Is gaming bad on Mac? Honest question because I have no need for high end performance for gaming. If it can run Path of Exile well enough to burn an hour or two here and there, it would be enough.
gaming isn’t terrible on mac. i’ve recently played factorio, ai war 2, this war of mine, sayonara, the pathless, and some other random apple arcade and steam games without any issue on my 13” m1 mbp. i also played sniper elite 3 on it via stadia, and the experience was quite good.
It's almost that bad in suburban New Jersey. Not so bad as waiving inspections necessarily but covering appraisal gaps is pretty much required because of how hot it is. Same for 10-20% over ask on the offers.
When we were buying about 8 years ago in the Bay area, we probably wrote 50 offers, all above asking, and finally got one home. It was a total nightmare as a buyer. One home got 40 written offers, according to the listing agent, and sold for 2X its asking price--all cash, no contingencies.
Sell, then what? Another mortgage if they want to live in the area, or uprooting entirely. That 2 million dollar bay area house might have been a 20k house among 10-40k houses in the 1970s; today it's a 2 million dollar house among 2-10 million dollar houses, so at best you'd be doing a lateral move or downsizing into something grossly overpriced, or line up to become one of the 40 people trying to throw a cash offer somewhere in the stratosphere above list on some midwestern home.
It's a zero sum game unless you upzone and build more housing to meet the demand, because the population of this country has only gone up.
If you're willing to move to a new area, you can always find certain areas where the housing market is different in regards to supply/demand. You could also plan to rent for a few years to see if the purchase market cools off in the meantime. Rents don't increase proportionally to sudden housing market volatility.
meh the dark ages are well studied and any minor effort to find some information on it will get someone more and more accurate information on it than asking on HN. It's the kind of question that has a short but useless answer that fits on hackernews 'fall of rome bad for progress' but the answer you should get is to go put in some basic effort and look it up - its easy to find information on using the terms 'dark ages'.
You assessment is fair, but there is a lot of data out there that you simply won't find by using Google search. One exemple is the "A collection of unmitigated pedantry" blog which I found after someone used it in a comment when replying to me.
If you google "Iron processing in the middle ages" you won't find Bret Devereaux' excellent series[1], yet it is a much better read than the Wikipedia page.
I wonder how that can be, though. Either you are constantly surrounded by junior people, or...? I am sorry, but I can't believe that out of 10-15 people there is not a 20% of people who can do part of your job.
I can tell you, out of 10-15 people, there are none that can do my job.
This is obviously untrue, they can definitely do it, and there are people I’d be happy to see in those roles, but the quality of work would suffer in the short term, and we have a ton of deadlines/projects to complete.
The problem is that at some point you'll become the bottleneck and projects will be delayed as a result. Or you'll get sick, a loved on gets sick, etc, etc. Either way productivity will suffer and things generally start to spiral downwards then (people get bored, leave the company, putting more work on you, etc.).
In many places there is always something urgent and there will never be a good time to slow down. Then you end up in my first point eventually. So part of your job is to create that breathing room, push back on projects, get people trained, etc. Think long term and not just moment to moment.
edit: And if you think training people now is painful, doing so when you're actually past the breaking point will be be a lot harder and cause a lot more disruption.
I spent a lot of time training people in my previous job only for them to come back to me with basic questions about what I taught them over a year later.
What was missing was technical leadership from above: the managers didn't realize (or value) the need for the team to get familiar with the systems that they were working on, so they didn't make sure that the team learned these things well, or brought in a few more people who could guide them in addition to just me.
In this case he is the manager so he can do all those things you mentioned to properly train his team. It takes effort and sacrifice but that's his job.
There is still the issue of trust on first use. Unless the domain is preloaded in the browser as HSTS there is no assurance that there won't be at least one HTTP request.
DNSSEC means creating irrevocable CAs that'd be under essentially-direct control of major governments. No thanks. At least with the current system, if a CA fails to act proper, they can get smacked back. With DNSSEC, if .com starts issuing *.com certs, there's no recourse.
Huh? Your site can be already completely hijacked by the same actors. Your browser trusts a lot of CAs so VeriSign (or whoever operates the .com zone) can already issue .com certs. And your only hope is to preload your cert (which is a Chrome only thing, and pretty inefficient and inflexible).
The Convergence Project with notaries is an even better solution.
But using the DNS as the authoritative source of data and using external parties to keep an eye on that would both lead to efficiency (performance, flexibility) and security (as in from the State).
Those ones really crack me up. Its the first filter of the clowns that have no idea what they're talking about. The other glaring one that normally gets/got me back in the day that Java == JavaScript to all agencies.
