Eyron

You're not wrong.

Realistically, there's a bit of a nuance. Many modern web apps have different components that aren't HTML. You don't need HTML for a component. And those non-HTML components can provide the consistency they need. Sometimes, that's consistency for how to get the data. Sometimes, that's consistency for how to display the data. For displaying, each component basically has its own CSS, but it doesn't need to. A CSS class isn't required.

Tailwind isn't meant to be a component system, It's meant to supplement one. If you're writing CSS's components, it looks horrible. If you're writing components at CSS that needs a foundation of best practices, it works pretty decent. They're still consistency. They're still components. They're just not centered around HTML/CSS anymore. It doesn't have to be.

Sematically, it is still worse HTML. Realistically, it's often faster to iterate on, easier to avoid breakage: especially as the project becomes larger. Combine that with the code being more easily copied and pasted. It can be a tough combo to beat. It's probably just a stepping stone to whatever's next.

It probably depends on the batteries, battery market, and repair market. We don't really expect batteries to last a decade. The repairability of these tools is a concern.

Meanwhile, it's pretty common to repair gas tools. Sometimes from multiple broken ones. Powering the gas tools is similarly simple. None of it requires a company to continue to develop their proprietary product to run.

This is an industry and a market that has been around for decades. I suspect the limited part supply and limited repairability of the electric tools is going to limit their practical lifetime compared to the existing ones on the market.

I used dashes for decades. I've removed all of them all since ChatGPT became popular. It doesnt help that I think ChatGPT overuses them.

Universities were already locking down their PCs in the 90’s, at least those with competent IT departments - BIOS password, locked boot menu, Windows 2000 with restricted user accounts.

You need to make up your mind on what time period you're trying to use. 90s? 2000? Before you were talking about Windows 95.

But notice, you're talking about universities: we're talking about children under 18. Those computers were not as locked down. That has changed from the 90s. The security of the 90s (especially before TCP/IP was standard) was different than 2000-2010 security, which was different than 2010s+ security. Yet, you're trying to claim it hasn't changed? That's so inaccurate it's laughable.

Even in the Linux world, Pre-IP vs Slow Internet vs Fast Internet vs Post-sudo security models have changed a lot. I'd be skeptical of anyone trying to argue that the security and lockdown of these computers has not changed in 30 years. Is that your argument? If not, why did you start with "Windows 95?"

If you don’t do that, your every PC will have 15 copies of Counter Strike and a bunch of viruses in one week.

And? People still get viruses. People still install games if they can. The tools to do that on PCs are far better at trying to stop those than 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. Chromebooks are even more effective than those tools at locking them down to be unusable.

Chromebooks (and laptops in general) are way cheaper now than PCs were back then, so again, you need to buy your own and install a proper OS, the situation did not really change.

Before: if you wanted to do work at home, you or your family had to buy a computer. Kids (might) need to convince their parents to do experiments, but it was far easier to do that to convince a school administration.

Today? What families have a "family computer?"

Kids get a phone, they might get a tablet, and if they get a computer, its the school one. The need for a family computer has basically gone. All of the computers are locked down. Google happens to make locked down OSes for their replacements: Chromebooks, Phones, and Tablets. Yet, according to you, the requirements hasn't changed. Yet, from a child's perspective: they'll probably never get the opportunity to play with a non-locked down computer.

You seemed to miss their argument. Those were the standard in 1995, before OSes had really integrated the internet. Haivng a floppy disk, discarding wifi, and having drivers auto-loaded/discovered automatically (or not needed at all) are independent developments. Even when Chromebooks started becoming standard: using drivers from physical disks were rare, Windows could automatically find and update drivers (how well, eh), WiFI existed and was faster than most internets. You could install Linux and it would mostly work, provided your hardware wasn't too new.

The actual argument chromebooks are contributing to tech illteracy because, they're:

• Locked-down: devices that most can't repair or customize, especially if given out by a school or organization. Locking them down is a feature.
• Below cost: they're the cheapest devices available, because Google makes more money from data.

Organizations buy these devices because they're cheap (than cost), lock them down, and those locked-down devices become the only computer for most students. While it's technically possible to install Linux, these users can't: it's not their devices: the organizations bought them because they were cheap and easily locked down for kids. If these are their main device, and they not allowed (either technically or by policy) to install another OS: where will they learn tech literacy? Not on their phone, not on their tablet, and not on their school-issued laptop.

They've been locked into a room and people wonder why they don't know how to interact outside. You're arguing that the room today is better than the one in 1995. That's true, that doesn't change the argument:

1. Maybe they shouldn't be locked into the room.
2. Maybe it shouldn't be cheaper to lock the room than to let them go outside.
3. Maybe we need to do more to help them see outside the room.

A lot of these areas have much more stringent gun laws. Yes, they can own the guns, but they can't carry them. Carrying/displaying will probably get them arrested and charged with a weapons felony.

I'm usually told we've moved beyond the need for people to do that. Then we should just leave the use of force to the police: The organizations that consistently seem to try to prove we can't trust them. I agree, the police should be an organization Americans can trust: How can we make them that way?

Does anyone see the irony?

• U.S. conservatives "trust" the police, but still want civilians to be armed.
• U.S. "leftists" distrust the police, but want them to be the only ones armed.

The U.S. never fixed their trust issues with police. So this seems like the logical result.

Probably because the Democrats are so anti-gun/weapon. The target demographic probably leans anti-weapon, even if they're not necessarily Democrats. The combination keeps them more vulnerable. It's even worse when carrying weapons in these areas is outright banned: no training, no permits, only police. The safety of the group is generally prioritized over the safety of the individual. Which, like here, can be a problem.

From how they're acting, it seems only a matter of time. They seem to check all of the boxes for a lethal or deadly force in nearly every state, even the strict ones. An unidentified suspiciously dressed group aggressively surrounding you and preventing your retreat? Lethal/deadly force can often be used to defend another person. Someone else can shoot these idiots in plain clothes with no identification.

Even if "police" identify themselves late, it seems to be setting themselves up for a weak defense

ICE is a corrupt agency rotten to the core.

This seems like a lose-lose situation. The vehicle is surrounded by others hitting it. If they get out, the violence will probably escalate, and more will get hurt. If they stay still, the vehicle will continue getting attacked and likely breached: Again, leading to an escalation where more people get hurt. Is there another action they should've taken here that wouldn't have led to more hurt?

In context, it doesn't look much better: The person seems to have purposely gotten in the way and broken up the motorcade.

Critisize the shit they do. This is just no-win noise.

Fancy. I just have a dumb switch that does it offline with any bulb. No dimming, though

They also fired all their park workers during covid and gave themselves 10 million bonuses while their workers were surviving on food stamps. Some workers had even signed non compete clauses so they literally could not use their talents elsewhere to feed themselves.

There are plenty of things to hate Disney for, especially as they approach super-monopoly status, ruin nearly every franchise they touch, and have trouble telling what's good or not. As a company, Disney's morals and decisions grow more concerning every month. Disney is basically a disaster in progress.

However, this specific complaint seems bad: it's the wrong scale. Many companies were in the wrong during COVID, but it's hard to look at these numbers and say the layoffs here were bad decisions based on $10M in bonuses. The scales are just too different.

Disney laid off 32,000 park workers At a measly 40 hours per week at their "minimum wage" (formerly $15/hr, now $24/hr): that's $83.2 million PER MONTH: $998M a year. A $10M "bonus" is 1% of that, and even smaller compared to the $6.4B of park revenue they had loss.

The former CEO "gave up" their salary ($3M) and "bonus" ($45M in 2019), had 20-30% pay cuts to the executive staff, and a few other items. The CEO did get "$10M" in stock awards, but stock awards don't get you off food stamps. Those stocks become nothing if the company posts bad financials, which would hurt more than just the execs.

The $1.5B dividend payout in April 2020 looks much worse. Abigail Disney ranted about it on Twitter (now X). His rant is at the appropriate scale: Disney paid out billions before they chose to save millions. The execs got quite a bit of that dividend payout. That's the greed.

Did you purposely miss the first and last questions: Which laptop is the good value?

I never said people need to run LLMs. I said Apple dominates high-end laptops and wanted a good high-end to compare to the high-end Macbooks.

Instead of just complaining about Apple, can do what I asked? Best cheaper laptop alternative that checks the non-LLM boxes I mentioned:

If you want good cooling, good power (CPU and GPU), good screen, good keyboard, good battery, good WiFi, etc., the options get limited quickly.

Is there a particular model you're thinking of? Not just the line. I usually find that Windows laptops don't have enough cooling or make other sacrifices. If you want good cooling, good power (CPU and GPU), good screen, good keyboard, good battery, good WiFi, etc., the options get limited quickly.

Even the RAM cost misses some of the picture. Apple Silicon's RAM is available to the GPU and can run local LLMs and other machine learning models. Pre-AI-hype Macs from 2021 (maybe 2020) already had this hardware. Compare that to PC laptops from the same era. Even in this era, try getting Apple's 200-400GB/s RAM performance on a PC laptop.

PC desktop hardware is the most flexible option for any budget and is cost-effective for most budgets. For laptops, Apple dominates their price points, even pre-Apple-silicon.

The OS becomes the final nail in the coffin. Linux is great, but a lot of software still only supports Windows and Apple; Linux support for the latest/current hardware can be a hit or miss (My three-year-old, 12th-gen Thinkpad just started running well). If the choice is between Mac OS or Windows 11, is there much of a choice? Does that change if a company wants to buy, manage, and support it? Which model should we be looking at? It's about time to replace my Thinkpad.