For comparison, the transition from PPC to Intel started in 2006 and the first MacOS version to require an Intel processor was just 3 years later in 2009[1]. By comparison, the M series transition started in late 2020/early 2021. That said they were still selling Intel based macs up to 2023, but if you were buying an Intel Mac Pro in 2023 you had to know you were buying dead end tech.
> That may well be true for some extroverted people, yes
It's true for some of us introverted people as well, especially given that without some "reason" to get together, some of us might never interact with another person ever.
Indeed. But as a very introverted person, I find it much easier to socialize when it's on my terms. I get to choose where I go, the kinds of people I interact with, for how long.
Sure, it's very easy to just "not feel like it" and stay home alone for a week at a time. But I've found that this is usually a reaction to being forced into some situation I don't particularly enjoy, like being compressed like a sardine twice a day on my way to a noisy office where I can't get anything done.
Working from home has actually made me much more social. I'm not drained and annoyed with people at the end of the workday, so I have energy to attend social activities. And, paradoxically, I'm even somewhat closer to people at work: now that I don't have to hear them all day long, I'm much more open to actually interacting with them when I do see them.
> The people paid to be there aren’t your friends. They’re nominally “coworkers,” which is not a social relationship but a transactional one.
You're getting paid to be friends with your co-workers? Or are you being paid to work, and work, like many other situations where multiple people gather and share experiences and spend time together are also places that people tend to form friendships in. You had friends in school that you stopped maintaining the friendship when you stopped attending school together I'm sure. Were those people not actually your friends? How long does a "social interaction" have to last, and over what distances before it becomes a "friendship" instead of a "transactional relationship"? If it ever ends was it never a real friendship? It's certainly possible to view every relationship you build with people that you share circumstances with as transactional relationships, but that to me seems like a good way to never actually build a friendship with anyone.
This is reductive to the point of absurdity. Situational friends are still friends. How many of your elementary school friends are still your friends these days? High school? Summer camp? Heck college friends? Unless you're living in the same town with the same people, there's a good chance that most of them aren't anymore. Were these people also not your friends? When you leave that book club, when you stop showing up at the corner cafe, when you move out of the neighborhood, how many of those people will you still be spending time with 5 years later. For the ones that you aren't, were they also not really friends?
Friendship isn't a binary thing. Not every friend you make will help you bury a body, but not every friend or friendship needs to (or should) run that deep. And sure not everyone you're "friendly" with at work are friends, it's a spectrum. But situational friends are friends. People you bond with for a short while over a shared experience and then when life moves one or both of you on the friendship ends are still friends.
Another dumb thing about this statement: It is just so situationally and culturally dependent. In many companies and cultures, it is quite normal to make good friends through work. One generality that I find true across many different situations and cultures: If you work in a generally low competition job, you are much more likely to make friends from work. The more competitive the job becomes, the less likely you are to make (and keep) friends from work.
I just find the moment the day to day bond is severed the contact decreases over time to a point where they might as well not be friends! When I worked retail I had a great group of friends but what could we really talk about 7 years after we all went our separate ways? Just saying most people I meet at work I would not choose to be friends with out of a lineup of people and we only became close because we spent 50 hours a week in the trenches together keeping the lights on.
But then what is a friend? If a "friendship" ever ends, does that mean it was never a friendship at all? I've had very good friends, people I've shared houses with, helped move, been to their weddings and they've been to mine. And it's easily been 10 years since we last saw each other or talked. We even still live in the same city as far as I know, but our lives have taken us down different paths, and we've each been busy in other ways and places and the few times we've tried to coordinate something it just fell through. But you can't call someone you chose to live with an "acquaintance" in my opinion, but our friendship ended (or at least became one in name only) when life forces no longer pushed us together.
In my opinion I consider a friendship any relationship where no matter how long ago it ended or how long ago you last talked you wouldn't mind hearing from them again, even if it might only be awkward small talk. Old schoolmates, college roommates, military squadmates, and co-workers can all be friends. They can all be acquaintances too. But crucially the fact that you stopped talking at one point or stopped spending time together isn't the demarcating factor between the two.
A friend by definition is someone you at one point spent over 12 hours a week socializing with closely and had at least 7 major bonding moments over a one year period. After that vesting period you are allowed to drop to just 6 hours a week and 3 major bonding events yearly for the next 2 years. After that you can run the friendship in maintenance mode using the momentum gained and simply reach out for lunch once a year. But if you miss a once a year lunch 2 years in a row, or if your current group of friends grows twice in size in a single month, that work friend will be put into essentially a PIP. You inform the friend of the need for increased socialization and let him know if a major bonding event does not occur, or if a decrease in rate of friend acquisition does not happen, he will be terminated and sent his remaining funds via an ACH check.
Systemd lets you create templates that take an argument in from the scheduled service. It gets that from the value after the @. So you can write a unit file that schedules a task to run say every 3 days and in that unit file reference `jobs/%i`, then put your task in a file in jobs and say `systemctl start every-3-days@script1.sh` to run `script1.sh` on your schedule without needing to create a new unit file for each script. StepCA has a nice write up on their site about using these templates to schedule cert renewals for any arbitrary service
This is a just so story that is trivially and obviously false and I don’t understand why it continues to persist. Paid public police forces in the US appear as early as the 1600s in Boston. The first what we might consider modern police departments were formed in the urban hubs of 1800s America where immigration tensions and the general increases in crime you expect when putting a lot of unconnected people into a concentrated area were driving factors for changes to what laws were made and how they were enforced. And those were modeled off the London police forces, themselves guided in large part by Robert Peele’s principles of policing.
Slave patrols were a form of early organized policing, but only one of many and hardly the first. And certainly this isn’t to say that racial tensions didn’t drive various forms of law enforcement. But this idea that police in general and American Police in particular are some direct descendant of salve patrols or wouldn’t exist without the institution of slavery ignores so much of human history and the long history of organized forms of law enforcement that predates the American colonies.
> formed in the urban hubs of 1800s America where immigration tensions and the general increases in crime you expect when putting a lot of unconnected people into a concentrated area were driving factors for changes to what laws were made and how they were enforced
This is a dog whistle if I’ve ever seen one. I’m not going to let that slide and your citations are not supportive of the strength of your claim
How is it a dog whistle? What words would you like to put into my mouth?
Are you suggesting that “urban hubs” and “immigration tension” are code words for “black people” and “slavery”? Because I regret to inform you that when New York City established the first US police department in 1845 (per britanica) the “immigration tension” at the time would have been the influx of Irish immigrants. And while Cincinnati had indeed had a white on black race riot in 1841, when it established its own police department in 1852 the anti-catholic / anti-German immigrant riots in 1853 and 1855 were the more contemporary “immigration tensions” I was referring to. Boston too when it founded its police department in 1854 was in the middle of a surge of Irish immigrants. Certainly these northern state city centers weren’t simply giving uniforms and badges to “slave patrols” when they founded their police forces, regardless of what other racial tensions may or may not have played a hand in the demands for a police force.
All of which is to say if you recall your American history, we have a long and storied tradition of hating on our immigrant populations and having conflicts with them. Yes white vs black was a problem at the time. And so was “white vs Irish” and “white vs German”. Our history is littered with racial tensions across just about every set of ethnic lines you could care to draw.
> That's an unbelievably bad _and_ disrespectful take. They accept these low wages because it's their only way in the industry, and because the industry has made sure to keep a steady supply of fresh meat to burn out
Is it really “disrespectful” to make an observation of how the world is even if it maybe isn’t how it should be? That fact of the matter is no one “needs” to accept these wages. Software development in general and game development in particular are labor fields of choice. Being a software developer can pay you better in so many different parts of the field, even today long after the dot com boom. People are choosing to accept these bad offers because they value working in this part of the industry more than they value the higher wages they can get elsewhere. Just like plenty of us choose not to make FAANG levels of money because we value our work life balance, or our specific living locations or our principles and beliefs over the money that those companies are throwing at people.
We can talk about how these bad offers are knowingly abusive or artificially suppressed and still acknowledge that people are making informed choices to accept those offers.
> In order for that to change, the market has to increase in size by appealing to a more casual audience, or existing gamers have to pay more. Not something I think most gamers would like.
To really drive this point home, the gaming community recently lost their minds when it became clear that this generation of video games were going to retail for ~$90 per game. Never mind that even in the early 90’s an average game might retail for $40 and what we would call a AAA game could reach as high as $70. In 2025 gamers declared that $90 was highway robbery. But go look at the credits for an early 90s video game. That $40-90 per unit in the early 90s might need to cover the salaries of 23 people (the size of the credits list for Super Mario World on the SNES). Now $90 has to cover 435 people (the credit list for Super Mario Wonder on the switch). Sure we’re selling a lot more copies now, and (some of) the manufacturing costs are lower. But that’s a nearly 20x increase in personnel for a mere 2x increase in (non inflation adjusted) price.
It's also amortized over a much longer period of time too. Those 23 people would scratch build that $40 game in 2 years. These days it's more like 8 years, and you're rarely building from scratch.
I’m not sure I understand why this is a problem. RSS is a spec for publishing a list of available content, or publishing the content directly. Formatting that content was always going to be something people wanted to do, so whether it was rich text, html or what became markdown, it was inevitable that aggregators were always going to have to deal with both publishes wanting their publication to have styles and users wanting their aggregator software to either handle that style or hide it.
At least with a cdata tag your being explicitly told “here be dragons”
I guess the difference is if you want the descriptions to be readable by simple tools, or if you assume that every reader has a full-fledged Chrome available.
ai can remix things on the fly so lots of widgets that were being stamped on are not needed anymore.
we are in middle state where ai tools to generate on the fly widget work arent accessible in the form that most ppl need. So programmers are currently doing the manual step by managing remix into easily consumable form.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_proces...
reply