So tired of this infantalization of software and design these days.

> If you trust them completely, you don't need to know what happens next either. Just trust them to do the right things, your leadership isn't required.

> The best leaders I've worked with were paying attention to things from the bottom-up as well as top-down.

These two statements are at odds. You first assuming that lack of trust would be the only reason he needs to know what happens next, then go on to outline another reason he and the larger organization would both benefit from knowing more.

It's not just about trust. It's about knowing what your team is up to so you can provide them the resources necessary while also working to remove any obstacles in their way so they can get shit done. That's what good management does, it's just rare to see in low-trust organizations that treat everyone like a cog to be micromanaged because no one trusts anyone to get shit done of their own accord for whatever reason.

Call it what you want, if it's serving me content I didn't ask for, I'm not happy about it, especially if I'm paying extra for them to not do that explicit thing.

> Mathematicians can also consider wholly redirecting their skill sets to work on real world problems. I’ve actually been encouraging mathematicians to consider thinking about working on government or other large-scale societal issues.

The fact that this is a radical departure from the norm is part of why mathematics (and philosophy) is often seen as some intangible or ungrokable science to many outsiders, as they're generally approaching it from a perspective of "Okay, but why, what is this useful for?", and the answer "For the science of it" doesn't tend to land with people that aren't already passionate about said science/discipline and are just trying to figure out what it even is or involves.

Doesn't help that there is a pervasive sentiment in American Academia (not sure about elsewhere) about Math being *the* hard science, and I mean hard as in difficulty, so a lot of people get intimidated by it before they ever give it a chance very early on in their academic life and carry that through the rest of their education.

So there ends up being a rather small pool of people that are in(to) the field, and rather high friction for stimualting interest in it from outsiders from the way that it's taught, and a massive difference in the perspective of it's use between it's diaspora and the unmathed masses.

This "Let's avoid politics" is just "Let's avoid conflict resolution and let things fester until it all boils over and goes to shit"

If you break the social contract of granting everyone a common baseline of respect and civility, such as by identifying with those that explicitly wish to violently purge entire peoples from the planet, I no longer am obligated to grant them the decorum outlined in that same social contract, as they've violated the accord.

Also, I've found it's best to never trust it's response to a "why" question (formatted this way because a lot of people will will ask AI to speak for them, so you can still get a"why" response without ever having personally prompted for it.)

Like in this context, do we always treat Y when pronounced like "Yes" or "Yogurt" as a consonant?

These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them.

Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.

However, if your target is B2B (Business to Business) as opposed to B2C/D2C (Business to Client/Direct to Client) and you're selling the install plus enterprise support, then the sales thing makes way more sense, and is more expected/palatable for B2B type customers than your everyday consumers, so depends on who you're targeting.

Everything is a minimum viable product that is constantly in flux these days. The decision makers and money movers are prioritizing rapid results and turnaround over quality product, maintainable codebases, institutional knowledge (debatable), etc

The incentive isn't focused on "Good" software, it's on making "profitable" software as fast and cheap as possible.

It's not about physical vs digital, it's about whether you have the freedom to do as you wish with the data you have, or if it or you are in someway beholden to a 3rd party for permission to use it (be it DRM, Licensing, Subscription, Always Online, whatever).

Even more specifically, what does it actually mean when we buy or own something digital?

TI83 (1996) was a successor to the TI82 (1993) which was a refresh/update of the TI81 (1990).

TI85 (1992) was the second model they made, originally intended as a higher end version of the TI81.

Similar reasoning for the rest of their line up. Different models had different features, and then those models would get incremental updates/refreshes over the years.

I wasn't part of the team or anything, so if anyone has any insight to why exactly they called it that in the first place, I'd be interested to know, but generally speaking the answer is: When they released the first one in 1990, they didn't name it under the presumption that this family of devices would be a staple educational/academic electronics device for the next 3 decades with dozen(s?) of different iterations/generations over the years.

Similarly, these TV's could connect to any open wifi hotspot it can find and phone home/download updates that way. Cox for example proudly boasts how more than 4M of it's residential customers modem+router+ap's can be used for "WiFi Hotspots" by anyone - not just the customer/resident - if they have a cox account. I don't see why Samsung or any other manufacturer may approach said ISP's to use this network to update devices under some guise of "convenience" or "seamless updates" ostensibly for their less tech savvy users.

I don't know if these business deals exists, but "smart devices" will often try to phone home/update anyway they can, even if you don't manually configure it on a private network.

EDIT: Forgot the source on the cox hotspots claim: https://www.cox.com/residential/internet/learn/cox-hotspots....

Money is king in US capitalist society, and you start fucking with people's money, and people will start caring real quick.

I must be getting old, cause I see everyone saying this in response as if it's a downside. As someone that's getting real tired of every company/product/service on earth trying to have you install their own app (even before we get to the privacy/data concerns, just on a pure convenience/hassle POV), the idea of "WeLl ThEn YoUr BaNk ApP DoEsN'T WoRk" is frankly a bonus.

I can touch to pay with a card , which is faster and more convenient than having to unlock/approve/dick with my phone, which by doing so also allows me to keep NFC off by default (personal preference).

Also, I don't need an app for that, already have one, it's called a browser.

TL;DR: Sounds like a feature not a bug to me.

It's no accident, it's not just "bad UX", it's deliberate.

> AWS doesn’t charge you in mysterious ways. It charges you in specific, predictable ways that nobody taught you to look for. That’s a knowledge gap.

Observe the mental gymnastics to explain away "mysterious ways" by making it the users fault and calling them - *checks notes* - stupid, for not knowing something AWS is very intentionally keen on you not knowing.

I sure hope OP was getting payed for this AWS ad, imagine shilling for a multi-billion dollar company for free.