Not at all. Most of those Workstation or Fusion users are likely employed by their enterprise customers, and they need an inexpensive way to try to keep them.

I know it’s anecdotal, but when I worked for an enterprise that used VMWare, most of us also tried to use VMWare in our home labs, even though the company didn’t provide licenses.

Back when VMWare was a desired skill, many of us had VMWare in our home labs even when we didn’t have an employer that used it, to maintain proficiency. This doesn’t seem likely anymore but they probably want it

Cool setup!

What do you have for network equipment? I have 1G symmetrical unlimited, but anything faster seems to require a jump to much more expensive networking. And even then, most user equipment can’t support that

Don’t wait. Come talk to us. Yeah things are hectic with demands flooding in from all directions but we want to make your job easier and better

Very true. In contrast, I’m fed up with Firestick and am interested in trying AppleTV instead. But that device is two years old. I’m not in a hurry to buy, so that means I’m on the sidelines as I waited for the Spring announcement, then the summer announcement, then the fall announcement, and a new model never came. Now I’m getting stubborn: there must be a new version coming soon. If I knew when to expect any update, Apple would likely already have my money

Everything is in git, and I tend to use IntelliJ as an IDE. So my projects are all in ~/Ideaprojects/[PROJECTNAME]

I don’t even understand the concern here: why shouldn’t manufacturers have a yearly release cycle? Technology continues to change and there’s value in continuing to improve. I also don’t understand how better software support means less hardware improvement.

If you mean “a consumers yearly purchase cycle”, then yeah. Long since. It’s such a huge waste of money for incremental value and always was. Don’t get caught up in the hype or be manipulated by marketing. It always made more sense to upgrade on your terms

Current robots are better when designed for a specific job, but that means only corps with enough scale can afford robots

What about much smaller companies that can’t afford to design and build a robot for a specific task? There are thousands of these companies, doing things at smaller scale so not able to automate. However a robot with similar capabilities to a human, that could be trained like a human, and doesn’t cost like an industrial robot, can fill in for a human at all of these companies

Those look great but a physical timer doesn’t label which timer is which nor is it available throughout the house. Why shouldn’t i see my laundry timer when I’m in the kitchen or my kitchen timer when I’m in the family room?

While I wish for a home solution, nothing matches my Apple Watch. Voice response. Any number of timers. Timers are named. Timers go with me everywhere

I also really liked the wall clock but definitely too limited feature.

I still have the wall clock but never use it. My biggest complaint is that it is tied to one echo and it must be in Bluetooth range if it, but I want my timer visible throughout the house.

It’s easier and more convent to use my watch or phone

So, they do control whatever assets Google had within Russia - article said a closed up office, and 200 remaining employees laid off, to get them entirely out of the country

If they do attempt to look for more assets to seize, they’ll pretty quickly run up against any other country saying “were their sanctions at the time?”

Right. I was trying to decide whether to mention that deer can be hard to spot in time. Even in the middle of the road like this, they’re non-reflective and there may be no movement to catch the eye. It’s very possible for a human to be zoning out and not notice this deer in time

But yeah, this is where we need the car to help. This is what the car should be better than human with. This is what would make ai a good tool to improve safety. If it saw the deer

I can see it in the headline, without opening the article

I’d go even farther and say most driving is an edge case. I used 30 day trial of full self-driving and the results were eye opening. Not how it did: it was pretty much as expected, but looking at where it went wrong.

Full self driving did very well in “normal” cases, but I never realized just how much of driving was an “edge” case. Lane markers faded? No road edge but the ditch? Construction? Pothole? Debris? Other car does something they shouldn’t have? Traffic lights not aligned in front of you so it’s not clear what lane? Intersection not aligned so you can’t just go straight across? People intruding? Contradictory signs? Signs covered by tree branches? No sight line when turning?

After that experiment, it seems like “edge” cases are more common than “normal” cases when driving. Humans just handle it without thinking about it, but the car needs more work here

Given that they market it as “supervised”, the question only has to be “are humans safer when using this tool than when not using it?”

One of the cool things I’ve noticed since recent updates, is the car giving a nudge to help me keep centered, even when I’m not using autopilot

As someone who is bad sat names but has a more social ex, same here. There are so many people I come across that ought to know. I probably come across as rude or aloof because I’m bad at faces and names

We used to have racks of these things for automated testing …. And eventually they stop responding, so someone needs to power cycle them. In the computer room. In a rack

There’s a good chance we’ll need to try, so we need to have that technology. However it would be so much cheaper and easier to moderate our energy use, electrify, and use renewables

So far, we have smaller towns wiped off the face of the earth and can’t seem to figure out they should be moved rather than rebuilt

Right, Earth will be here, life will find a way …… but cockroaches and jellyfish can’t read