In general, I don't see the point in manually specifying block sizes most of the time. What I want nearly always the maximum performance, and that should be possible to derive from the hardware, and/or benchmarking.
What about uses like say, skipping data? seek= and skip= are in block sizes, that may not be ideal for performance.
A smart tool should be able to write in 1 MB blocks and yet still skip 512 bytes.
I still think that it’s one of the great ironies of our time.
Linux itself bends over backwards to avoid breaking userland, to the point where there is a substantial amount of cruft when interacting directly with the kernel.
Only for GNU to say “fuck that” and create a widely mockable situation, one of the worst targets of modern programs for stability… to the point where people start using alternative libc’s specifically to statically link them.
Just a quirk of the times. GNU made the most optimal solutions of their time, but in the end we still have some tech debt. I think it was inevitable that this would happen with GNU or for that matter any project, since it's not a centralized project like linux and was never going to be since it's not just one piece of software.
I’m not reading that disjointed wall of text to the end. If you have a point to make, spit out, don’t proxy it to someone else. Links are to support your argument, not make it for you.
Your call, aside from the opening being a bit long winded, it's actually a well written bit of text that goes into what made Nike successful historically, and the psychology of corporate greed and it's ability to destroy vision.
The point that was made was that their brand had historically been very competitive and celebrated that competitiveness, that was their whole marketing.
However they completely abandoned that way of marketing because there was a "whale" just off the bow which was much more lucrative (or so they thought) and what if they could just capture that whale... and eventually capturing that whale comes at any cost, including the alienation of your core purchasing demographics. But they tell themselves it's worth it, if only they can just bring in the whale.
So, clearly they don't care about anyone, least of all if you used to be a customer.
the point made in the text is properly versed and written, you do yourself a disservice by choosing not to read it because it makes a really good point that doesn't compress well.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I lightly read half-way, but it didn’t catch me like it apparently did you. That aside, what you’ve said (and, AFAICT, what TFA was trying to say) matches the scatterbrained marketing and product vision I’ve witnessed recently, at least from the perspective of a competitive runner who has used their shoes since the ‘70s.
From my POV, shopping Nike is schizophrenic in that I don’t know which piece of gear is the fashion brand and which is for athletes. Which fits what you’re saying: who are they even trying to sell to anymore? And thus, as a person who was their core (Phil Knight start Nike selling running shoes out of the trunk of his car), I mostly run in other brands these days.
Tl;dr Men made up 2/3 of Nike's sales. Its ads and marketing and celebrity endorsements reflected that focus: masculine (Michael Jordan), heavy on themes of competition, focus, and win-at-all-costs high achievement. Ads that are practically "boyhood fantasy" and which some would call "toxic" masculinity.
Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a different tack. The marketing downplayed masculinity and emphasized inclusion and diversity. It tried to more overtly target women. This turned men off the brand without bringing more sales from women.
The author argues that Nike's previous marketing resonated because it reflected real life and truth on some level: guys really like sports and winning, and they'll spend money with a brand that embodies those ideas. The new "woke" marketing didn't really appeal to anyone at the same level, even if they agree with the message.
Posts like this are red meat for some people. But does Hoka or On have really "macho" advertising? FWIW I think Nike's direct-to-consumer pivot was the actual cause of their current situation.
At the same time, Nike put out banners in Boston before the Boston Marathon that said "Runners welcome, walkers tolerated" and caught a rash of shit for it. Keeping in mind that runners have to qualify to run Boston (we'll ignore charity runners for the time being), and those qualifying standards are not easy. You're not going to walk your way to a Boston-qualifying time. (I'd guess 85-90% of actual runners can't qualify in their age group.)
My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".
It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
My statement was neutral, you shouldn't buy from people who hate you.
They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi.
I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have.
Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
But you yourself said Nike's decisions were driven by "greed, not malice".
Wtf is non-malicious hate?
If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical.
Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political.
> you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction
You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them.
You're right that greed isn't hate. I said as much, the motive was money, not malice.
But motive and content aren't the same thing. A company can platform contempt cynically, for cash, and it's still contempt. "Don't buy from people who hate you" was never a claim that Nike feels anything. It's about what they chose to sell, and who it's aimed at.
And it's the content that I object to, greed is mercurial, but those campaigns openly denigrate men to elevate women.
Do that to women, or gay people, or Muslims, and "it's just marketing, they don't really hate you" wouldn't fly, not for a second (in fact, it didn't in Nikes own history- the Boston Marathon "walkers tolerated" campaign was not well recieved). Nobody would tell the target of that derision to get over it then.
For some reason, I don't get that latitude, apparently; because it's men. I'm not really comfortable with the double standard, and it's the whole of my point to you now.
> The adverts openly denigrate men in order to try to bring up women.
I haven't seen 'em, no idea. The only "woke ad" on that article ("The Land of New Football") was boring and cringe. But I didn't see any denigration of people based on immutable characteristics.
> This is prejudice, and implying that I'm not permitted to feel offended by it
You straight up called me prejudiced. I'm a sports-loving, hetero guy too bro. I already told you you're free to be offended at whatever you like.
I really just wish I had a USB-C KVM I could use with my laptop (or even better: tablet)...
I can't find much, and what I find is a bit bonkers.
I ended up buying a license to Orion, using USB-C→HDMI capture card with a Startech VGA→HDMI converter (which requires USB-A power)... in order to achieve a semi-passable KVM (but, without the K and the M...).
I paired with a USB-A Hub and a keyboard and mouse and it kinda works but it's an incredibly janky setup...
... the fact that many servers still output VGA is baffling.
Cheap 4K HDMI/VGA-to-USB input boards and reverse HID cables are available. Betwen the two for $50 - they turn your laptop into a Moniitor, Keyboard and Mouse for a random computer.
But isn’t that also because of not investing in the grid more than a production problem? Not cheap to upgrade the grid of course but having good transmission capacity makes a more stable and efficient energy system.
Not saying we shouldn’t produce more electricity. But from what I have understood it’s mainly about other factors than production.
buy 13 songs a month, every month, for a year, and see how big your library is.
Remembering that a song at full price on itunes store is $1~ and a monthly subscription to spotify is $13
There is a compounding effect, so buying my library as it is today will cost me about $300~, but that's because I've accumulated 300 songs over the course of about 12 years. (300/12) is about $25 per year.
So the delta is $131... for convenience of being able to listen to a new song once or twice and never again.
The irony of course being that if I ever stop paying, I have access to nothing at all.
300 songs is not many at all. I have purchased around 20,000 songs in my life. Would it have been cheaper to use Spotify? I suppose so but (a) they don’t have all the music I want and (b) I prefer having the independence to control my media. Also Spotify didn’t exist when I started :)
300 songs might not sound like many, yet that is how many items have been added to my library or to a playlist in 12 years.
So I can't really speak to anything else than that. That's my usage pattern, yours may be different.
I keep yearly playlists (starting 2023) where I add songs I like and each one is only about 30 songs on average, so that somewhat matches the aggregate number over a decade..
I guess I stick to the things I like and find things I like in DJ sets or on the Gym radio- I'm not investigating new music through subscription services.
I have 15 years worth of songs, account is less than 10 years old. Arguably I would be okay dropping some of those songs if I wanted to buy the songs. The biggest difference for me though is the issue of discoverability. It is very easy for me to find and save new songs on Spotify, it would be much harder for me to find the songs I like if I had to pay for them, especially since a lot of the songs I like are not just songs from popular artists but are often just one of two random songs from random artists. Is there a good middle ground here? I keep a copy of my song list in case I want to ditch Spotify but this is the main hurdle for me.
In my last.fm account it says I have listened 122.000 different tracks, I would have gone mad listening for the 300 same songs for 12 years, it would be like torture for me.
> buy 13 songs a month, every month, for a year, and see how big your library is.
Sure.
And when I had Spotify I added about that to my liked songs every month.
> There is a compounding effect
That doesn't sound compounding, it sounds like a linear increase of 13 per month.
> for convenience of being able to listen to a new song once or twice and never again.
Yes, that is the advantage of Spotify and other steaming services.
I can listen to dozens of new songs a day, picking out my favorites while being exposed to new music allowing me to find more that I like.
And if I don't like it, meh, didn't cost me anything.
A library of 300 songs is tiny.
I guess you don't listen to much music?
Back before I lived in the city 300 songs would have lasted a week, I'd statistically hear a repeat on the drive home on the first day.
When I was 12-13 I started taking a steroidal inhaler which inhibited my growth, so my hands are literally the same size as when I was 13. (maybe slightly wider).
As such I have about the same finger length as the average woman, and when I used the iPhone 4S and 5S I had no problems, I was not able to comfortably use the 6 with one hand, and it came with that ugly camera bump, so I returned it and tried to go Samsung. (it was big, but the rounded edges helped a fair bit) - the software sucked.
I bit the bullet and went back to my 5S, and when the SE (2nd gen - shaped like the iPhone 5 but with beefed internals) rolled out it was a day 1 purchase for me.
Ever since then I've been looking for a phone -- the iPhone "Mini" was as large as the 6 which was too large (I did buy one though) -- I eventually bought an iPhone 15 pro, but honestly, I hate it. It is the heaviest thing I carry daily and it doesn't do anything more than my 5 did that i care about, and I can't comfortably operate it. I start really disliking mobile devices because of it- and the software is getting worse year on year too.
I'm getting serious fatigue from this, but the world has not only caught up to a mobile world, now many things actively expect/require you to have a modern smart phone, especially in Sweden.
we’ll be waiting a while. The last Mini was iPhone 8 sized, when I considered anything larger than the 5 to be too much.
The Mini thus, undersold, because if you were fine with the 8 then iPhones of that size were still available (2nd Gen SE). Nobody bought: So Apple thinks theres no market.
It was smaller than the iPhone 8. It was slightly thicker (0.01"), shorter (by 0.27") and narrower (0.13"). And it had a bigger display despite being overall smaller. It was bigger than the 5, though.
I did, however, take a series of photos comparing the Mini to the SE- and the packaging of the 6 (I think I gave the phone away but still had the box).
The SE was the one that shared the 8's dimensions, the Mini was smaller than both. That Mini appears to be in a case, so the comparison photos aren't as useful as they'd be otherwise.
(Also, it looks like I couldn't do arithmetic earlier or typo'd the number, the Mini is 0.12" narrower, not 0.13").
I'm not sure I understand how you think the mini is in a case from those photos.
Maybe because it's the dark version of the phone you can barely make out the shiny apple logo, but it's there, you can see the metal edge of the phone.
It's not in a case.. obviously, that would be a stupid comparison.
Fair, zooming in I guess I can see that. You may want to correct the label on the photo though, it shares dimensions with the 5 but you've clearly photographed an SE (original, it turns out, which was part of my confusion since you switched at some point from talking about the 2nd gen to the 1st gen) not an iPhone 5.
No, I was comparing the size difference of the 5 (and lineage) to the 6 (by way of case) and Mini.
"SE" is a nondescript product line and the only physical differences are the tone of the chassis and a stamp; it's a fair representation of the size of a 5.
Always seemed like a marketing issue on Apple's part. People have different opinions when they actually see and handle the Mini. Apple appended so many "Pro" and "Max" names to everything which ended up creating a "status symbol" that was contrary to the actual needs of the consumer to have a more reasonably sized phone. "Fablets" weren't particularly popular for that reason, and Apple still managed to lead people down this road.
The mini was released six months after the SE2 was released, which many SE1 owners holding out for a new smaller iPhone had already migrated to. Then Apple presented the mini in a joke-y manner in the keynote, didn’t do any publicity afterwards, and neither did the carriers (because the mini was lower-margin for them I presume). Lastly, the iPhone 12 gen had particularly bad battery life, which also hurt the mini. With today’s battery improvements, it would be much better (as demonstrated by the iPhone Air’s good battery life). Apple could at least have taken the option to make the “e” line mini-sized.
`dd` is a real power user command, I’d prefer that it isn’t doing “intelligent” things, especially not by default.
reply