Don’t know about solving, but at least can see the signs:

• If there’s a lot of layers of middle management between you and the head of the company
• There are people with oddly narrow scope of responsibilities, a scope that doesn’t make any sense to be a dedicated full time job
• Excessive numbers of “cute” acronyms to apply to everything and everyone

Problem in some teams are the respective audiences for the commit activity v. the ticket activity.

The people who will engage on commit activity tend to have a greater common ground and sensibilities. Likely have to document your work and do code reviews as the code gets into the codebase and other such activity.

However, on the ticket side you are likely to get people involved that are really obnoxious to contend with. Things like:

• Getting caught up in arguments over sizing where the argument takes more of your time than doing the request
• Having to explain to someone who shouldn’t care why the ticket was opened in the first place despite all the real stakeholders knowing immediately that it makes sense.
• Work getting prioritized or descoped due to some political infighting rather than actual business need
• Putting extra work to unwind completed work due to some miscommunication on planning and a project manager wanting to punish a marketing person for failing to properly get their request through the process
• Walking an issue through the process to completion involves having to iterate through 7 states, with about 16 mandatory fields that are editable/not editable depending on which state and sometimes the process is stuck due to not having permission because of some bureaucratic nonsense that runs counter to everyone’s real world understanding.

In a company with armies of project managers the ticket side is the side of dread even if the technical code side is relatively sane.

The thing is, for the Windows ecosystem, ARM doesn’t have a good “hook”.

When tablets scared the crap out of Intel and Microsoft back in the Windows 7 days, we saw two things happen.

You had Intel try to get some android market share, and fail miserably. Because the Android architecture was built around ARM and anything else was doomed to be crappier for those applications.

You had Microsoft push for Windows on ARM, and it failed miserably. Because the windows architecture was built around x86 and everything else is crappier for those applications.

Both x86 and windows live specifically because together they target a market that is desperate to maintain application compatibility for as much software without big discontinuities in compatibility over time. A transition to ARM scares that target market enough to make it a non starter unless Microsoft was going to force it, and they aren’t going to.

Software has plenty of reason not to bother with windows on arm support because virtually no one has those devices. That would mean extra work without apparent demand.

ARM is perfectly capable, but the windows market is too janky to be swayed by technical capabilities.

This sounds pretty plausible. The windows user is the least likely to understand the implications of arm for their applications in the ecosystem that is the least likely to accommodate any change. Microsoft likes to hedge their bets but generally does not have a reason to prefer arm over x86, their revenue opportunity is the same either way. Application vendors not particularly motivated yet because there’s low market share and no reason to expect windows on x86 to go anywhere.

Just like last time around, windows and x86 are inextricably tied together. Windows is built on decades of backwards compatibility in a closed source world and ARM is anathema to x86 windows application compatibility.

Apple forced processor architecture changes because they wanted them, but Microsoft doesn’t have the motive.

This has next to nothing to do with the technical qualities of the processor, but it’s just such a crappy ecosystem to try to break into on its own terms.

I’m my experience, even if you get caught. The exaggeration to get your foot in the door is expected, and everyone is expected to represent themselves deceptively well. Honesty in the interview when everyone can deal with nuance can work and might be appreciated, but definitely a little exaggeration in the resume unless you have ungodly actual credentials/connections.

In my case, early in my career a contracting company lied on my behalf without telling me.

So I’m in the “skills assessment” meeting and I’m confused when they started rattling off experience from my resume that I didn’t have. I asked if I could see their copy of my resume and said “ok they made this section up, but the rest appears the same, here a printed copy of my resume unmodified”.

I was shocked and figured that was a way to tank any chance I had at the job, but they “hired” me and said people and contracting companies did it all the time, so it didn’t phase them, but admitted my resume as it was from me wouldn’t have even gotten an assessment.

Get this all the time in software development, being given “requirements” and most of them are pretty stupid wishlist items.

I constantly argue that that will not get a good outcome if they just call everything is equally a “hard requirement”.

What they want to do is negotiate and start from an unreasonable anchor point. In my case I find it super tiresome because my stance is always the same, make a priority list and we’ll get as far as we can. But escalating and tying us up in meetings to try to argue for stuff you are just using as a negotiating tactic only gets in the way of us doing what we can. We are going to do what fits, and people are not going to work unpaid overtime or holidays just to meet some arbitrary deadline. If it doesn’t fit, well it won’t be long until the next window.

My team has a very long history of ultimately exceeding the hopes of the folks asking for stuff and yet they continue to try to get us to commit to stuff we never will.

Yeah, but it is hard to separate that, and it’s easy to get a bit resentful particularly when a projects quality declines in large part because they got lazy by duct taping in container registries instead of more carefully managing their project.

Maybe for some, but even if you have to keep it up because your work it relatives demand it, Windows ecosystem is essentially impossible to debug when it hits issues and you just have to take guesses as to why the obscure bad behavior is happening.

Windows is better at not needing to be fixed or the first place by self healing, whereas with Linux distributions you have to know how to fix those issues, but once it goes beyond easy to fix issues, Linux is reparable but windows isn’t.

If it isn’t blatantly obvious, it didn’t fix itself, and SFC didn’t fix it, then they always say reinstall…

It’s not the only reason. He also isn’t running for office anymore. If he was still running he’d probably say nothing.

He’s retired. So he can say whatever he might have otherwise retained from saying.

By the same token, it doesn’t matter what he says since he will have no power.

Must have sucked to be his first wife, who wrote an article about how bad Musk was all the way back in 2010.

They obviously know the reference, but are simply making a point that the broad sentiment toward CEOs would largely be appeased by other, less dramatic means.

If people have their legitimate claims paid in a reasonable time, and weren’t bombarded by gofundmes for people on their own for medical care, then they might be more empathetic toward health industry executives.

There’s no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the “Constitution doesn’t apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US” argument. That technically that hasn’t been established, and that there’s an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn’t legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.

I would think so.

For one they are likely very well equipped.

For another, it may be less about the troops themselves and more about the implications of what happens if you mess with American troops.

For example, read up on operation Paul Bunyan for an example of what happens when you mess with a seemingly manageable American force.

I lost a bunch of weight and very carefully watch the scales every day to make sure I don’t get carried away again, sometimes having to eat very lightly for a few days when it creeps up.

Did wonders for my blood sugar, cholesterol, and liver. Unfortunately it means I’m just a touch hungry most days.

Also moderate exercise, a bit of aerobic exercise most days, but not too much. Park far away to make myself walk more in daily activity.

I did hear NPR at least clarify that it would not be a “department”, but instead just some advisory body.

They also pointed out that the closest analog would be the grace commission, but that was largely ignored in the end.

So they can make recommendations, but no authority to make them happen. Currently every sycophant Republican is talking up just how much they are in support of the vague concept of this body, but it’s quite likely that if they ever make specific recommendations, they are probably going to face much more rigorous objections. Republicans have a tendency to complain loudly about the abstract, but then not want to touch any specifics that might have blow back.

See also how they easily kept passing killing the ACA when they knew it would be vetoed and the second they actually knew it wouldn’t be vetoed they lost their appetite for it (admittedly they came close, but still it took them a long time to even try).

I want that to be true, but judging from their financials, their big problem send to be just massive costs. They have more revenue than AMD despite their technical challenges, but they spend way way more to get it.

Part of it is not having a lot of fab customers yet having their own fabs, part of it is a whole bunch of Intel projects you’ve never heard of that will never amount to anything, but still cost lots of money. Part of it is essentially bribing vendors to favor Intel products even as amd makes more sense in a lot of those products.

Better engineering would certainly help, but they are just bleeding money all over the place largely owing to bad business bets.

I heard a story about how in world war 2 British and American generals got into an argument about the importance of a certain matter.

The British thought the matter needed to be tabled and the Americans were shocked and thought it must not be tabled.

Took some time for them to realize “tabling” an issue meant the exact opposite in America and UK

Since hearing that story the exact expression came up for me online once and on a work call once with British and American speakers.

No foreign language, but still.

I will confess that I think making windows UI appropriate for tablet or phone has to be more than a skinning exercise. E.g. software interacting with a mouse pointer unable to deal with more vague and multiple touches. UI elements needing different spacing for the form factor. A different scheme for switching full screen tasks and recognizing that traditional windowing isn’t going to be very helpful in a smaller than 9" format.

Unfortunately windows basically favored touch at the expense of traditional desktop, when their home turf was very much not touch enabled.