That is a great analogy. Next time someone brings it up in person conversation, I think I'll use it.

Thanks

Independent of if you like changing the clocks or not going DST all the time is just stupid.

We have words, noon for example means the sun should be directly overhead. Midday, Midnight, should be the middle of the day or the middle of the night respectively; where day is the period where the sun is out, and night is the period where it isn't.

If people want to stop chaining the clocks were should adopt standard-time all the time. If you then believe we should have more 'evening' hours of daylight, we should implement one more social change subject business and schools run 7-4 rather than 8-5. After all you'd only need to communicate that out once

The problem is that DEI so often is EXACTLY what is on the label. Absolutely nobody outside a tiny tiny fringe group that subscribes to David Duke's news letter object to "Dont just only hire white people, your criteria must be skill based, not race based."

Those people don't matter, because if they do they do and if they 'count' as voices that can be fairly associated with the conservative movement; then the left the left does not get disown its cooks either, and there are plenty such wings like the people who want to tell you pedophilia isnt a disease but should be an accepted sexual orientation...

If DEI stood for things "Dont just only hire white people, your criteria must be skill based, not race based." the initials would be Diversity EQUALITY Inclusion, but they aint are they, that middle word is EQUITY..

Which translates to some sort of Marxist distribution model of fairness. DEI really gets implemented as "Dont just only hire white people, your criteria must be skill based, not race based. Unless that candidate is a member of the increasingly slim white male majority in which case screw them and go with any of the other candidates if any are half way credible runners up in terms of ability and probably even if they are not."

That is my biggest objection to this trend. While there are some techniques and preparatory choices that can be made very food products most of us would consider to be a "main dish" benefit from being "held" or reheated, most degrade considerably. This is even true of most fast food, how "good" the fries are depends mostly on the time to fryer to your tray. Even pizza is generally best fresh from the oven eaten as soon as it is cooled enough to handle.

Presentation is also part of the dining experience, even if food is plated well initial in some kinda foil container after its bounced around in the back seat of some car or luggage rack on a bicycle it won't be when it gets to you.

Save the delivery for the office meeting deli sandwiches, otherwise if you paying someone to prepare a meal for you GO and enjoy it properly!

Corporations have the opinion of their owners and the shareholders.

Presumably the shareholders of a public company would either chose not remain shareholders if the disagreed with company policy, vote to change it in some shareholder action, or vote to elect new board members.

If you own Exxon-mobil stock longer than the term of one board election, you have adopted their or endorsed their corporate position on climate change, why should CA be allowed to censor you.

Looked at another way, if corporations don't have free speech, what other legal entities don't? Could TX for example force unions to publish data from studies on the consumer cost increases in industries with collective bargaining? Could Massachusetts require the NRA to notify the public of risks related to hunting accidents?

I there is a room under 1A for some compulsory speech in the form of just the facts disclosures, and truth in advertising. It needs to be limited to things like "As #{organization} we engage in the following #{activity}". A state could for example legally require 'any corporation that vents hydrocarbon combustion products to the atmosphere in a non transportation or air-conditioning using must disclose the related activities and good faith estimate of CO2 released' for example.

They should not be able to require a company to say 'we are contributing to climate change' because that is purely speculative on tons of levels. Without getting into 'the settled science' If i can't get gasoline at the pump for my car from Exxon, I am going to source my transportation power from somewhere/someone else and it could easily be just as carbon intensive or even more so. If you really want to go down this path the state can force anyone to say anything they want any time. If you are not free from delivering a given message you can't be free to deliver any other. Free speech becomes a thing only people with money for lawyers can afford to exercise. We have already let this happen with freedom of association..

The thing about most management layers is you don't need them most of the time.

If you are the kind of organization that is able to retain staff, ie working conditions are not shit, pay is reasonable etc, you end up with experienced staff. Experienced staff can keep the trains running on time with minimal 'help' from management.

Were middle management matters, and this only applies to 'effective middle managment' which is all but certain as to if it is effective at Amazon or anywhere else is adaptation. You actually do need people who understand both the work and how fill in the details and translate those higher level executive strategic objectives.

If you don't have those people you'll have the people actually doing the work standing around trying to solve the problems, apparent contractions, missing inputs and outputs to out dated process, and trying to resolve different individual interpretations of 'what the right way is' and generally struggling to find someone who can be responsible for making a decision that is needed. Any time you try to change anything a lot of that stuff happens and again without that middle management group to smooth and roll out changes, your production stuff we see productivity fall thru the floor as they do it. Now you don't know if the new strategy isn't working or if it is just not being executed effectively -yet.

Now again this supposes effective middle management, and that too is something the C-Suite and VPs need to cultivate, most don't and don't know how. They also don't know to measure if/when they have. Ineffective middle management is far more dangerous than lack of middle management, because those guys/gals will generally introduce costly churn and disruption and various terf wars for the sake of looking busy when things are going well.

What does Anthropic do that Bedrock can't?

AWS's big sell is that it is a 'one-stop-shop' for all your infrastructure and hosting needs. My bet is when the dust settles the GenAI applications that are actually valuable will get migrated to where the rest of the resources are, especially as any capability gap shrinks.

As a long time editor I've seen how the bias works. It's frustrating because I remember when, broadly speaking, it was neutral. It starts at the top where the Wikimedia Foundation funds left wing groups and does not fund right wing groups. It runs fundraisers but people don't realize that it is swimming in money and diverting it to Art +Feminism, Black Lunch Table and Whose Knowledge.

These organizations publicly admit that they aim is to edit Wikipedia pages with leftist ideologies. Art + Feminism has an instructional guide showing how to create Wikipedia content about transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Wikipedia has removed conservative news organizations as acceptable sources for news articles. The problem with that act of censorship, is that to construct a neutral article you frequently need balancing sources to achieve neutrality. Often there are facts that only a right or a left wing source will say. Given that mainstream new organizations are left wing, certain facts become impossible to source on the site.

You won't find the same treatment for conservative leaning people as you would for progressives. Often a few dog whistle words are added prominently by editors to a conservative's profile to signal that they are outside of Wikipedia's own Overton Window. And they will not uncommonly coordinate privately off-site, despite that being a violation of Wikipedia's rules.

Ironically, I remember completely different times before 2012 when I got into an edit war with conservatives that didn't want inconvenient facts mentioned about an anti-immigration organization. I spent significant time expanding a stub-like article into something comprehensive, only to be viscously attacked.

Now it's the other way round. It's progressives doing the attacking and edit warring. I was drawn to Wikipedia in part because of it's neutral point of view but it's now a progressive point of view hidden behind a few figleaf phrases here and there to deceive a superficial reader.

The fact that it is a non-profit. Wales started it as a for profit, Sanger changed that.

I see a mod already proved my point.

Which one of you browshirts was it? AmiMojo, Drinkypoo, rslivergun, archie? Fess up you sacks of shit!

Wales is really indefensible, he pretty much stole Wikipedia from Sanger and a lot of the original investors will support that version of events. Sanger is also who you have to thank for a Wikipedia that is a community project and not an enshitified mess of ads that Wales originally envisioned.

Slashdot won't care about any of that thought, because the karma farmers here won't see past their virulent anti-Christian bigotry.

Can't wait; I mean certainly a mail and calendaring solution that has a history of stretching back thru mail & Schedule+, for almost 35 years now should obviously be 'reimagined' after it could not possibly represent one of the more refined and curated products/feature sets or anything.

I know especially here on Slashdot, people are going to line up to say how much better, is. But the reality is for a full suite of mail, tasks, shared-calendaring, notes, contact management solution; Outlook + Exchange (or o365) is actually pretty tough to beat for the typical office users needs. It won out over even more capable and feature rich solutions like Notes + Domino, and any significant also-rans like Google's suite at least for a UI perspective are basically clones.. Disagree all you want Slashdot, but 'people like Outlook'.

I expect Microsoft is going to regret this, Outlook is a good example of software that other basic maintenance and the occasional face lift to match the look and feel of the OS version du jour is "finished". It does everything most users want it to do and in the way they want to do it, power users have expectations they won't like seeing changed.

I'll just go ahead and predict
1) "Legacy Outlook" will be seen as better than "Outlook re-imagined" for quite some time.
2) Microsoft will find ways to break and otherwise force people to switch by disabling integration people rely on etc.
3) Users (including some large Enterprises) will threaten to switch to Google or otherwise go elsewhere
4) Microsoft will relent and restore Outlook to something that mostly resembles what it is now.

I hope the AI bubble has room to stretch yet because this will only cost Intel more share to AMD and various ARM licensees in their other markets.

They darn well better have a plan to be ready with some compelling leap-frog-products in those other spaces 'three generations for now' because by the super premium "AI-Server market" prices driven by people spending VC money that was never real to them anyway will likely be over.

I don't think the current AI tech is a dead end by any means or that it is not valuable, but it is also not got to generate the revenue to build all those data centers OpenAI has options on. That is all just noise to pump unsustainable valuations a little longer. When those turn out to be the vapor they are Intel's notions of AI server chips being a sellers market will be vapor too.

Well the inflation numbers are out now (10/24) and they only just barely above 2%. It is almost like your assumptions were and are wrong or something....

So in the real world - Space X has actually received about half of what you claim, and what they have received is because they have delivered on what they were contracted to do. - So awful..

Meanwhile our so-called-allies in the EU are going to try to undercut another successful American technology enterprise by allowing their state subsidized aerospace operators to collude. - Fine, that is probably the right policy choice for them; but we should stop pretending the EU is 'friendly' and treat them like the 'frenemies' they actually are. We definitely should stop subsidizing their defense.