I'm more sensitive to noise than most -- AirPods Max are an incredible tool for me. Sometimes I just wear them without listening to anything to block out office noises, conversations, etc. Unavoidably, they get uncomfortable after a while, but it's on the order of hours.
This is starting to sound like a sales pitch, but if anyone like me is on the fence, they're really an incredible product that has improved the quality of my life, which I don't say lightly.
For me the problem is mainly when trying to sleep, specifically, at Burning Man, where it can be very difficult. I used foam earplugs for years, but they leave something to be desired.
The AirPods Max…get them on my ears correctly, and I’m in a forest. It’s uncanny. It was the most profound alteration to my experience there in years.
> I think VR's issue is that most people don't want to strap things to their face.
It's the whole package, not just one factor. Motion sickness, strapping something to your face, requirement for "free space" to move around and exercise of being up for an extended period of time.
Playing a shooter in VR is genuinely one of my favorite experience, it feels tactical, you have to crouch, reload, you hear the bullets wishling close to your ears, etc... but it's also an experience that is kept to the odd weekend, every once in a while, because it genuinely feels like work to setup everything.
it's literally game changing for flight simulators, especially dogfight simulators. Being able to very easily swivel your head to keep a target in your sightline is amazing. I put a ton of hours into Elite Dangerous that I wouldn't have otherwise.
> While I don't disagree with your point, I think VR's issue is that most people don't want to strap things to their face.
I'd go the opposite way. The problem with current VR is it is just some goggles. What you really want is a full exoskeleton to capture all your movement and add some force feedback. Put it on servos so you can add a little free fall here and there, some fans around to get the feeling of wind. Yeah it would not be cheap (at least at first).
Have you tried current gen VR? Honestly, the experience of playing VR Ping pong is SO much like the real thing on the Quest 3. Synth riders is also fantastic. But the best experiences don't really fit into the "video game" box imho; it's closer to buying roller blades / skates or ski equipment.
I was also surprised at how much mixed-reality made a difference for me personally. I'm much more likely to strap the thing to my head when I can have awareness of what's happening in the physical world.
I don't know if this is an actual problem you have, but since Siri appears to be composed of independent voice-to-text and text-to-action systems, you can say "start a one three minute timer".
I'm in the US and I totally forgot about the blood oxygen patent fiasco. I have an Apple Watch Series 8 and it continues to work. Maybe it's only newer models that are affected?
How is it logic defying? It seems straightforward to apply on any compositional entity: I could make one with "Apple Executive", "Tim", "Phill", and "Eddy"
While that breaks the Apple executive example, it's still just as easy to explain from a programming perspective: each of the sides could be a trait/interface which is implemented/part of the same entity/Singleton
Yes, but real world entities don't stop being a thing just because you refer to their one specific trait. The god example only works if you assume it works. That's why it's not logical.
Anyway, traits are "is a" descriptive thing, not a referential equality "is". The trinity relations are not "is a" to begin with, or we'd be having many gods and Christian priests are not into that.
Given it is a discussion of an entity that is already defined by properties not shared by any other real world entity its seems not just logical, but reasonably, to assume that it differs from them in other ways too.
I tend to agree traits is not an accurate description, but it is a reasonable analogy.
> The trinity relations are not "is a" to begin with, or we'd be having many gods and Christian priests are not into that.
Sayings "priests" seems and off choice of wording. Why not just Christians, or even "Christian theologians"?
Just because someone comes up with one illogical idea, it isn't reasonable to say it likely "differs in other ways too". Instead maybe establish one unusual thing to be verifiably true before stacking on more.
> Sayings "priests" seems and off choice of wording.
Meh. Priests set the norm for the regional communities.
I really do expect them to try. I am slightly hopeful that this clown show of an administration is too incompetent to pull it off. The judicial branch appears to be bought and paid for, so maybe my optimism is unfounded.
> My point was more that if "liberal" == "clean" and "conservative" == "incompetent apparatchiks" then you're (the royal you) a shill
If I consider all the ones who voted for Presidential immunity corrupt does that make me a shill? It's a decision with no constitutional basis (the constitution grants no presidential immunity, but does grant other immunities, implying if it was intended it'd be in there) and ahistorical (we can find plenty of examples of presidents assuming they or their predecessor could be prosecuted).
That still leaves us in the same place a Supreme Court where the majority is beholden to the current President, not the constitution.
No it doesn't, if you're trained in constitutional law and actually know what you're talking about. Disagreeing with something doesn't make you a shill. Saying everyone who disagrees with you is a $PEJORATIVE_OF_CHOICE does. Maybe even it doesn't matter if you know what you're talking about or not as long as you approach it in good faith.
"The judicial branch is bought and paid for" is a ridiculous shill thing to say because 1) it assumes that smart, well-educated, successful people only believe a thing because of corruption. 2) it obviates the need to address any of the other side's claims on their merits, because they're just corrupt so who cares. 3) it sets up your side as the victors-by-default, because the other corrupt and you hate everything the other side does so by definition you're Good. It used to be a common refrain of the right when most judges and justices and most courts were left-of-center. But now that federal circuit courts are evenly split between R-appointed and D-appointed justices, and SCOTUS has more Republican appointees than Democratic, the judiciary is farcical.
"This is a hallowed, storied institution just so long as it does things I like, and a corrupt oligarchy when it doesn't" is the very definition of shill.
I didn't address that claim because it's a pointless ad hominem. Tell me what I could respond with that would have you say "oh actually you're right, I was wrong, my apologies" even if just internally.
Also, backing up, efficiency is not the only metric we should care about. We learned the hard way at the start of the pandemic that our efficient supply chains were fragile due to lack of redundancy. A government agency may benefit from continuously staffing "redundant" roles in order to have capacity available when unforeseen events occur! Nobody needs FEMA until a natural disaster occurs.
It also boils down to the fact that it's not immediately clear what "efficiency" actually means in this context.
Like, I'm a software person so forgive the analogies, but even within software, I can think of three basic (but related) forms of efficiency: execution speed, energy, and memory. Sometimes something will be extremely fast and CPU efficient but at the cost of a ton of memory.
"Efficiency" is a term that is relative to the thing that you are measuring, and doesn't actually make much sense without that.
To your point, having some redundancy can be efficient, if you're optimizing for uptime. This applies to computers and people, I think.
Institutional knowledge often plays a huge role here, but can be difficult to measure. A team member whose experience allows them to quickly provide needed context that would otherwise take hours/days/weeks to obtain might significantly boost their team's productivity without generating any metrics that demonstrate their contributions.
One neat thing about Go that makes it superior to a shell script is that it compiles a statically-linked binary. One self-contained file! Or N if you support N platforms. Did I mention that cross-compilation is trivial?
As someone who once inherited a static binary (without debug symbols, gotta save those few bytes) that should have been a shellscript: Please don't. If your logic reasonably fits into a shell script, then put it there.
Posix shell-compatible scripts will also likely work on all platforms where you go program would've been run.
> Posix shell-compatible scripts will also likely work on all platforms where you go program would've been run.
While I see your point, writing a Posix compatible shell script is not trivial. Little errors creep in that "work on my machine" because /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash, but break the script when someone runs it on macOS.
In my experience, you get a lot of cross-platform compatibility when writing Go for zero effort.
I mean this entirely depends on how things are done where you work. I wouldn't think the back-reference is necessary if all projects have their own repo in some central location (and it's trivial to match the binary's name to a repo).
This is starting to sound like a sales pitch, but if anyone like me is on the fence, they're really an incredible product that has improved the quality of my life, which I don't say lightly.