"It's probably because you're asserting that the mod down process validates your "facts"."
If you want to claim what I'm saying isn't factual, the onus is on you to provide some counter evidence, or at minimum, counter arguments. When people mod down an opinion because they don't agree with it they have surrendered the point.
Just compare a Samsung S8 or S9 Ultra tablet to an iPad pro 10th gen and you will see what I am talking about.
I suspect it has far more to do with price than anything. iPhones are just too damned expensive, even on the low end. You can get a decently built, solidly performing Android phone for $200 or less. If you're not an iTunes user, or iMessage devotee, there just isn't any real reason to pick an Apple phone over an Android phone.
"And nothing of value was lost"?
The Supreme Court already ruled that they can't regulate carbon emissions like this.
They also ruled that student loan forgiveness was (mostly) unconstitutional as well, and yet the President does it anyway.
We are entering "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" territory again.
Indeed. QEMM was something of a hero in that department, but even memmaker was enormously helpful...
Every major shift WAS different from the one before.
What's DOUBLY different about this time is that this time we are not moving from skill to skill, we are moving from unskilled to something.
I truly despise the idea that there are no unskilled jobs because it is not just false, it's a counterproductive argument. All of us who have worked a variety of jobs know that some jobs require both talent and education, and others require mostly just a pulse and respiration. But people who work both kinds of jobs have essentially the same needs.
Which word did you find unclear? I don't remember stuttering.
Hiding from the truth doesn't change it.
This is different in that the software will take the service jobs, and it's the same in that the people profiting from the switch don't give a fuck about you.
It's also true that those people have names and addresses, and we have lumber.
That was the joke alright, he doesn't think any of the action against Apple makes sense because he's in favor of anticompetitive behavior at the expense of customers for some sick reason, probably cognitive dissonance.
For a lot of workloads it's apparently not all that bad and Apple's SoCs are already in the server-class in terms of power draw. It's just a matter of not getting the same raw core count, but you can buy a lot of cheap Mac Minis to string together if you're buying a $10,000 Xeon or Epyc processor.
That's fine if you have an embarrassingly parallel problem which doesn't require a lot of data transfer between processors. There are jobs like that, of course, but those mac minis have pretty poor connectivity and having that many nodes means doing a lot of extra work to set up and maintain them. The EPYC processor (and to a lesser extent the Xeon) also offers very good price:performance. The minis come with a lot of extra case material that you have to pay for (including making it pretty) but don't really want.
Destroying middle class has predictable consequence of tanking birth rate. News at 11.
"Economic Hardship" has jack-shit to do with most of the declining birthrate. Women have more money than ever. If being poor hurt the birthrate, the Third World would have ceased to exist centuries ago. Women choosing careers over marriage has far more to do with it. Those that are getting married are doing so much later in life, when their fertility is already declining, and having few children is a consequence of that. Why do you think IVF and egg-freezing are in such demand? Because women that waited until 30 to get married discover, often to their surprise, that their best chances of pregnancy are in the rear window.
Women were told that they could have it all, the best of both worlds: that they could live like men in their twenties, living the single sexual life and moving up their corporate ladder, and after they had their fun, then they could marry the man of their dreams and have their family. All in a neat package. Except nature doesn't work that way. The Biological Clock is a thing, women have a set number of eggs, and by thirty, they start heading downwards in terms of fertility. Late pregnancies have a greater chance of complications and birth defects. The peak year for fertility and healthy birth is, IIRC, age 24 on average for females.
Life is a series of choices. And choices have consequences. Declining birthrates are inescapable considering the choices made.
You won't need to tell yourself to get up and go, not ever again, not until they leave home.
Most people half-ass parenting. I see it every time I go out into the world, and not just from the results (but that too.)
Having children later increases the risk of defects and complications, and it's not just because of older genetic material so freezing it isn't a complete solution. And it's true for both men and women, for their respective parts. If we want more people to have more kids (which is something I question at a time when jobs are being eliminated by automation) and we want those children to be as health as possible, then we need to make it more feasible for young people to be able to afford to do it.
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
