It’s actually simple: you have businesses holding their breath with the idea that AI is going to just materialize and replace people so they don’t have to hire, fire, etc. It’s actually really bad too because it’s what you see in a lot of businesses around automation: not making a choice because of the belief that something so much better will show up making all the waiting worth it.

It’s pretty sad because in a few years, they won’t have entry level people who’ve started the climb to replace those who have moved on, up, retired, etc.

With no real choices made, still stuck and the lack of commitment has materially hurt them.

Only speaking for myself but I find being isolated all day at home, not going out but ordering door dash, ordering on Amazon, etc doesn’t seem healthy. I go into the office almost five days a week and not judging anyone else. I personally need work / life boundaries. I do find when people are in the office I can have some of the quick in-person meetings (when those people are in). Again, I am not value judging anyone else. I know there are a range of workplaces good and bad but I feel like some of that is on us for what we try to create, cultivate, etc.

In general I do worry that we lose part of what gives us some basic connections.

I think this is tangentially related: The movie Bowling alone is a great film about some of the connectedness we could have.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

AI is already causing hiring pauses and we’ll all be waiting for the damage to come in from the hesitancy. I’ve seen something very similar on automation projects where customers can delay waiting on making decisions on what to commit to for automation for a myriad of reasons. So instead of forward progress they lag, atrophy and don’t have healthy discussions of what their needs are.

This is a game of chicken: how long can businesses hold off hiring or wait for the promise of AI. Until a decision/discovery is made their customers and employees suffer the consequences of understaffing.

Great, so what about firmware/microcode that these laptop manufacturers will have abandoned? Can we really take a larger view on what maintenance for systems looks like? If something needs software/firmware, it needs updates. all of it.

Short of NICs and CPUs, what else has Intel done well with? I remember decades ago them trying to do switches and routers. They have a history of products they start only to abandon.

Shouldn’t have to say it but it’s sarcasm.

Some of us that have bought into Apple‘s ecosystem, don’t want a cesspool of Meta or others implementations and poor policing. If this is going to be forced on Apple, I as a consumer would like an option to disallow outside ecosystem communications. Then the regulators can force what they want, and I can choose not to participate in the information stealing ecosystem that live outside of my investment choices.

This is a pure case of people feeling entitled to content that they cannot afford.

It’s a fault of both:
1. Companies should have to publish EOL policies of all of their devices along with clear deadlines on when all software updates end and what you should do when done: recycle, wipe and load FOSS on it, etc.
2. Consumers should expect to know about EOL(we should educate) and they should be able to clearly see it on labels so they know what they are buying.

It is unreasonable to expect anything you buy today to last forever and there will always be some flaws never to be fixed. (e.g. spectre on super-old CPUs, row hammer on old RAM, or EOL openssl libs).

shh don’t tell that to anyone, that might make this issue less tribal and binary. You know, like most things, more complex and nuanced and we cannot have that.

My 2006 330XI stopped getting software/GPS updates in 2016. Does this mean they’ll keep software longer or post end-of-life notices for when remotely accessible components will be unpatched roaming security vulnerabilities?

This seems ripe for creating yet another version incompatibility like 2.7/3.x that will result in yet more technical debt rather than recognize a design choice and living with it.

and yet you don’t link to a single source?

BS, any plan provides a construct to talk about what risks might be considered acceptable and at what point governments, business and locals can talk like adults.

E.g. if we get above X capacity in hospitals, we ARE going to ask for another lock down. That’s a goal, you don’t have to like it but it can act as incentive to be smart about who you interact and how you choose to interact.

It’s not rocket science, it does mean though that people have to articulate and negotiate so we can form some kind of general consensus until we understand more about how this virus works and have possible treatments.

The “We have to open or else” false dichotomy has to stop: how about offering a plan instead of just wanting to ‘open’. A plan is debatable, adjustable, quantifiable, so short of ZOMG open, what the heck are you actually advocating?

Example plan:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wmc.org%2Fbacktobusi...