He got caught because he didn't ultimately deliver a show for the money he paid. It could have been the worst, contractually obligatory show ever but if he released it, then he could have kept a good chunk of the money he was paid.

It seems clear to me that Netflix is taken for a ride all the time, paying money for something and getting a turd in return. Look at The Electric State as a recent example of that. Purportedly this 2 hour movie cost $320 million and was critically panned. Even if some people watch it, they're never going to watch it again. $320 million that could have funded several series, or paid for some film studio's back catalogue.

It's like there is nobody in Netflix paying attention to where their (i.e. subscriber's) money is going. They might react after the fact and cancel a series if it sucks, but why was it allowed to suck in the first place? Was anyone paying attention to the process, or reviewing the scripts, or checking up on the cast and crew? Maybe they should have. The same goes of course to some of the shit that Amazon and Disney+ have greenlit too.

Working for Amazon was so horrible that current and former employees shared horror stories on a website called thefaceofamazon which as been mysteriously taken down. So here is an archive.org link.

A running theme is that managers were backstabbing assholes who frequently moved between projects and got rid of people they didn't like through micromanagement and internal review systems. They even had a "performance improvement plan" which was an arbitrary way a manager could have someone punished and gotten rid of. And HR didn't give a fuck about it either. Escalating complaints just made things worse. So basically a career in Amazon wasn't about merit or competency but about kissing the managers ass and blameshifting. Some stories also mention that they intentionally burned out or fired staff so they would leave before their share options matured.

So Amazon had a rotten culture. People there should welcome a fresh start if indeed this is one, because it sounds like it needed a revamp. But it's one thing to say and another thing to do.

There is no "switcheroo" dummy, this is a plain statement of what Wayland is, what unfixable faults X11 had, why it had to be replaced and what changes happened to make that a reality. I honestly don't know why you're so sore about it quite honestly. You clearly didn't watch the video explaining why X11 sucks by a person who actually developed and maintained X11. You clearly know more than they do. Maybe YOU go and maintain your precious windowing system and quit whining that the rest of the Linux world is moving on.

It's funny you whine about "insults" when you call someone "fanboi" to dismiss what is obvious to anyone paying attention and then throw strawmen around like so much confetti.

I am not putting words in your mouth, you specifically complained about X having newer API calls.

You have serious reading comprehension problems. The issue is not that the protocol can be extended, the issue is that so much of the protocol is obsolete that it's all extensions. Disgusting hack extensions with a bunch of workarounds, all running through a bottleneck system with a bunch of obsolete code hanging off of it.

But my favourite bit was you claimed Wayland was faster, and when I pointed out it wasn't you jumped back to "the it's just a protocol" arguement and then insulted me in a nonsensical way. Though again it's very on brand of a Wayland fanboi to think someone pointing out a verifiable error of fact is "whining".

No thicko, I said "As for Wayland, no it is not a "rewrite". It is a protocol between an application and a display that allows the application create and render into a surface (using hardware acceleration if available) and tell the display when it is done, as well as receive input in the other direction. Implementations of the respective sides underpin QT, GTK and the display manager. It means sweeping away decades of crud, bottlenecks, security holes, extensions and other bullshit in X and enjoying a fast desktop experience. If you have X11 apps, then Xwayland runs on top of it."

A protocol. A protocol that must be implemented. There are many moving parts to this but modern desktop experiences with the pieces in place to implement the protocol are fast, fluid and responsive. Clients communicate directly to the display manager, not through some busted middleman with a mix of sync and async calls. They get security from it being designed into the protocol. They get stuff like multi-monitor support and HiDpi because it is designed into the protocol. The display manager has screensavers and login screens that work without fundamental, unsolvable issues. The display manager can properly composite surfaces and not play tricks with coordinates because it's designed into the protocol. This is not rocket science, nor is it hard to understand. Since you seem to have issues, here is a ten year old video by an X11 developer explaining all the problems. Watch all of it and furnish yourself with a clue.

Frankly it is bizarre that people pop up like some kind of technological Amish who object to a simpler, purpose built compositing protocol appearing for Linux. Nobody is stopping you running X11 if you want. Go nuts.

This is a silly argument. Wayland is a protocol. The whitepaper should convince anyone that it cuts down the amount of context switching required for an application and the display manager to composite and show a scene. But it means the things either side that implement the protocol and render surfaces such as the graphics driver, application, widget lib, and display manager must be 100% optimized to capitalize on that experience.

But even the links you provide show it is no worse than X and usually better. It is also not hard to find comments, e.g. by QT explaining why it results in more fluid rendering chiefly because there is less bloat and context switching involved in rendering.

The majority of X is obsolete. Modern apps are pushing around pre-rendered pixmaps, not using primitives, fonts, damage etc. And X sucks in every way imaginable. Even the people who worked on X have commented extensively about the effort to lock it down, or extend it, or simply to maintain it.

Are you claiming that once the first version of the Wayland protocol was finished it was set in stone and nothing was added ever? No? Then why do you criticise X for adding new APIs?

No I'm not. That's you putting some stupid strawman into my mouth to attack.

My X desktop is zippy on my 15 year old laptop, thanks. In fact hasn't X been consistently a little faster than Wayland...?

Wayland is a protocol, not an implementation. And nobody is forcing you to move away from something that works for you. So quit whining.

HDR uses higher 10-12 bit depths to increase the colour gamut. So I assume Gnome has to detect and set the display manager and monitor into a mode that does it and also provide that info to apps interested in using it.

As for Wayland, no it is not a "rewrite". It is a protocol between an application and a display that allows the application create and render into a surface (using hardware acceleration if available) and tell the display when it is done, as well as receive input in the other direction. Implementations of the respective sides underpin QT, GTK and the display manager. It means sweeping away decades of crud, bottlenecks, security holes, extensions and other bullshit in X and enjoying a fast desktop experience. If you have X11 apps, then Xwayland runs on top of it.

Other owners reported other expensive repairs for seemingly simple fender benders. Anyway it could have been solved by not having an ginormous panel that requires disassembling half the car to replace or affect repairs to. That's just bad design. I think Rivian is a great auto designer and I hope it succeeds but things like this would turn me off a vehicle entirely.

Oops this is the correct link

They are very expensive to repair though. One guy got a minor ding to the rear and it cost $42,000 to repair it because the rear is a "unipanel" which went from the rear bumper and over the roof. Repairing it meant disassembling and reassembling half the car including much of the rear electronics and glass.

So while they look nice, I wonder wtf is going on with automakers doing this stuff. Being able to repair a vehicle cheaply is important. It can't be easy or cheap for Rivian to make a unipanel so why not just split it into smaller parts and everyone wins.

Gemini isn't bad as AIs go but it suffers the same faults - bland homegeneous responses, hallucinations etc. But as a replacement to the assistant it's still a step up. I doubt people will be using it any different though - give me directions to..., set a timer for..., remind me to... etc.

Google probably imagine people are going to say "book me a 7 week holiday to...", or "reserve a dinner table for.." etc. and skim a % off the transaction. Doubt it will happen sufficiently to be profitable.

Yes it's their fault. The Daily Mail is a paper tabloid that has transitioned to web clickbait. Stories about vices being bad/good for people have become part of their staple. They're trying to generate page impressions and they don't give a damn whether the headline is accurate, the study is accurate or anything else.

The Daily Mail is notorious for printing articles that say that drinking red wine is good / bad for your health. They have alternated between these headlines for decades. The article under the headline will then proceed to gloss over or misrepresent a study while ignoring important considerations such as sample sizes, reporting mechanism, controls, rigor, conflicts of interest etc. And if the lede is mentioned at all, it is buried at the bottom, e.g. the study might have been conducted on mice.

And the lede was buried in the Ars Technica article that some submitter linked to but didn't bother to include in their summary, that drinking is still bad for you because it increases risk of cancer and other conditions and if you drink at all, moderate.

Don't turn into the Daily Mail.

The remote desktop app that comes with Windows isn't anything to write home about either. It "works", but it frequently forgets settings and screws up the scaling if a connection is dropped and reopened on a different DPI monitor. My only experience of the store app was it had a lot slicker UI which solved these issues, but it sometimes suffered weird "shimmering" effects, as if it screwed up the resolution & scaling and was off by one pixel.

That's probably because SAP is garbage too. It's one of those products that is inscrutable, complex, arcane and baroque all at once. The sort of "enterprise" software that clueless CTOs buy thinking a big feature list equates with being a good product.