I'm not so sure it's about "growing out of it", it's mostly about who really means it and who just kicks where it hurts. The latter is "just" part of bullying and could just as well be that you're fat, skinny, tall, short, glasses, freckles, divorce kid, clothes, anything really. Those who really divide the world into superior and inferior remain bigots, those who just did it to harass mostly grows out of it. Or graduate to internet trolls, where there's apparently no age limit.

But it does mean that people moaning about today's youth is a useless indicator, like a broken clock is right twice a day. In fact that's giving it more credit than it deserves because it implies a situation we know is true once in a while. I can cry out about unicorns every day, it doesn't change the probability that there really is a unicorns. Mostly because there's no proof that unicorns exist at all. Has there ever really been a generation that's been so much terribly worse than the last?

I'm afraid most my primary sources are in Norwegian since I live in Norway, but I can start here. On average, women have an income of 326400 NOK and men 487800 NOK so about 67%, unfair right? Well, first of all 5.6% less of working age are in the workforce (77.1% vs 82.7%), I can't be bothered to cross-reference with medical or unemployment data but it's mostly stay-at-home moms, not that they're unable to work or unable to find work. In addition 34.7% of women work part time compared to 13.9% of men and without having the exact data here also overtime is male dominated.

Together when you plug those into the facts and compare full-time equivalents to full-time equivalents you find females make 87% of what men do. Breaking it down further this study (PDF) show that women prefer lower income, more risk adverse educations. This is also reflected in that the private sector is 36% women and the public sector 70% women, which generally is safer and pays less. In the study they find:

So now you're down to about a 3% unexplained difference. Now I'm entering a very touchy subject which I can't properly back up with data but my guess it's primarily maternity leave, as in Norway you have a total of 52 weeks, usually split into 42 weeks maternal leave and 10 weeks paternal leave and on average 1,78 births per woman. It makes some employers reluctant to hire women around 30 as they can't ask about such things and despite formally holding a job it's going to have consequences for experience and promotion opportunities. I know it would for me if I took that much leave.

I'm against social justice and for a meritocracy with actual equality. SJWs tend to use statistics to prove injustice against a class merely by the existence of differences. Like for example men generally earn more than women, that's enough to turn on the hate meter and cry about social injustice. If you start breaking it down on age, education, grades, jobs, actual experience (part-time vs full-time, overtime, time on leave) you find that most these differences disappear and you have close to equal pay for equal work. You're not discriminated against, you just want it on a feigned injustice not merit.

Which is of course not to say I support the bigots that want to keep women, minorities and whatnot out of positions of power and you might need to counteract discrimination. But I'm generally opposed to the idea that you should require less of a lesbian black female engineer than a straight white male engineer just to balance out the percentages. Yet that is what happens in education and HR when you make this a qualification. Let's hire her not because she's the best, but because she looks good on the statistics.

I also think it is pretty toxic to everyone involved. It's demeaning to come in on a quota rather than your own merits, it creates resentment from ordinary workers that made it the hard way and is highly unjust to the more skilled people you're replacing. Like having a token black guy in a TV show or write in a female elf into Tolkien so somebody could have a romantic love interest, you're not getting a lot of credit for your character. And I don't see any clear reason, if you're getting equal opportunities and women choose to be nurses and men engineers do we need to force them to swap?

The TL;DR version:
Equal pay for equal work - meritocracy
Equal pay for unequal work - social justice
Unequal pay for equal work - bigotry
Unequal pay for unequal work - as it should be

Most of those shitting on it was comparing it to win2k, because of the less business-like interface and online activation. Of course most of those weren't running a legit license since 2k was a "professional" and not "consumer" OS. I don't recall anybody suggesting 98 - and particularly not ME - being better than XP. By 2010, Win2k was EOL, so it's not like you had much other choice if you wanted to run Windows and be supported. And they'd actually improved a lot of things, since XP pro was the current OS for 5 years (2001 to 2006) as opposed to 2k (2000 to 2001).

What you get as a user has its ups and downs, but they are improving the core in pretty much every generation. I get consistently beat on load games on games compared to my buddy running Win8 on equal or in some cases better hardware. If they'll just give a normal desktop, I'm inclined to upgrade to Windows 10 even though Win7 is current "the best Windows ever". The road may twist and turn some but eventually it moves forward.

Or because we believe there's a kidnapping victim in your house and we got a warrant. The cops would have a problem if every door was the only way in to an unbreakable fort and they couldn't compel the key because it's in your mind and protected by the 5th amendment. Real world analogies fail because in the real world, they would get blowtorches, bolt cutters and whatnot to execute the search one way or the other. The lock will stand up to casual burglars, but not a full-out assault.

That's the shade of gray between no security and perfect security which in the digital world is turning into a black and white situation. And people either fall down on the "fuck security, we can't have the government snooping on everything" or "fuck privacy, we can't have black boxes and networks the law can't touch everywhere". And both think the other side is completely crazy. Is there a good middle ground? I don't quite see how, but I see why the discussing is becoming so polarized.

Yes yes, you spam that to every thread. That's exactly why I compared Intel with Intel. Unless you think they're creating benchmarks that's increasingly inaccurate for each new generation, the point was that AMDs "jump" isn't actually more than Intel has improved through yearly releases since. Do you think the benchmarks are more "rigged" for the 4790k than the 3770k? Is the lack of new FX processors not real? By the way, even Phoronix's conclusion says:

I guess "bit of troubled" was the most pro-AMD way he could describe the FX-8150. And the FX-8350 is a mixed bag. And there's been zero improvement since. I realize your anger but Bulldozer was a disaster, the number of AMD fanboys that swear to their AMD Phenom II X6s should be a clue. When you can't even sell it to the ones drinking the kool-aid, good luck selling it to everybody else.

Not even close. They have on the research stage made functional 3nm FinFET transistors, if they can be produced in the billions is unlikely as it requires every atom to be in the right place but 10nm still has some margin of error. The end of the road is in sight though...

FX-8350: 2012
"Zen": 2016

The 40% jump is more like 0%, 0%, 0%, 40%.

If you compare a 3770K (best of 2012) to a 4790K (best of today) you get a ~15% frequency boost and another ~10% IPC improvements. If the leaked roadmaps are to believed Skylake for the desktop is imminent which will bring a new 14nm process and a refined micro-architecture at the same time as Broadwell missed their tick for the desktop, so in the same timeframe Intel will have improved 30-40% too.

Anyway you asked about AMD and I answered with Intel but it's a lot easier to get a meaningful answer without getting into the AMD vs Intel flame war. In short, even if AMD comes through on that roadmap they're only back to 2012 levels of competitiveness and honestly speaking it wasn't exactly great and AMD wasn't exactly profitable. They're so far behind that you honestly couldn't expect less if they weren't giving up on that market completely, which honestly thinking I thought they had. And I wonder how credible this roadmap is, I remember an equally impressive upwards curve for Bulldozer...

He wrote huge parts of it himself and in 2006 about 2% was still written by himself. I can't find how many LOCs it had then, but it was 5 million in 2003 and 11 million in 2009 so 8 million-ish. That means in the ballpark of 160.000 lines of code over 15 years, along with managing the whole project. And when that's not enough, he bootstraps what's possibly the most widely used source control management system today.

Now I've met people who are absolutely brilliant, they're rare. I've met people who truly excels at making everybody pull in the same direction, they're rare too. But I've never met one that's both, he could have been overly possessive and not let anyone else work on his pet project. It's one thing to say you want contributions, it's another thing to mean it in practice. Or he could have been the one pointing out a direction with nobody to do the heavy lifting.

Most of us don't even want to do both, the more I have to rely on others to get something done the more I realize how much I'd hate it if everything I did was manage other people. Those who want to run the business/organization/project get out of the doer role quickly, those who don't avoid management and get into some kind of technical guru role, to use a military analogy more like the special forces than a general. If you find one that both can do both and want to do both, you've hit the jackpot.

The price out to the collection agency reflects the likelihood that an uninsured person - a pretty good indicator that he can't pay - will pay a huge bill, not what the costs are. Now the US system is fucked but proper medical care is expensive, here in Norway we have universal healthcare and it's 11% of the national budget. It is three times the size of our defense budget, for example.

In large parts of your life, particularly until you finish college or you plan to take the money to your grave you don't have a chance at footing the bill for a major medical emergency. And if your parents don't have the money the first part is easily 25 years of your life. Particularly the final years are nothing but rolling the dice, some people drop dead with hardly any cost to the healthcare system while others have long-winded slides into terminal care.

Only 50 years ago you'd need a small army of people to do my job, simply because we have computers to do 99% of the legwork. One doctor is still treating one patient and the standard of adequate care has actually gone significantly up as we gain more knowledge, tests and treatments. And the narrower the scope, usually the more expensive the care.

In my country it's been hotly debated whether we should spend $100.000+ per patient per year to prolong the life of certain very rare diseases with extraordinarily expensive medication. I know we've sent children with brain tumors to the US for proton therapy many hundred thousands of dollars per patient, because the estimated cost of establishing our own is 200 million dollars to treat 200 patients/year.

And we want the best care, it's real hard to hear there's treatment that can help but we're not going to that because it's too expensive. Yet that is increasingly the case, it's not that the treatment doesn't exist it's that if everyone gets everything the system chokes. P.S. A modern medical X-ray machine is not cheap at all.

Not sure the analogy is good as the content, yes obviously. If you're a fugitive from the law but they suspect your mom is secretly sending you letters do they need a warrant to read the mailing address? Probably not, a court order will probably do since it's information that the post office obviously must have in order to deliver it, just like the number you dialed.

The "privacy of your own home" only extends as far as you keep your actions private, if you post home videos on YouTube they don't get the same protection as you have against the police planting a spy camera in your house. When you make a call, you're volunteering information to the phone company about where you are and who you'd like to call, you don't get any extra expectation of privacy from doing it from your own home.

I can understand why you say we won't colonize Mars the way we don't colonize Antarctica, but going there? We've already had people travel through the vacuum of space exposed to cosmic rays to land on a barren rock and take off again. The latest estimates is that a Mars round trip will give you about 5% lifetime risk of dying from cancer, it's far from a deadly dose. We've had people living in zero-g for 437 days straight, we have people isolated in Antarctica for several months of solid darkness and cold. There's really nothing to indicate Mars is so inhospitable that we can't go, if we want to. It might not make sense to go because of the billions we'll need without much tangible returns but in practice we probably could.

And the entire project with two rovers and five extensions has cost $944 million. The SLS program will cost tens of billions to develop and even then a launch would eat over half the budget, before you actually have any crew capsule, lander, habitat, return craft or scientific equipment. If you really did an apples-to-apples comparison on the same budget, you'd realize we're getting a very good bang for the buck.