From watching his videos, he's an Apple guy for his personal devices, though his server infrastructure (and also the bulk of the devices he reviews and experiments with ) are Linux machines.
They are low earth orbit satellites. Generally, the lower the orbit, the faster they decay. You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
> You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment.
1. I would login to my favorites daily. I ran my own BBS (using the Renegade BBS software) as a teenager, so would monitor that as well. I think I landed on QModem after using Telix.
2. I knew friends who used them but we had the RIBBS list (Rhode Island BBS List). What was amusing at the time (90s) is that despite Rhode Island being the smallest state, there were still "local long distance" calls that cost money to make, so you had to be aware of what numbers you were able to call for free.
3. "Boards" were the terms we used, the term "server" was not in use that I know of for BBS host machines (despite them being essentially servers). There were definitely more popular ones, but also ones that served specific niches (photography, gaming, role playing). One of the more popular ones in RI got shutdown for hosting pirated games. The pirate stuff was never visible to my account, though they did advertise having GB of files available. This amount of data was huge compared to the 120MB hard drive I had at the time.
4. The vibe was variable based on the BBS. My impression was that the early internet had a better vibe than BBSes, because they were relatively small and regional you mostly got the discussion that was happening in your own locale. National BBSes were certainly a thing as well as services like GEnie and CompuServe, but those weren't something I frequented.
5. Honestly, I didn't see a lot of programming discussion. I am sure it was there, but I wasn't seeking it out. From a technical standpoint, a lot of it was talking about the new hardware of the day and also discussing BBS operation and configuration.
I am a former Directory of Technology for small/medium business who has transitioned to freelance work three years ago.
Open to fractional CTO (particular interest in non-profits) roles, AI/LLM process integration and web/mobile app development projects.
Location: Rhode Island, USA or REMOTE
Remote: Yes
Willing to Relocate: Mostly no, but possible for the right opportunity
Technologies: Vue/Vite/Pinia, HTML/CSS/JS, Python, AWS (S3/Lambda/CloudFront/Dynamo/RDS)
OpenAI/Anthropic APIs, Security/PCI audits and compliance
Resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewjbent/
Email: gmail - andrew.bent
Disclaimer: I'm not the OP, and there are certainly places where using recursive type definitions is justified.
My interpretation of OP's point is that excessive complexity can be a "code smell" on its own. You want to use the solution to match the complexity of the job and both the team that is building it and the one that is likely to maintain it.
As amused as I am by the idea of a dev team being debased by the inelegance of basic bitch programming, the daily reality of the majority of software development in industry is "basic bitch" teams working on "basic bitch" problems. I would argue this is a significant reason why software development roles are so much at risk of being replaced by AI.
To me, it's similar to the choice one has as they improve their vocabulary. Knowing and using more esoteric words might allow adding nuance to ideas, but it also risks excluding others from understanding them or more wastefully can be used as intelligence signalling more than useful communication.
tldr: Complexity is important when it's required, but possibly detrimental when it's not.
I don't really buy the comparison. If you're really unlucky, you can get cancer from a "safe dose" of radiation.
Low exposures of both things are statistically less likely to hurt you than large doses. We pick a line to call "safe", but completely safety in either case is not guaranteed.
There is a natural level of radioactivity which the body is used to compensate. Small additional doses of radioactivity can therefor be neglected. This is not true for stuff like abestos.
Talking to an audio-enabled LLM is definitely "simpler" in terms of device interaction than navigating menus and such. Also having less GUI focus would feel simpler to me.
I find myself missing the experience of earlier iPhone where it didn't feel like I had so much crammed into my phone.
I can imagine using a device that I interact with primarily by talking with it, and the GUI is secondary or non-existent. For the bulk of what I use my phone for other than consuming video / doom-scrolling (which I could use much less of anyway), I think a voice interface would be preferable.
Initially "Apple Intelligence" was very exciting to think about, in that having a Siri that you could actually talk to would have a lot of possibilities, but we've seen essentially no progress in that direction.
A speech or LLM based device is only more simple if it works perfectly. As it stands today, it’s far from perfect. When it makes a mistake, if there nothing to fall back on, I would think that would be very frustrating. I run into these types of issues on a daily basis with current LLMs.
I would liken it to a non-responsive touch screen. The magic of the modern smartphone evaporates if it stops responding to touch.
I missed the early iPhone as well. I actually setup my Home Screen on my phone to be the same app setup as the original iPhone when iOS 26 released. I still have other apps in the App Library if/when I need them, but I have my basic setup how things were in 2007… At least for now. I’ve actually liked it quite a bit so far.
I’m curious if Siri with Apple Intelligence will live up to some of what they showed in the ads last year, but at this point I need to experience it working with 0 issues for an extended period of time before I even start to think about an AI-first device, and especially for an AI-only device. I haven’t seen AI from anyone that can perform at that level. Much like full-self-driving, I feel like this is going to be something that is perpetually 5 years away.
Apple did a ton of work on the power efficiency of iOS on their own ARM chips for iPhone for a decade before introducing the M1.
Since iOS and macOS share the same code base (even when they were on different architectures) it makes much more sense to simplify to a single chip architecture that they already had major expertise with and total control over.
There would be little to no upside for cutting Intel in on it.
Intel and AMD both sell quite a lot of customized chips, at least in the server space. As one example, any EC2 R7i or R7a instance you have are not running on a Sapphire Rapids or EPYC processor that you could buy, but instead one customized for AWS. I would presume that other cloud providers have similar deals worked out.
I have wondered this as well and my best guess is so two times can be diffed without converting them to an signed type. With 64-bit especially, the extra bit isn't buying you anything useful.
