I‘m a technical exec and most of the advice rings true. Somewhere the translation from technical goals to business goals has to happen. Good leads will help with that and good engineers will come prepared
That might be true for today’s laptops, but back then laptops had a lot more empty space to compress. Combined with a tough but flexible shell, the thinkpad might indeed have saved him!
Past like hour 12 it becomes really draining. I used to fly JFK to HKG and that was an ordeal; I can’t imagine the newer super long haul like London to Perth.
Depends on the time zone change. From Europe to with Africa sure a 12 hour figggt is great. If I travel business London to singapore i get far worse jet lag than if I fly via the Middle East and break my journey for a few hours.
I suffered similarly but I think the latest software (>5.0) solved most of the issues and I don’t notice the software anymore at all (which I take as a positive - I.e., it just gets out of the way)
I'm not sure we're even on same versions. They appear to push different branches on different platform revisions.
Mine still cold boots/watchdogs every time you start the car in what I suspect a Patriot-style fix of numerous issues. It still has confirmation dialogs over confirmation dialogs (e.g. when selecting CarPlay you get to confirm your choice three times). Voice input is still unusable: the only thing it reliably recognizes is when I tell it to fuck off (and it scolds me for that). Door locks/keyless became more unreliable, which I frankly doubted was even possible. Everything is lagging, especially after cold boot: getting to entering nav destination after you sit in the car takes an eternity.
From what I’ve read it will be real and is supposed to evoke the early VW Polos. I believe you will be able to switch between that and a more „modern“ look
No American, but the War Powers Resolution seems to allow for these kind of actions? That doesn’t make them any better but I was wondering the same thing
There is exactly one law (Public Law 93-148, originating in the 93rd Congress as H.J.Res. 542, and passed over Presidential veto on November 7, 1973) which has as its official title the “War Powers Resolution”. Since it’s passage, it is also frequently referred to by a less-official name as the “War Powers Act” to emphasize that it has completed the process to become an official Act of Congress. The reference, especially to the exact official name, is not at all ambiguous.
> Most crucially, democracy relies on an educated electorate, but access to really excellent education is minimal globally. This exposes democracies to disinformation and populism
Not so sure about that. Some of today’s autocratic leaders are incredibly smart and educated people and still took the wrong turn. If education doesn’t work for these leaders why should it work for the electorate?
Hence, I’m leaning more towards your last point that it’s maybe more about values and morals? A common understanding of what is „good?“ You can certainly sharpen these through education but there seems to be more at play. Our world also seems to have moved beyond some of the simplistic moral frameworks of the past… Maybe the current times of turbulence are the precursor to the development of new moral frameworks?
> Some of today’s autocratic leaders are incredibly smart and educated people and still took the wrong turn
This assumes every person has the same goals. The reality is that the privileged (autocrats at the extreme end of the spectrum) have completely different incentives and objectives. E.g. a person who gets most of their income through salaried work benefits from completely different (often opposite policies) than a person who gets most of their income from renting real property or from taking a cut from the profit of companies he "owns".
> Maybe the current times of turbulence are the precursor to the development of new moral frameworks?
Hopefully.
I for one would like to see a consistent (without contradictions) moral system not based on "authority" (religion or state).
I don't think we're lacking intelligent and motivated people who want to be elected to implement their agenda - for good or bad reasons.
Rather, the electorate is not equipped to tell the good ones from the bad ones. And I don't even mean, they aren't voting the way I'd like. Trump is doing everything he said he'll do, and his popularity is so low. Why? We see this over and over again.
Otherwise, I cannot reconcile how people are genuinely voting for terrible politicians and falling for blatant populism and propaganda.
Because we all do. There is a limit to all of us how much we can process and how much we truly want to challenge rather than just accept. In personal life, at work, in politics, and even more so for the big questions of humanity. All of us accept a lot of things at face value and move on. Some put maybe more attention to politics, others have maybe better heuristics, and some select few are maybe smart enough that they can constructively challenge more than others
among many others. I think this comment from the marginalrevolution link is compelling:
"I write science fiction professionally, and I would cheerfully bet against these sightings being any alien technology. Why? Because zooming around in Earth's atmosphere and playing chicken with fighter planes doesn't fit any rational notion of why someone would go to the considerable trouble of sending a mission to the Solar System. (Jokes about alien teenagers aside.)
If the goal is to make contact, then there are much better ways of doing it than flitting around the atmosphere being coy.
If the goal is not to make contact, then contemporary human tech could already do a better job of observing while staying hidden. A big telescope on a near-Earth asteroid could watch us in considerable detail during close approaches. Small satellites could do the same. And small robotic probes disguised as -- say -- seagulls or cats could do all the sampling and exploring of the Earth's surface with nobody the wiser.
As it is, we have a phenomenon dating back at least 70 years and possibly thousands of years which never seems to DO anything.
My conclusion: it's probably a lot of different phenomena, mostly involving human perception. Maybe, if we're very lucky, there's some rare atmospheric phenomenon causing some of these sightings, and we might learn a little by studying it."
(It's also easy to make an argument that we have been visited by aliens, in the same way that it's easy to make an argument that the Earth is flat or that humans never landed on the moon ... easy if one doesn't adhere to basic principles of rational discourse.)
That wasn’t quite the point I was trying to make. Almost certainly we have not been visited in a shape or form that would resemble anything like the typical UFO sightings. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense. However, we might have been visited in forms that are completely incomprehensible to us
It's the point I made--it is not at all difficult to make an argument that we have not been visited by aliens.
> we might have been visited in forms that are completely incomprehensible to us
So what? That's not an argument that we have been. It's not a rebuttal to the arguments that we haven't been. It's like saying that President Trump might be a shapeshifting reptile from Aldebaran. "It MIGHT be, so it's difficult to argue to the contrary"--wrong. It's like saying to someone who notes that there's no elephant in their dining room that there might be one that's invisible and very nimble so no one bumps into it--"it's difficult to argue otherwise"--wrong. It's a child's (or theist's) "anything is possible" logic. It's hypocritical because no one uses this sort of nonsense outside of such special pleading--imagine a lawyer for a mass murderer with hundreds of witnesses telling a jury that actually it was done by aliens with incomprehensible technology who created the illusion that it was their client who did it--"it's difficult to argue otherwise"--wrong. This sort of "might have been" garbage has no place in rational good faith discussion.
reply