Why WOULD it be cheap compared to consumer grade cameras? Why are you even comparing it to consumer grade cameras? You should be comparing it to what it's intended to compete with.

Yeah, I've moved past the point where people like you can shame me into flip flopping. I don't want you around me, and I don't value your approval.

It doesn't really matter why I hold this position, or how you want to label it. What matters is, I refuse to support companies that woo women away from traditional family life, and I refuse to be sneaky about it in the name of political correctness.

I think professionals should wear suits, and I'm highly competent, as demonstrated by the many world class projects on my CV.

Your view of the world is flawed.

You're so caught up in your desire to defend your ridiculous "free expression" ideology that you won't acknowledge that facts exist, or that lies exist. There's a huge blind spot that you can't see past because you've decided that your ideology is beyond critical examination.

That pedantic crap about "thinking hard" just reinforces that for all your cleverness, you're just another idiot who has been crippled by his preconceptions.

You should probably stick to the contrived world of the chessboard and leave the real world problems to others.

Can you think of a scenario which can be called an emergency where you would benefit from protection from malicious misinformation?

Think hard.

I disagree. I think the problem is that there are women in the workforce serving the needs of rich old bastards instead of taking care of their husband and children.

There are zero women in my workplace. I love it.

Read again, he's not saying that his Sears TV is better *because it still works*. It's not survivor bias.
He's saying:
- back then, a TV was expected to be repaired and came with all the necessary information to do a repair.
- nowadays, things are made much more difficult for any one wanting to repair: good luck finding the schematics of any modern LED TV.

That's basically how teaching/learning mechanism on the whole did evolve. That's why lot of mammal have youngs observe the adult and copy behavious. That's why in some mammal species, the parent actively teach the young. That's why some mammals (humans, dogs, etc.) from very strictly hierarchical societal organisation, with the underling strongly following the alpha, etc.
That's also why memes work on the internet.

"Religion" itself, is just a side phenomenon, that happens to hi-jack this transmission of knowledge methode and packs together useful information ("Things to avoid eating not to get sick") with complete non-sensical mythology/legends. That all still gets perpetuated because "that what we've always been doing".

No, I just understand that there are plateaus that you can't pass if you refuse to look presentable, and that it's a lot easier to present an image of respectability that people outside your field can see than to try to explain to people who don't understand what you do why they should trust you. People who don't understand your field need a way to judge you, and time spent forming a judgement is a risk; if you turn out to be of no use to them, that time was wasted. So, if you make it harder for them than it needs to be, they may just decide not to bother.

Making your professional life harder for yourself over something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things is really kind of childish. I used to rebel against people who wanted me to cut my hair when I was in high school too, but eventually most people accumulate enough substance as human beings to set aside these childish attempts to assert their individuation.

I gave my mum (95) an old PowerPC laptop I got for the price of buying a replacement power supply. It is running a version of OS that probably is no longer updated, but turning off automatic updates doesn't hurt.. I have also stuck on an Applesript that e-mails me when the machine powers up, which she does every morning to let me know she is OK. She is probably a bit less click-happy then your users.

Wear a MacDonalds outfit instead, if that's what makes you happy.

the cgroups functionnality existed in the kernel but wasn't really used that much before.
systemd, with its tasks in setup/startup of things can handle the creation of jails during lauch when needed.
whereas current /etc/init.d/apache can't without fumbling of shell scripts.

And thus each script end up fucking things up in its own original and different way.

None of which are the original sysvinit.
Either it's relying on LSB-extended script and a different core which starts the scripts. (Debian had a makefile based one)
Or it's an entirely new system anyway like upstart.

Or cron if it's time-based activation. Or udev if it's hardware based activation. Etc.
Why do we need 83 different way to start some code ?!
Wasn't the whole point of Unix philosophy having one piece of software which concentrates into doing one thing and doing it well?
With systemd, setup/startup/stop/teardown responsibilities are concentrated with PID1 and it's helpers.
Before, you'd have the same concept spread into a dozen of different systems, each only doing part of that functionnality.

I like systemd, it makes my work easier on desktop, on server, on virtual machines, etc. and although it used to have hiccups when it was introduced before in opensuse, by now it has had the time to mature.
no need to bash it. if you don't like it, don't use it.
and perhaps the fact that it's slowly gaining popularity in lots of mainstream distro might be due not because systemd is "a spreading cancer" but because systemd is actually useful and solves real world problem

And another thing I like about systemd:
- it groups into 1 single project: 1 single task (starting-up/seting-up things) that was spread accross way too many different project before.

Before systemd:

Want to start a service during boot-up ? Put it into sysvinit. Except if it's a file system, then it goes into /etc/fstab. Or if it's not a *service* but like of an interface like your terminal that should go into inittab (Except on distribution which do THE EXACT SAME THING but in init.d anyway).
The thing which start is related to actual hardware? the you need to put it into hal, no way we replaced that with udev... except that a few distro put them any way in init.d and thus your hardware might not work when plugged after booting... unless you also duplicate some code into modprobe.conf's post-runs.
And what if conditions for your code to start isn't "boot-up" nor "plug-in" ?
Then put it into inted/tpcd if it's network triggered. Except for code that doesn't work there, because the service needs to be compiled to use libwrap to work this way. So then you'll have to run the service constantly and fumble around with ip filtering to enable/disable it on demand.
Or put it into cron if it's time triggered.
And you need to start a service and the periodically monitor it for failure, and restart and raise alert if it has failed? Well either use an entirely separate custom system like djbdns's daemontools. Or write your own monitoring solution by writing a ton of scripts which tap into all those different ways to start/stop stuff and hope that it works.

And don't get me started about initialising containers (limited fonctionnality, tons of script), brokering access rights around (not really used. lot of interface must run as root and drop privileges, or lot of interface must be world accessible), handling situation as missing configuration or drivers in a system that hasn't fully booted up to the point where the GUI works and the user can fix things from here (huge tons of scripting to achieve way to detect that Xorg is failing and to propose solution to fix drivers)

All this written in shell script which can have their own pitfalls, and every single system using a different syntax.

After systemd:
PID1 and its herd of helpers take care of setup/start/stop/teardown.
Want to do *something*? Write a systemd config file, and describe which trigger (boot, after another service has started, on network, by clock, on device plug, etc.) should start it.
You can even call legacy systems from within systemd (cron can be reimplemented as a systemd service that runs periodically and reads/executes crontab, etc.)

You can have an LXC that is quickly setup. In fact you can quickly create throw-away container to jail any service separately (systemd is the kind of infrastructure that can boot a dedicated LXC jail to run Skype into, with restriction correctly setup so that no hidden backdoor could spy on you).
You can have systemd handle brokering the necessary rights (to the point that plugin an USB stick and having the currently active user access to it isn't a nightmare anymore).

If anything the handling of setup/startup/stop/teardown WAS NOT "unixy" before, it was "have 384 different programme which all do a different part of one single task in subtly different ways".

They are fundamentally different.

On one side you have turn-by-turn games, that progress in fixed steps, and thus simply paint the game field by putting varied wall graphics at exact predefined places.
It's really the discrete position on the map and cardinal headings that are specific,
(That's what you get in most classical RPG).
Could very easily be done back then with a few lines of code. The biggest chunk of work came from the *art* to have a big enough choice of wall to draw to make an interesting world (because it's mostly static, you'll be spending a lot of time at the same, and need something nice to look at).

Basically, the graphic engine has a fixed grid on screen and you put different sprites at said fixed grid positions.

On the other side you have game engines that try to have some actual notion of 3D built into them and allow smooth motion, with complete arbitrary position/headings.
(That's what you get in most FPS and real-time RPG like ultima).
There is really require more advanced coding. (With Origin more concentrating on making an imersive game, emphasis on beautiful graphics, and ID concentrating on make their engine fast and responsive, sacrificing any detail necessary for the sake of being able to make a fast paced game).

Basically, the graphic engine use geometric techniques like wolf's raycasting do determine what is visible where, and gives you total freedom (or at least tons more of freedom, as Carmack used limitation to beat Ultima in speed and fluidity).

From a basic visual composition, both categories have a first person perspective.
From a technical point of view, they are designed completely differently.

The dumbest of the dumb can only realise things are going badly when they can compare with things going well. To realise that the current government fucks everything up require to be able to realise that some things could be a little bit less fucked up, and the reason they are still so bad is the government's fault.

But if a country is shot down into dark ages, that gets much more difficult. See the reports about fugitive who have escaped extremely isolated dictature like North Korea. These people had probably the vague notion that perhaps here in the west, things are going a bit easier that in their country. (That's why they ran away in the first place)
But having so few information means that these people are just completely amazed by how far off their perception of the outside world has been, they knew that things could go in a different, better way. But they weren't able to realise that outside the totalitarian prison things are SO different.