Yeah, if it were a reasonable price, sure, but it's way too expensive for what it is.

That'd be a good claim: "our pans are suitable as interior cladding on a nuclear fusion reactor."

But what if my Abrams feels like wearing a dress today? :(

That's actually somewhat defensible for something like a tank at a range of 2-3 km, you're realistically speaking going to have to run a fair distance sideways to break the illusion.

Yeah, but human nature is very much to pick out little things that are "wrong". This is why we still have human guards making rounds instead of camera systems, a human will go "mhhh, that looks a bit odd, let's investigate". And if you know your enemy has this type of technology you'll just shoot instead of going closer to check it out. I agree, it sounds cool, but I see serious issues deploying this versus just stashing a few cans of paint in the back of a truck and telling the grunts to get to work if we need to tackle an entirely new environment. This is generally not an issue because few places have such wildly varying background scenery where such a system would be useful, just feels more like a solution looking for a problem sometimes.

Not with this technology, but such things have been proposed and prototyped. The thing is, it's completely useless in a modern military context unless if it also operates outside of the visible light spectrum. Additionally, unless if you're standing close to the object behind you, or far from the observer, depth perception is going to screw you over big time.

As a person who's had the "pleasure" of taking prototype electronic devices as carry-on onto flights, it's actually not that bad. Just remove the batteries and they usually don't care too much at most airports, they're often more interested in what it is/does out of curiosity than anything else. Just avoid the US/TSA...

Most managers impede their teams instead of helping them advance. I've met plenty of people already that managed to take a crack team and break them up within a year simply by creating such a toxic work environment that everyone just stopped working and/or looking for a new job.

Sure... it has nothing to do with the rise of hip modern management styles that promote what's basically another form of micro-management combined with a significant increase in socioeconomic issues in most people their private lives and ridiculous corporate policies (e.g. hot desking) that depersonalize the work environment.

And yes, I also got to "enjoy" countless of those management courses where they suggest meetings for everything, and the only reason any team I've been in charge of is happy is because I disregard most of the advice given in said management courses and instead apply some common sense. I minimize meetings to an absolute minimum and just ask everyone to catch up with me once a week on a one-to-one basis when it works for them for something like 5 minutes during regular working hours. The only thing I want to hear from them if they've got everything to be able to get their job done, if they're being impeded by inter-department shenanigans, are they having issues with something they want to talk about, etc. But I also consistently shield the team from higher management and push back against aggressive unrealistic deadlines, domain usurpers, micro-management, needless demos, etc. It makes a massive difference in productivity.

As to the number of meetings, have you considered saying no is an option? Some folks might be shocked initially, but these days when I get a meeting invite and there's no clear agenda attached I just refuse to attend, I've also been ditching the weekly project/team/... meetings because those can generally be replaced by an e-mail. The difference being that those take ten minutes to read instead of sitting in a stuffy room where everyone takes turns to present pointless things that then one member of the audience will ask stupid questions about to make themselves sound interesting.

His appointment as heir to the Korean throne was also as cringeworthy as it could get. So this ain't exactly new to him.

Then they're not fit as management material..

Honestly, work from home only works if you give people reasonable deadlines and the ability to do work on their own. But, if you're a micro-managing asshole that wants to organise 50 meetings a week, all while failing to grasp basic digital communication tools, then yeah you're going to see a decline in productivity and communication from your point of view, or you'll become even more unbearable and everyone will run away or just stop caring. That's what's really happening over the last decade, bad managers, that's what's caused productivity drops in every single company I've worked at.

Kind of funny, you're demonstrating the exact sort of behaviour why folks like myself and OP stopped contributing to opensource projects. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the biggest dipshit of them all. Your behaviour in this comments section is a massive discredit to the opensource community.

Don't believe a word of it, investment firms have been spreading this narrative for the last couple of years to try and get intel to spin off its fab business, so they can get themselves a nice big fat cash pay out. They actually know jackshit about the industry, and many of the claims made in this article are complete bullshit. I wish they'd just stop, because it's just infuriating to read.

Carly was a downright idiot though, she basically chucked what was originally HP into Agilent and claimed it wasn't worth keeping, hence the spin off. The end result of said spin off: Broadcom (formerly Avago, aka HP's semiconductor division), Keysight (HP's electronic test and measurement equipment division), Agilent (medical laboratory supplies and equipment), Lumileds (HP's former power LED semiconductor division), ... Actually, pretty much everything that ended up in Agilent became hyper successful after a couple of rough years at the end of the 90s. The only reason she's cheered on by investors is that she got them a lot of quick bucks, with little regard for the company's overall health in the long run.

Doesn't mean it solves the actual issue. We've been trying to build such systems for decades, with very limited success due to the aforementioned issues. Other than water wheels/turbines/... in rivers it's frightfully difficult to deal with water.