Not quite. Only nerds like us notice that apps use gigabytes of ram. Everyone notices when apps are slow, especially when the system goes to the page file.
8GB of ram is very typical being the base spec in most laptops today.
Yeah, you have the average programmer who spends so much time worrying about what FE framework to use, then you have the programmers at the level of the two you mention who just put out so many working projects. All the cargo culting most devs do is just waste.
> Nobody is making $300k as a junior engineer. And certainly not getting promoted to senior engineer within a year on top of that. Stop talking out of your ass.
>>Well I do know someone who pulls that as a junior but he also has a PhD in inverse kinematics simulation and that job was really needed.
This is the problem with using words like nobody, always, etc. Someone will usually (see what I did there?) come along with one single piece of anecdata and think the original statement is invalid.
you're taking me too seriously. I'm sardonically pointing out that the parameters for the original statement to be possible exist, but they are at least two standard deviations over the median reader of HN, even, thereby supporting the sentiment of the parent post (if not the letter of the parent post), not undermining it.
Your post does nothing but make noise and clutter the discussion. It's frustrating when someone points out a fact that is overwhelmingly true and someone else jumps in with some ridiculous counterexample, even if your intention is to do it sarcastically.
I think the point is you're being taken too seriously here because someone almost always comes into these types of discussion and makes the same point you did in a serious way, then claims victory for refuting the original claim.
>Yup. This looks awful — and is error prone and slow and probably wins some kind of award for being unPythonic — but it works. And I wrote it and I can read it. We can improve tomorrow.
That's the key takeaway. Write it once to get it working and understand how to solve the problem, then write it better.
"Hence plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow." - Fred Brooks
My SO and I are pretty frugal. We both are "jeans and t-shirts" kind of people. I bulk buy t-shirts so they're like $3US each, for example. I do have a polo or two for occasions. We are both senior eng and we live on less than one income. We give away most of the other income because that brings us joy. Our home is paid for (as are our vehicles, etc - we are completely debt free), but we continue to pay a mortgage, car payment, etc. to ourselves so that we are constantly saving for the next one. This helps keep our spending in check because every single dollar has a job. We don't want for anything really because "stuff" just weighs us down; it's a burden. That being said, we aren't extreme. We both love to read, so we never deny ourselves the books we want to read. We love traveling, so we don't deny ourselves that either. But what we don't do is buy a Porsche because Ted down the road bought one. If that's how he wants to spend his money, that's his business, but we don't desire those things.
Edit: One thing to double check that surprised me is that the channel number these days doesn't reliably tell you if the channel is VHF or UHF. That is, a low-numbered channel like "3" or "8" could really be a UHF channel. I guess they let them keep long-established channel numbers for marketing purposes. So check what you really need before buying an antenna. The website above does provide the needed detail under "RF Channel".
Yeah, OTA doesn't really work anywhere except cities. I used to sell "big screens" at Sears and I was asked that question so frequently, especially back when cable was switching from analog to digital. Years 2004-2006.
I live 40 miles outside of a major city. Even back in analog days with a big antenna I couldn't pick anything up; there's a hill that blocks all the signals between me and the city.
Eventually I got cable but dropped it a couple years ago.
I dislike the notch as much as the next guy, but they started with a 16:10 display and actually ADDED pixels on top around the camera. In this case, you're not losing ANY pixels due to the notch. Videos should play just fine given that most are 16:9 or wider.
You're not really gaining them either. In full screen, apps are basically the same as they were previously since the top notch bar becomes blacked out. In regular mode, they've increased the vertical height of the menu bar to match the notch, so there's what, a handful of pixels gained there?
