I think there can be routing policy rules in place if a request came in asking for 700mbit/s for example the balancing would kick in providing that bandwidth. And tbh there is very likely going to routing balancing rules anyway even if I don’t know the nature of OPs business since he mentions bandwidth here.
Not the person you asked, but I've done the same. The answer: you have to choose the classes well. If you go with some easy classes for credit, you will be disappointed. If you decide to really do the program, then there are at least 15-20 classes worth taking. Some are really theoretical (ML), others are practical (Big Data for Health, lots of Spark and Scala), and some in between. To be the best class was AI, which deals with classical AI algorithms (minimax, tree search, etc.) - well designed class with some lessons by Peter Norvig.
All in all, I know it's not the exact same program taught live (although they say it is), but the classes are available online are good quality, I learned a lot, and at $841 per class, the price is unbeatable.
Downsides: I have a job and a kid. The workload for some of these classes is massive, so weekends (at least full Saturday) is gone for the duration of the semester, if you study at night every day - then Sundays are yours. Except for the ML class; that was pretty fucking insane and incidentally, the class where I feel I learned the least so far.
Short answer = Yes. Learned a lot and some more. (but of course depends on
what courses you end up taking).
In fact, its quite common to see alumni taking courses after they have graduated (case in point: many folks from my batch
enrolled in the newly started DL class, just for the sake of learning).
It did yes. I was more interested in the system level courses and my undergrad wasn’t great (Indian low tier) so for me it was very rewarding and helped me for sure.
There is this line from Michael Clayton movie that I basically assume every time I see something like this ‘client:(phone rings) That’s the police isn’t it? MC: No, they don’t call.’ Or in this case, they don’t email.
My bias is ten years of Android before I switched to iOS, and I failed spectacularly to select multiple images in the Photos app and delete them.
It seemed to work sometimes, and sometimes it would only drag the picture under my finger until I noticed a "Select" button in the upper right corner.
Doing the same thing in the Google Photos app for iOS is so much easier, and it just works.™
Text input and editing are still my biggest hurdle on iOS. I make more typos than on Android, and editing text in input fields is always a strange experience. Selecting single words and correcting some letters still feels "alien" after over a half year on iOS.
If you hold down the spacebar in iOS, you can move the text cursor around pretty easily. You can also double tap a word to select it. Sometimes it is a little clunky though…
In the context of Don Norman's book, this is a bad design with hidden affordances and missing signifiers. How should a new user discover that they have to shake their phone to undo some text editing?
I deleted FB 2 years ago, Twitter 2.5 years ago and Instagram 1 year ago.
Most close friends found zero problems connecting with me. That’s cause they call, text or we just meet. It’s almost like I started to live in the ‘real’ life rather than a made up one. It felt weird and underwhelming at times but it is horrifying how much we can get sucked into social media without even knowing most of the times. The withdrawal symptoms can be real too.
Seriously just go and click the delete button right now after seeing this post. Don’t think just do it.
Maybe it's my FOMO or the fact that I don't do well at organizing events, but I'd like to keep all channels open. I like to go to everything I'm invited to since I'm not the best at being a host.
I've also absolutely forgotten to invite friends to events because they weren't on social media. Sorry if that makes you think I'm a shitty friend, but if you're inviting, say, 20 people to something, it's pretty damn easy to miss someone you care about.
Agreed. I deleted my accounts on (almost) every social media provider who I did not feel respected my basic human rights and didn't look back. Did I loose touch with anyone? Maybe, but if my connection to them was mediated only by social media, it's worth it.
It's a basic matter of self-respect. Do you want to choose how you control your attention? Or do you want to give up that control (and respect) by letting facebook et. al. choose for you?
I don't think that's what they're getting at. My understanding of this was that "people who actually care about you will find a way". Someone who does not actually care about you won't bother. So chances are, if the person was only in contact with you because you're on Facebook, they don't really care about you in the first place. Cutting off someone who can't be bothered to get in touch with you is pretty normal.
Exactly! Most people now just text me if they want to know about me. I realised so many of these ‘friends’ only cared enough to like pictures or make a comment on them. Beyond that they weren’t interested. It’s better to not have such friends than have them as you are getting a false sense of friendship not a real one. I can’t believe people don’t see this problem yet. Not to mention the fact that if I actually meet them maybe by coincidence for example, they have nothing to talk about themselves but still have a profile full of photos. I already know a few people who have completely lost it due to Facebook and Instagram. I hope the damage isn’t beyond repair. This is a very serious problem in my opinion. I don’t think everyone is addicted but I think most of them are and it’s not good.
Agreed. False senses of friendships can lead you to think you have more friends than you do. Having a better sense of who actually cares lets you assess if you need to see out new friends. The more accurately you know who your friends are, the more able you are to determine if you need to go make more/new friends.
I don't think asking "just text me instead, I don't have Facebook" is really that high of a bar. Frankly, someone who's going to cut contact because they don't want to text me isn't really worth the effort in the first place.
>I don't think asking "just text me instead, I don't have Facebook" is really that high of a bar. Frankly, someone who's going to cut contact because they don't want to text me isn't really worth the effort in the first place.
Exactly. The way I look at it is this:
I want to be around folks who want to be around
me. And not all of those, either.
If you can't be bothered to stay in touch, then
you obviously don't want to be around me.
I'm perfectly willing to make the effort. It's
really not that hard.
I think it's pretty realistic that someone would like to get in contact with you but doesn't necessarily have your phone number or a way to ask you for it. And sometimes it's nice to catch up with old friends even if you weren't super close, especially if you find yourself in a new area. I think the idea of trying to make people "prove" they're your real friends and cutting the people who don't reach the threshold out of your life is a way of making your life a lonelier one. Not everyone is going to be there giving me the shirt off their back when I'm in serious need, but they don't have to be to be worth associating with.
>I think it's pretty realistic that someone would like to get in contact with you but doesn't necessarily have your phone number or a way to ask you for it.
Who, exactly, would that "someone" be? If they don't know me, what would possess them to decide "oh gosh, I just adore Nobody9999. I wish I had some way to get in touch with him/her/they/xe. That sucks!"
>I think the idea of trying to make people "prove" they're your real friends and cutting the people who don't reach the threshold out of your life is a way of making your life a lonelier one.
You completely misunderstand my point. I will assume good faith (but given what I said and your reply, that stretches credulity, but I will try) here and explain:
I don't make anyone do anything.
I also don't beg people to spend time/energy on me. Relationships (of all kinds, familial, professional, platonic or romantic) are a two-way street.
If someone is only willing to interact with me through a particular medium, and if I don't they want nothing to do with me, how important am I to that person?
And that, like all relationships, goes both ways.
Someone I only interact with online ain't my friend. At best they're an acquaintance. If there's something more there we both will make the effort to maintain our relationship.
Anyone who's had any sort of personal relationship knows that they take work to maintain. That's a two-way street.
Some rando on the 'net ain't my friend. Or at least not until we both make the effort to change that.
Honestly, I'm not really sure why this needs explaining.
Edit: Corrected spelling (of my own name, no less) error.
The issue isn't about "proving" or anything like that. It's simply that I don't want to have social media. That's my personal choice. Friends are folks who respect their other friends personal choices.
> someone would like to get in contact with you but doesn't necessarily have your phone number
I see this differently: nobody is entitled to my time, or to contact me. If you don't have the means to contact me, that's because I don't want you to contact me. If I want you to be able to reach me, I will make it simple for you. Be that an email, phone number, or what-have-you. That someone random can't reach me on a whim is not a bug, it's a feature. If someone expects me to facilitate that for them, then they have a sense of entitlement to other's time. That's a them problem, not a me problem.
You don't appear to be seeing the important caveat here: if I want you in my life I make that happen. Random people I don't interact with contacting me out of the blue is not something I really want or need. It's entirely possible to be happy with the number of friends and contacts you have. That's not grim in the slightest, it's actually very nice.
> I want to be around folks who want to be around
me. And not all of those, either.
This is a great distinction that I think a lot of people would be happier if they followed. Just because someone wants your time does not mean you have to, or even should, provide it to them. Wanting to spend time with you is a basic prerequisite, but is not the only criterion.
>This is a great distinction that I think a lot of people would be happier if they followed. Just because someone wants your time does not mean you have to, or even should, provide it to them. Wanting to spend time with you is a basic prerequisite, but is not the only criterion.
I think there's another piece to that as well. Some people require more external validation than others.
Those who do will seek out that validation. And a great place to get that without a lot of effort is on social media.
That's not to say those who require less external validation don't use social media. Rather, I imagine that they use it differently.
I don't have data to back any of that up, just 50+ years of living and interacting with other folks both in person and online. As such. YMMV.
Definitely sounds like you're onto something there. For myself, external validation isn't something I need outside of my immediate family. So that could definitely play a role in how I view social media, and how I was so able to cut it off.
So basically you are setting up the friendship test by deliberately making it harder to reach you. And then you guilt people who don't jump over obstacles you create.
This is a bizarre interpretation. Where exactly do you see that I guilt people? This isn't some "test", and the fact that you see it that way is somewhat baffling to me. It's a personal choice made based on personal preference. I don't like social media, so I won't use it.
I provide people who I want to be in contact with the means to do so easily. Be that over email, phone, text message, or even physical meetups. If sending me a text, or sending me an email, is too high of a barrier for communication for someone, that's not my problem and likely indicates that the friendship was not particularly valuable in the first place. That's not a "test", that's simply how things are.
If I don't want you to be able to contact me, you won't be able to. I'm not obligated to make myself available to anyone who may wish to contact me. I'm not sure why this needs to be explained.
What I find common on such threads is Linux users bashing how Apple users are suckers. I don't get the point of such comments. Most people on HN can already figure out how to build their own PC, install and configure the distro of their choice. But thats not even relevant as everyone is pointing out the flaws in software so that the company responsible will fix them. Bragging about Linux makes no sense, many of us using Macs here most likely already have a linux box as well.
Something that would be used by 90% of the companies worldwide for both back end and front end and everything else so that new programmers have to learn just one language and master it so that their skills are something people hire for and not the skill set of languages and toolset.
I find C++ and Rust hard to grasp quickly. I like Go since I come from C but I haven’t looked at any frondtend in Go. I would say some kind of Rust + Go mashup with some kind of good frontend framework (especially something that translates for mobile devices) could do the trick. But I find that every time I interview for a company the tech stack is always a different combination and a learning curve for newcomers.
I think most of those languages need a GC, excluding them from some niches. Rust is probably closest to C++ in this respect. Most notable difference is that Rust restricts the programmer to ensure correctness, whereas in C++ anything that can be correct should compile.
I feel like the only complaint of the 2016 MBP was keyboard and ports. The M chips are literally a lottery at this point. Apple making their own chips is probably a rare thing in any business where the maker of a product eventually makes the most complicated part of the product themselves from scratch which only a handful of other people in the industry have managed in 2 decades. Yes iPhone chips were designed by Apple for quite some time but a general purpose computer is a lot more different than a heavily controlled App Store only device.
The first M1 laptop was released in 2020. It's been met with more or less universal praise: performance is impressive, performance per watt is mind-boggling, and the overwhelming majority of popular programs and applications have either been ported to Apple Silicon by now or work adequately in Rosetta 2.
It's almost as if you meant to post this comment a year ago.
Lottery? M1 MacBook is the best computer I’ve ever had, and I’ve been around.. It is limited only by RAM and GPU, and now with M1 Pro and Max that limitation is lifted too.
Apple knocked it out of the park, that much is clear by now.
They aren't making a chip from scratch though--they've licensed an ISA and built a derivative design customized to their needs. This isn't to knock the work Apple has done--it's not trivial and clearly not everyone else is able or willing to do it. But going from absolute zero and inventing an entire new ISA, all of the tooling for it, etc. is an order of magnitude more work for both Apple and all of its developers. They made a smart move to use ARM's ISA and liberal licensing that allows them to build on top of it and make exactly the hardware they need.
This isn't a direct response per se, but your comments made me think of some relevant background.
Apple has been deeply involved with ARM almost since the beginning. Allegedly, the acronym "ARM" was changed from "Acorn RISC Machine" to "Advanced RISC Machine" at the behest of Apple, and their engineers seem to have been involved soon after the first ARM chip was created for internal use in Acorn's computers, making modifications to the chip and ISA to make it suitable for the Newton, their combined efforts creating the first commercially released ARM chip, the ARM6.
More recently, Apple has done a lot of work with LLVM. They weren't the original authors, but they've effectively created a lot of their own tooling.
All this to say, while they did license ARM, and they did start with someone else's tooling, they were so deeply involved in the origin/growth of both I think you may be underselling their involvement/work. If they didn't already have such deep historical ties to ARM, I suspect they would have seriously considered making their own architecture.
For all intents and purposes, they are. None of Apple's SoCs since the A6 (2012) have been based on ARM's Cortex-A cores; the CPU design is fully in-house at this point.
Yes, but the M1 is nothing like a new product. As you indicated, Apple's first custom SoC was released in 2010, 11 years ago. They have >10 years of experience shipping SoCs for Apple products. The M1 family can be viewed, to some extent, as an extension of the work on the Ax chips, which likely builds on their experience customizing chips for the iPod family.
The ISA is roughly equivalent to an API. It specifies how to talk to the chip but does not define how it is implemented. Apple has done a lot of custom design of their chips to optimize them for use with Mac OS and Mac software. This is not just Apple copying a chip design.
Okay so let me be clear what I meant in the first line. I meant MBP users only wanted the ports to be fixed and keyboard since 2016. Getting the M chips that are this goods was a lottery winner for macOS users. I am saying this in a positive tone not negative (though I could have worded it wrong).
The second part is where I say that even if Apple has worked on ARM chips for their phones for quite some time tuning it, macs are still significant product and even if the chips are in house its still a gamble to completely shift a product from what was basically an x86 monopoly. What I meant is that the way Apple pulled it off is rare in the business.
