benevolent dictator and all that...
More that you have to have realistic expectations when you structure an org, that people doing the work are going to pad and sandbag in successive tiers up, and people in charge of outcomes are going to push for bigger and more down.
Interestingly, individual firms behave more as centrally-planned economies, and market activity is mostly absent inside of them. This is a long-studied curiosity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
The book _The People's Republic of Walmart_ by Leigh Phillips <sp?> and Michael Rozowski <sp?> makes a compelling argument why employing the same technologies companies use to manage supply chains and decision making on a state level could actually produce a working communist system.
Of course, we first would need to agree that this is desirable and that's probably the point where it breaks down.
with Chrome/Arc/Edge being what they are, being able to get 24GB was a game changer for me - it allowed me to go back to an Air, which is definitely my preferred form factor.
That's kind of Apple's tiered upselling plan, isn't it? ;-/
But as an Apple user I concur completely. The awful experience of bloated apps (or multiple VMs) slowing your system to a crawl isn't worth the few hundred dollars you saved by opting for a lower memory SiP.
$400, while indeed a significant jump, absolutely is "a few hundred," given that $200 is "a couple hundred." In my reckoning, "a few hundred" starts around $250 and arguably runs up to $750, where "almost a thousand" could be said to start.
