In many European segments we're finding them comparably priced. If we factor getting to the Ryanair airports, luggage, etc., sometimes we're better off flying, say, Brussels Airlines. And I'd happily buy food in Ryanair flights if their catalogue had any proper food.
I refuse to ever fly Southwest because of their history of open seating. I refuse to ever fly Spirit or other American discount airlines because I want to keep the nickle and diming to a minimum. I fly less than I could if I sought out rock bottom airfares, and that’s ok.
If I recompile a program to fully utilize my cpu better (use AVX or whatever) then if my program takes 1 second to execute instead of 2, it likely did not use half the _energy_.
Yes but my point is: if I download the AVX version instead of the SSE version of a package and that makes my 1000 servers 10% _quicker_ that is not the same as being 10% more _efficient_.
Because typically these modern things are a way of making the CPU do things faster by eating more power.
There may be savings from having fewer servers etc, but savings in _speed_ are not the same as savings in _power_ (and some times even work the opposite way)
Making a complicated and powerful piece of software is difficult. Just slapping a user interface that _allows_ using all the power, is hard enough. With that interface, the simple thing is difficult, and the complex thing is also difficult.
The really hard problem to solve is making an UI where the simple thing is easy and the complex thing is still possible.
But that requires 1) strong leadership 2) people with the correct skill set for UX design.
Making a clean UI means cutting things out. And that's not easy in many large OSS projects because every menu item and every button is someone's pet feature. The leaders in the projects are often the most senior _developers_, not UX experts. It's (I'm assuming) a lot less common to have good telemetry and user labs in OSS than it is for commercial software. So you also might not know exactly what features people use and how they use them, making it even harder to remove features.
I think the author is absolutely right. If Handbrake is intimidating, or hard to use without reading a manual in order to do just the simple use case that 80% of users have, then they have failed in making a good UX. A good UX would make the simple thing easy without sacrificing power for the complex case. And the author is absolutely having the right idea when making a simpler wrapper for the powerful software.
having feature/username/id-desc is good though. Because at least you can identify why the branch is there. That they are ephemeral doesn't mean that people actually clean them up...
I understand, but that means you need to review the commits and code changes and do not have the context which could be found either in the issue title, description, etc.
What's next? Asking hard questions, or follow up questions?
If Trump says "I've ended 7 or 8 wars" or says "I've lowered drug prices 800, 900, 1000 percent" and no one says
"Sir, how is it possible to lower a price by 900 percent" or "Could you specify which conflicts it is you refer to by those 7 or 8 wars?" then you aren't a journalist.
If you go to an event where such things are said and there is no opportunity to ask these obvious follow up questions, then you stop going there, or you aren't a journalist.
If someone asks these questions and that leaves them excluded from those events - then you also stop going there in solidarity, or you aren't a journalist.
This kind of boycott needs to happen for the WH press corps. If there is a fear of not being selected to ask questions, or being expelled from the room for asking tough questions, then everyone needs to walk. Immediately.
Game theory applies here. There will always be one journalist without any moral qualms that’ll stay, betting on everyone else leaving, and making a scoop.
Rely on traditional trade craft. A bouncing bevy of brothel, escort service, deepthroats; historically and dramatized, is a staid and proven primary source.
That's some bar moving. In one case we're saying that even if you report garbage, your competitors are going to occupy the niche without you, therefore something something game theory.
But in this other case, well there's just no value to reporting garbage.
Have you ever seen a White House press conference? People scream their questions in the hope of being the loudest, because the president only answers a few. If most of the competition for question time leaves, there’s more time for you to get that juicy soundbite you’re after.
Have you seen a white house press conference lately? It's all just the same talking points. Everyone gets to report on the sound bites. You're choosing to describe these things as if the game theoretics are qualitatively different. Your description is doing more of the work than the game theory.
Well, the White House press corps has already been changed to (how do I write this in a way that won't get me downvoted?) include more reporters friendly to the current administration since the White House asserted the right to determine itself who gets access (formerly it was the White House Correspondents' Association), so the chances of such a more-or-less unified boycott are slim. And I don't have any doubts that the Pentagon will also quickly find enough "warm bodies" (besides those from OANN) to prevent an embarrassing almost empty room at the next press conference...
It's less about having an effect but all about moral integrity. They want to signal that they still abide to their professional standards in order to keep their reputation among their peers and the public, those who aren't gleichgeschaltet (yet).
dang is, at best, oblivious to the fact that that this site has become a battleground. At worst, he's intentionally chosen sides with his selective removal of flags.
The press corps is already 50% right wing podcasters and 5th-tier far right / conspiracy outlets. And any time one of the remaining actual reporters asks even a mundane and non-confrontational question they just get called names, told their network/paper is failing, told their question is “nasty”, and don’t get an answer. The access they have is even more pointless than it usually is, they may as well not show up.
>>there is a fear of not being selected to ask questions
That's not exactly what's happening.
>>The rules limit where reporters can go without an official escort and convey “an unprecedented message of intimidation” for anyone in the Defense Department who might want to speak to a reporter without the approval of Hegseth’s team
On NPR (National Public Radio) a few days ago, a reporter said they could wander the halls of the Pentagon and ask anyone they ran into any question about anything. This will not be allowed anymore and, considering it's the Pentagon, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
If you don’t quote it out of context you’ll see that a) he doesn’t have any problems with not having physical access to parts of the pentagon and b) the quote was part of a broader anecdote where generals contradicted the secretary of defense.
The new pledge would not allow him to report that disagreement. Which is extremely telling.
They wouldn't have full access, but yes, journalists should be able to ask anyone anything. Asking is legal, and it's up to the person being asked to not say anything that a journalist isn't supposed to know.
What bad things have happened from what you're describing?
I would think anyone visiting this board would be educated enough to figure out for themselves what could happen should a foreign agent posing as a reporter asking questions inside a top military organization. Or any reporter discreetly obtaining information they shouldn't have.
They wouldn't get an answer hopefully. You do know that allowing journalists to ask all questions isn't the same thing as anwering all those questions?
In a democratic functioning society the gold standard is that citizen are allowed to ask anything and allowed to answer nothing. The GOP wants to reverse both.
That’s not what the new rules say. They say they will be denied access to the pentagon if they ask questions of military or DoD personnel that isn’t explicitly cleared by the DoD.
Access to the Pentagon is the privilege they are revoking but the action they are punishing is not related to the Pentagon.
Well, military personnel shouldn’t be sharing sensitive information with any reporter, so not a problem? Once you tell a reporter, you tell your enemy (assuming your enemy can read newspapers).
When your "enemy" becomes the oversight providing public, we have a major problem.
A government with public alignment and maybe a slow leak will be fine. A government without public alignment needs to have every crack pried open until alignment with the public is restored.
The status quo is that they have access credentials, which presumably come with some sort of vetting. So a "foreign agent" showing up and impersonating a reporter is unlikely.
I've visited the White House a couple of times and even setting foot on the complex as a visitor requires a background check, I assume the Pentagon functions similarly.
You honestly think a foreign agent impersonating a reporter is any more unlikely than a foreign agent--or one working on their behalf--isn't likely to be working within the government?
> This will not be allowed anymore and, considering it's the Pentagon, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I do love that despite the administration lying about everything there are still people who will take what they say at face value without a shred of critical thinking.
They're doing this because people keep leaking unflattering pieces of information and Petey gets his feelings hurt pretty quickly. It has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with control.
An industrial reel spool of paper, direct from the mill, feeding into a continuous printer tanked with lemon juice ink, then feeding into an operating shredder.
Yeah. I have a person that comes once every 2 weeks and does a cleaning. But even though this is that person's job, the house never looks so good. I don't want someone to have to clean up my mess. Vacuuming the floors is fine. But not having to carry my socks to the laundry and put my cups in the dishwasher.
If my cleaner was a robot, I'm sure I'd eventually lose that sense of embarrassment. I'm usually polite with ChatGPT but I think that's also passing...
Has he actually ended any wars? I know he says he ended wars but he is incapable of saying anything without endlessly embellishing his achievements (or just making shit up entirely). It’s hard to know what achievements have been made by this administration, if any.
If he (or his team) actually ended the Gaza conflicts, then that’s cool, and credit where credit’s due, though I currently have no reason to think that Israel will honor any terms that they agree to.
He's starting wars in Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Trump told the military last week, "This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war too. It's a war from within."
The Peace Prize has had quite a few weird choices, like Kissinger when that simply meant the USA would stop participating in the Vietnamese civil war (and to be generous putting a stop to USA bombing campaigns that Kissinger advocated in Vietnam and surrounding countries) or Barack Obama for giving a few speeches after less than a year in office. So it's not out of the question but it's hard to see the logic behind Trump getting one now.
Ryan is cheap because they sell you lottery tickets on the plane.
If you don’t want upsells there are airlines that cater to that as well.
reply