I'm "learning" about blockchain. I read articles about it on Slashdot and elsewhere. But I'm certainly not interested in developing blockchain technologies, especially not cryptocurrencies. My opinion is that cryptocurrencies are the latest kind of swindle.
So I would have answered the question about "learning" with "yes"...I am learning about it. But am I "interested" in it personally? Not at all.
There's no way that this was a *representative* sample. TFA (or the TFS) claims that one out of every six developers is "actively working on crypto-related projects" and that one out of every nine developers is "actively working on NFT technology". I call bull.
The FCC regulates what power the stations operate at. They can't just decide to lower their power.
Some stations are operating at a temporarily lower power (with authorization) because the FCC changed their broadcast frequency. This requires the station to do things like change the broadcast antenna. Since that is a very specific job, there aren't many people available to do it, which leads to delays in getting it done (sometimes quite lengthy delays). When they are using the wrong antenna, they must operate at lower power.
Stations can also have technical issues which require them to lower their power (again, only with authorization). A station I worked at in the 70s had an issue, and we reduced power to the point that basically the only antenna that could receive us was the local cable company. This was not good, as the cable company did not have to pay us at that time.
Also, the conversion to digital made it so some people could no longer receive the signal. You may be able to tolerate a snowy analog signal, digital can't. Again, no great conspiracy to force people to get cable.
Yes, I'd forgotten that the digital conversion was one of the reasons some people could no longer get a signal.
I read somewhere that stations used to often broadcast a higher than their minimum allowed level, but rarely do that anymore. I can't find any reference for or against that though.
Some posters above argue that OTA is becoming irrelevant.
Not quite. It's just that most of the content put out by these local stations
In the days before cable, there was social, political, and financial pressure to make sure as many people as possible could receive the nearest OTA broadcasts. Today, the local stations can put the minimum power required by regulations into their OTA transmissions and depend on there being more than enough cable subscribers to drive income via the re-broadcast fees. Supposedly, people are finding they can't get OTA in places they could have a few decades ago.
Some posters above argue that OTA is becoming irrelevant.
Not quite. It's just that most of the content put out by these local stations
Apparently the judge didn't think that "deployment" was covered under "maintaining and operating". It seems that it's OK to spend non-profit income to maintain servers and other equipment
This was an overly literal interpretation of what congress wrote and doesn't fit the spirit or intent of the law.
Maybe someone will start a locast 2.0 that uses two different income streams with one stream for deployment and another income stream for operations.
Maybe if the NFL weren't so greedy/stupid/insane with their broadcasting rights we wouldn't have issues like this. If the team you follow is out of your market, good luck. You need a combination of a broadcast receiver (in-market games), NFL Sunday Ticket (broadcast black-out games), ESPN (Monday games), and Prime Video/NFL Network (Thursday games). It's a ****ing joke.
This year, I've switched from NFL Sunday Ticket at $300 to NFL Game Pass at $100. NFL Sunday Ticket is only on DirecTV and is live. NFL Game Pass is available on Roku and other streaming platforms, but isn't available until just after a game is finished playing. We never watched live football anyway; we'd start watching no sooner than an hour after the game had started and by fast-forwarding though commercials and other downtime, we'd skip an hour of non-game.
Just give it to SpaceX already. They'll have up there next week for you.
How? This is going to one of the earth/sun Lagrange points, not earth orbit. So, a falcon 9 won't do; you need a falcon 9 heavy. No problem there. But, this bird won't fit in the fairing of a falcon 9 or falcon 9 heavy. The SpaceX Starship isn't flying yet, so we can't use that. The JWST will fit in an Ariane 5. Because it was designed to do so. This observatory is so old that SpaceX, much less the falcon 9 didn't exist when the project started! Ariane 5 was a new upcoming rocket at the time. Now, the Ariane is about to be retired.
The JWST has sucked all the money out of alternative projects, so let's hope it works.
I've also bemoaned technologically incompetent bosses. And, when I did, I missed the point.
Does a boss have more than passing competence in the fields that his subordinates work in? Well, if you think the answer is "yes", it follows that every president or prime minister or other leader of an entire country has to be at least partially incompetent. Because a president's job covers so many areas that no one could be great or even good on all topics. And, there have been effective presidents and prime ministers and kings. So, thinking that subject matter expertise is required in a boss would be a wrong conclusion, so
I'm almost 60 and I've had a lot of bosses while working mostly as a programmer or systems administrator. Good ones. Bad ones. Technical ones. Not so technical ones. And, you know what - there's been very little correlation between who has been a good boss and who has had technical chops! When a boss is both good at management and at technology, that's great. But, one of the worst bosses I've ever seen was a promoted techie. I was quite thankful to be a peer not his subordinate. I've had good bosses who weren't very knowledgeable in IT, but were good bosses.
It's almost as if management was a skill and that some people had technical skills and some people had management skills and some people had both. Let's not talk about those that had neither...
The technical boss can be a micro-manager and focus too much on his own experiences and capabilities. The non-technical boss might make decisions based on what peers or salesmen say. Or, either might be a great leader.
A good boss has to know how much to delegate, how much to listen to his people, how to chose which person to listen to, when to put his/her foot down, etc. etc. If they know how to "manage" their advisors, they can be quite effective while only having a very basic technical understanding.
TL;DR Ability to boss IT workers is poorly correlated with IT expertise.
That said, I want to think that an MBA might negatively correlate with *anything* useful, but that just might be personal prejudice.
People who think in 140 character tweets are probably posting shallow crap in an attempt to impress others. This is not deserving of tips!
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego.