This was back in the 2012-2015 time frame ... so "buy them bigger drives" wasn't always a reasonable solution. A lot of them were using Macbook Airs that were great for their needs EXCEPT for the SSDs not being as big as one might prefer.

I'm sure I'm just an outlier here. But I bought a cheap big screen LCD smart TV at Best Buy 3-4 years ago. It was a Westinghouse branded set running Roku TV.

At some point, they updated the firmware to consolidate the TV guide in it so it displayed all the streaming content and your over the air TV stations in the same guide. (Used to be, you had to pick a Live TV icon/button to look at your OTA content in its own place.)

Ever since that happened, the TV forgets all my OTA stations regularly so I have to go into setup and re-scan for all of them, to get them to reappear in the guide. REALLY annoying.

It would be awesome if a total UI makeover for it results in fixing this problem.

I used to work for a company that used the "Dropbox for Business" product. (I think they renamed it along the way, so that may be its former or current product name?) Anyway, my memory of it is that it generally did what you paid for it to do -- but was horribly costly when existing contracts ran out and went up for renewal.

They seemed to use the business model that once you invested in using the platform and they had your data captive in it, they could crank up the prices because it was cheaper to keep it than to go through the painful process of switching.

I also recall a really frustrating detail; We kept wanting DropBox to enforce a disk quota on client PCs. Instead, it would happily keep syncing more content until it ran someone's disk space down to around 0 bytes free, causing OS crashes and a big hassle cleaning it back up again. Their only answer was, "We added the ability to only sync the actual files and folders on-demand, the first time a user clicks to view/open/edit one of them." Great, but that's not the same thing as a disk quota. We had people working with huge video files and it only took one to wipe out remaining disk space on some machines.

This one's interesting on several levels. I mean, for starters? We already know most competitive sports involve people taking various drugs and supplements in an attempt to get an edge. So it's a lie and a farce when the Olympic committee or the Major League Baseball association or anyone else doing pro sports claims we're watching athletes who achieved everything they do 100% naturally.

Viewed that way, I can see how holding a "performance enhanced Olympics" challenges that and calls it out. Essentially, it's saying, "Hey... we don't just randomly catch and disqualify a few athletes, to keep up a facade that the rest of them aren't doing any of it. We let you see what people can do, period, in a world where these drugs and supplements exist and people take them."

Where it gets questionable for me is ethically, when you start asking if it's right to dangle large sums of money in front of people to encourage them to take dangerous amounts of drugs and push themselves into potential health crisis? I think most of us know that normally, athletes would limit drug usage to what they believe is relatively safe. (They're surrounded by others who have been doing the same and can make a judgement call based on what's actually worked and happened to that group.) Start changing things to huge cash prizes to win ONE event, and now people will get reckless. "I only need that $30 million this one year and I can quit the whole thing."

Historically, knowledge-workers had little interest in unionizing because they knew they possessed the ability to learn and adapt. Sure, they had useful skills and knowledge. But much of I.T. is about possessing the ability to learn new things quickly. Everything's in constant change or evolution. The software package you use today will get a new update in a matter of weeks and then it has new functions or features have been moved around to new locations in it. The programming language you use may even get deprecated, demanding you learn whatever replaces it. The hardware you troubleshoot and support changes on a regular schedule.

Unions primarily benefit people who want to retain fair compensation for doing the same specific tasks repeatedly. They want reassurance they won't be forced to do anything new that's outside the scope of what they were hired for. Such a thing requires a new job title/role and a contract specifying exactly what they agree to as part of it.

I.T. workers usually felt if they were getting a bad deal someplace, the best move was to quit and find a new job where pay/benefits and/or working conditions were better. There wasn't so much fear or concern if a place used different software or tools than what they used before. That didn't matter much as long as they could learn the differences between it and what they had previously.

I think that might be changing in recent years, though? Now, you probably have an edge if your resume shows you already worked at companies people are familiar with and impressed by. But otherwise, they mostly want newer/younger people who they can pay lower wages to and get the most out of. Most places are starting to treat anyone in I.T. as more of a necessary expense than an asset to the business, and fewer and fewer pay well for your decades of experience.

I know that's just me being a bit sarcastic or mean. I don't wish unemployment or a tough time on any of my "people" working in I.T. or with an interest in computers and technology. That's been my thing since I was a kid.

But ... I spent the majority of my career working for small businesses and even working for myself (on-site consulting and computer service). When I finally got hired on with "big tech", I lasted only a year before resigning, because I couldn't bear the constant changing demands, stress, foolishness and teams getting pushed around by middle managers in competition with each other.

I noticed a huge rift in "big tech" employment between the "chosen ones" and everyone else employed there. If you got into management in some capacity, or you were important enough in software development - you were compensated really well and made to feel like your job was fairly secure. The others doing such roles as deskside support or audio-visual support were in another world. They were just herded around by project managers who in turn would change direction on initiatives on a dime, when managers over them declared they had some new direction to go. For them, employment was a revolving door of hiring and firing (after tossing people on "performance improvement programs" to pretend they cared).

So when the big tech shakeup starts involving the middle managers and those all comfortable with lots of stock options and a high salary because they help code the site's web portals? It's hard to be THAT sympathetic. Time to learn how the rest of us in the career feel.

Umm, I never said I was offering a solution here. I'm just identifying a problem. And the problem is a lot bigger than "Trump". He's just the latest one in the line-up.

It's pretty clear we've had a long string of shady deals and the public being kept in the dark on what our government is really doing.

Only reason you can try to pretend the whole problem is the Republican Party is the fact they've been in a power a lot. I'm old enough, though, to remember how awful things were under the Carter administration with the "stagflation" and his turning our relations w/Iran from a close alliance to a geopolitical crisis. I also remember how, despite his ability to relate to the people and make people feel good, Ronald Reagan also pulled some corrupt B.S. Perhaps most insultingly? He did all of it while quoting very Libertarian key points and principles. Clearly a case of "do as I say, not as I do" when you look at the Iran Contra scandal or his non-working "trickle down economics" he's known for taking from his advisors and running with, despite it just being a failed experiment. President Clinton was fingered for shady campaign funding/financing methods, from the start, followed by firing all 7 members of the White House travel office and replacing them with friends and associates. Plenty of reasons to question Joe Biden's ability as President when he got a shot at it -- including millions of dollars from foreign countries funneled into his family's own bank accounts, and admission that he improperly removed a number of classified documents and tried to keep them at home. (No charges ever filed for "mishandling" those though, which probably tipped off Trump that he could get away with the same!)

I didn't even bother to mention Bush, Sr. or Jr. here but clearly, they had personal agendas too.

It's all a steaming pile in Washington DC ... and it just keeps getting worse, the more the leaders figure out they can get away with.

I don't totally agree with that Starlink assessment though. They're far from "maxed out" on potential customers. Where I work, alone, we have 50+ remote docks and warehouses in random parts of the country. All of them need Internet access desperately but most are only serviced by an LTE cellular connection because they're in too rural an area for other options.

Starlink would be ideal for them, and we've used it in a couple of locations already. The main objection seems to be the complexity of the setup. (EG. We can program up a hotspot and SIM card easily enough and ship it someplace. Tell some dock worker to plug the thing into power and attach a network cable between it and a patch panel on a wall, and done. Can't expect them to properly install a Starlink antenna and the whole bit.)

Starlink just needs a free installation offer as part of buying it, with some kind of minimum contract required, and a lot more people would bite.

The crazy part? US taxpayers are propping up ALL the things! NASA didn't just stop receiving any government funds because Space-X exists. You get to foot the bill for both now!

The Republican Party hasn't been about small government for quite a while now! (Individuals who identify as Republican, by contrast, often still are.)

That's the real disconnect.... NEITHER party is about anything but getting more power or control for themselves and playing favorites with private sector businesses they have personal reasons to favor.

It's not strictly Communism because we still support the idea of the private sector. Anyone can start their own small business and not expect government to swoop in and claim ownership of it. But it's definitely "Corporatism".

Ok... you have me questioning the details now, but the AI overview I just checked says:

"Yes, Apple's M-series chips integrate the RAM directly onto the processor package. Because the memory is built-in as "Unified Memory," it cannot be upgraded or replaced after your Mac or iPad is purchased."

Yep... back as far as 2006, several execs were indicted for price-fixing RAM:

https://www.justice.gov/archiv...

There was a class action lawsuit in 2018 over the same issue.

I assume Apple, at least, feels they've taken steps to control RAM availability with their transition to the M series ARM processors, because they integrate the memory and the video memory into the CPU itself?

I've been driving EVs since I first got a used Tesla S (2014 P85D). I have a 2020 Chevy Bolt EV I use as my daily driver right now. I recently rented a 2025 Toyota Camry Hybrid, which seems to be in high demand and very highly rated/recommended out there.

My experience was ... disappointing. Now granted, it delivered on the fuel economy part. I drove it several hundred miles over a few days' time and when I went to refuel it before the rental return, it only needed 6 gallons of gas to fill it back up. But the whole driving experience felt like a big step back from any EV I'd driven. You had the constant sensation of a gas engine turning on and off at various times, and a constant reminder the battery pack in the vehicle was tiny and only a part of a more complicated system. (You could put the car in "EV mode" to make it drive only on battery, but it would only allow it at very low speeds, like driving around parking lots.) Ultimately, it was just a car lugging around all the things required for an internal combustion engine AND electric vehicle parts at the same time. Double the complexity and a rolling compromise. (Better interior than I'm used to seeing w/Toyota though.)

I'm kind of confused w/Honda. Their "EV strategy" seemed to me like it was basically about trying to sell that Prologue which was really a GM designed car getting rebranded as a Honda product + hand-waving that they'd do cooler stuff soon.

Truthfully? I think one of the big challenges with EVs across the board is trying to mask the high cost of the battery pack, motors and other electronics involved. You can "do it right" by not caring and slapping a high price tag on it. Then you get an EV that still maintains people's expectations for "fit and finish", a nice interior, and really good handling. The BMW i4 eDrive 40 is a great example here, or even the Porsche Taycan EV. But most people just want a cheap car that's reliable, avoids the need for gas fill-ups and oil changes, while still handling well and feeling like corners weren't cut on the build quality, interior and exterior. That doesn't really seem to be doable, yet? Tesla sure doesn't. They just design vehicles that few people think look great on the outside. but "wow" them with all the infotainment / computer capabilities on the inside. Keep the interior really bare-bones but put that big touch-screen front and center to distract them. Spend enough on the seats so they're really comfortable, but use a real basic "skateboard" suspension and frame across the whole product line. It goes fast enough in a straight line so they'll ignore other handling issues.

Don't get me wrong. I like Tesla vehicles. I'm just being real about what one is and isn't. I don't think an established brand like Honda is comfortable making all those compromises, and they're just not seeing a profit margin in converting what they build now into a full EV?

Amazon I.T. .... your ridiculous middle management and their obsession over metrics make stories like these pathetic, yet not unexpected at all.

I.T. is going down a spiral where management treats you like a "digital janitor". I'm old enough to remember this being a fairly respected career path. People in most offices had a combination of fear and awe of the "I.T. guys" because ultimately, there was a realization the entire business relied on the technology to survive. If the server or network went down, everything ground to a halt. You simply didn't treat the team poorly who held the keys to the kingdom.

It's a very different atmosphere today. Now, everyone's worried about how to cut costs and achieve the maximum return. I.T. may be critically important to a business's success, but nobody cares. There's the constant suggestion that AI is about to replace half of them anyway, and the trick is to wring every bit of productivity out of the existing staff until they quit. Then you just replace them and repeat.

If you're reading this and thinking, "It's not like that at all where I work!", congratulations! You're part of a diminishing bit of sanity out there. The last place I worked like that, though? The owner passed away and the company was sold, and it's no longer an exception to the rule.

The idea someone needs to micro manage their "knowledge workers" to the extent they keep tabs on how many feet their mouse has rolled each day? Well, that's plain insulting they'd even think it's sensible!