Same; thanks to modern technology, videos can be transcribed and translated into blog posts automatically though. I wish that was a default and / or easier to find though.
For years I've been thinking "I should watch the WWDC videos because there's a lot of Really Important Information" in there, but... they're videos. In general I find that I can't pay attention to spoken word (videos, presentations, meetings) that contain important information, probably because processing it costs a lot more energy than reading.
But then I tune out / fall asleep when trying to read long content too, lmao. Glad I never did university or do uni level work.
Yeah but consider that if something is cheap or free (having Microsoft do it), what is the product? It's a tradeoff, pay for independence or be at the mercy of in this case Microsoft.
(there is probably a third, fourth, fifth option but this is an internet comment section)
Sure, but these maneuvers aren't done realtime and aren't as time-sensitive; a burn is calculated and triple checked well in advance. If there was an error, there's always time to correct it.
In the case of moon landings, the only truly time-critical maneuvers are the ones right before landing... and unfortunately, a lot of fairly recent moon probes have failed due to incorrect calculations, sensor measurements, logic errors, etc.
The thing / issue at this point is though: how much is Jobs still responsible for Apple's ongoing success? He died 15 years ago, two years after Apple introduced "flat design" (to much criticism at the time but people got used to it). But after his passing, Apple's market value went from ~500 billion to ~4 trillion today, more than an 8-fold multiplication.
I find it hard to believe that his influence was so strong that it had an inertia that lasted for 15 years. Ive left his mark on it for longer.
Apple had a few near death experiences and might not have survived.
One of those early near death experiences might have been Jobs fault (going at the Apple /// and the Mac when, in retrospect, the Apple ][ could have been evolved more aggressively) but he helped bring it back from the brink later on.
Android deserves a lot of credit for the success of iOS in that a zombie mobile OS that doesn't have to be profitable has displaced a competitive mobile OS. A similar kind of fragmentation has bedeviled the Windows (and Linux) PC as well as (from the viewpoint of Windows) distractions such as Azure (good business) and XBOX (bad business.)
Intel deserves a lot of credit for the success of Apple too because for 15 years Intel has had no strategy to translate architectural improvements to experienced performance for client PCs. The way they've gone about SIMD is an absolute disaster, like by the time we can use AVX-512 in mainstream software everybody will have moved on to ARM. Charlie Demerjian would talk your ear off about how the tech press has been uncritical about their hyperscaler/HPC patter, never reminding you that client PCs are still the bread and butter of their business -- pander to the likes of Amazon and they will use any cost savings they get to invest in ARM. It's suicide.
I guess that depends on what you put into the word "success". I dont believe that great design work or great products and high market cap has ever been that related to each other.
With that said I dont think Steve built Apple alone either. And i think they have done some great things after his death as well.
Factorio is such a great example of how different the visuals can be from the underlying datastructure. Conveyor belts look hugely complex / heavyweight - if you consider them as individual items each with an x/y position that needs to be updated every tick. But if you see them as a linked list with only a distance and it becomes a lot simpler.
This post also explains why compressed belts are better for performance on very large bases. But despite 1000+ hours in the game I never reached a point where performance was an issue.
Valerian missed the mark; I'm sure it's got great designs (although I also believe it's mostly CGI), but the story of the movie is disjointed (which is a risk when trying to merge multiple storylines into one) and the actors are lifeless.
I've grown to like Valerian over rewatches, but unfortunately it suffers from Besson being a massive Valerian fanboy and trying to stuff everything he possibly could into it... I think he'd have done far better if he'd gotten a more limited budget, or had to produce three of them for the cost of the one he did...
I don't believe it to be honest; model making and painting remains a popular hobby for millions of people, the only question is whether filmmakers will want to use it.
And recently, especially in e.g. Star Wars franchise entries, they have gone towards using models / sets again instead of just using CGI for everything.
CGI has amazing and always given me a wonderful advance for film making as a cinefile but I absolutely do not like how it replaced everything in movies for a while. Absolutely slop seeing actors in a green room trying to act through scenes and sfx puke we get instead of better directing, practical effects and magic of movies.
I agree that now we are finding our way back to a balance of using everything together to tell stories and I'm personally here for it.
If it's (like in my case) dependency management, localization or config files, breaking them up will likely only cause more issues. Make sure that it's an actual improvement before breaking things up.
reply