People at the University of Washington don’t refer to soda pop the same way as people at Berkley, or at MIT, or at Oxford. Why would they all have had the exact same term for writing software?

Edit: I’m being argumentative, I honestly have no idea what term was common then. At that point most people I knew referred to it as “computer stuff”

It’s probably predominantly because of the switch to mobile computing / smartphones / web being dominant, and everyone referring to programs there as “apps” / applications.

i.e. If you write a mobile app with a function-as-a-service backend, you will never compile what someone would refer to as a “program”, so calling yourself a “programmer” (as-in, someone who makes programs) feels inaccurate and a not helpful description for people. “Coder” (as-in, someone who writes code) is a vaguer in terms of the type of code you write and more accurate in terms of what you spend your time producing.

In your specific circles.

Downvoted for sane-washing meta glasses.

Down voted for wash-washing any point being made.

You can’t just declare something washing and therefore bankruptcy, you have to explain your reasoning why.

I also disagree with your other takes, mainly boiling down to the insinuation that competence and intelligence is how capitalists make money in a system that’s rigged in their favor…

Yes but we’re not discussing a binary system of capitalist and “not-capitalists” we’re discussing a single company. And while they have not outcompeted their rivals on the basis of serving the best product for their users, or making the world better, they have outcompeted their rivals at the actually game they’re all playing (i.e. making money), all in the face of others who are playing equally soullessly.

… try it now.

Capitalism is deeply flawed, but what you’re experiencing is a failure of social media and journalism.

Everyone guffaws about Meta because everyone hates them, so bloggers write shitty vacuous click baity articles that just twist and distort everything meta does to make them look as terrible as possible. And while they’re shitty, they’re not shitty and incompetent in every single possible way or else they wouldn’t be as rich as they are.

But these vacuous articles that bend over backwards and diatort the truth to paint them as incompetent in every possible way then leaves people going “how could anyone be that stupid?”, and the reality is that they’re not that stupid, you were just misinformed by outrage journalism.

Despite the guffawing about shutting down Horizon Worlds, there’s a good chance that Meta’s reality Labs bet will still be a smart financial play in the long term. Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc have made billions by controlling the dominant OSes and Meta has far and away the strongest augment reality operating system as we head into AR glasses actually being viable from a technology standpoint.

It’s honestly worth keeping the principle behind crumple zones in mind with everything:

If energy can go somewhere else, then less of it will be transferred to what matters.

For cars, the energy going into bending and breaking the materials of the crumple zone then doesn’t get transferred to the interior compartment.

For Xbox controllers, they’re designed so that when they drop, the batteries shoot out and go flying, which means less energy goes into the controller shell and internals.

And with a lot of laptops these days, you’re seeing the actual toughest, most survivable ones not be built out of heavy rigid metal and glass like Apple does, but out of light flexible aluminum composites. A) they weigh less so there’s less potential energy involved in a fall, and B) some of the energy gets transferred into bending the shell which will then snap back to form.

It’s not necessarily projection, it can just be two shitty people accurately describing each other

Then fire him and hire someone with a plan to match.

This isn’t an explanation, it’s a thought terminating phrase. Youre just othering people as psychopaths/monsters/inhuman.

I won’t.

He was a predictable product of the American culture / political system. His death doesn’t fix anything that caused him to rise.

Build it in Quebec on hydro power and I have zero issue.

Do it like this and I will do everything in my power to stop it.

I mean, to be fair, electrical engineering is one of the most notoriously difficult to grasp disciplines.

People don’t generally have a great intuitive sense for how pulsed electromagnet waves propagate through 3d space and time.

I’ve used the advanced systems analysis math I learned in university as an actual calculation in my job precisely zero times.

I roughly think about how those models apply to situations and how that will effect the various likely outcomes and behaviours etc on a literal daily basis.

University isnt just about training you to do a job.

The Chinese government has consistently and actively worked to make sure that when we trade with them, they benefit more then we do.

And yes, that’s not particularly different from our relationship with the US.

But you don’t have to be racist to oppose trade with a more powerful entity that attempts to control and abuse you. I still think it’s worth engaging with China economically, but I can also see how someone might oppose it just from a standpoint of respecting their competence and going in eyes wide open about their motivations.

Where did I say this?

👀

The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into

Which changes absolutely nothing from the perspective of NATO

Lmao yes it does. It only doesn’t if you declare “I’m ignoring this information”, and stick your head in the sand.

That’s not reasoning, that’s weaponized incompetence.

Let’s remember that the US has been, by far, the richest country in the world since the world wars, largely because it stayed out of them til the ends, and issued massive loans to European countries that they continued to profit off of for decades and decades.

You talk about GDP percentage, as if every country had a similar GDP per capita, and could thus afford to spend similarly. The reality is that the US had more then enough money to both fund its military and fund its social programs, but it chose to instead fund the military and the already wealthy.

Maybe you should have spent some of those years studying law.

Lol this is a dumb headline.

The entire point of trade diversification is that there is not a single solution to it.

That’s like saying “in Carney’s search for a hive mind, I don’t think it’s Steve”. Like yeah, if you think that’s what he’s doing, either he’s a complete idiocracy-level idiot, or maybe, just maybe, you should self reflect on your own understanding of the situation.

This is a post from an LLM.