This may be true for Surface Book- an uber-high-end device. But almost any other Surface device you buy through consumer channels has "Windows 10 Home" edition on it. If you want to use it for business to join a domain, you still have to pay the $100 "Microsoft Tax" to upgrade the edition to Pro. The last 20+ Surface devices I've purchased were all this way.
You've been ordering the wrong SKU then, look for "Surface Go 2 for Business" as an example (the lowest end Surface) and it comes with Pro for less than the cost of upgrading from the Home version.
If you're a Microsoft partner or resell there are also options available for ordering for use with Enterprise volume licensing.
DNS-level ad blocking is a pretty good alternative, and it works well for non-Safari apps in my experience. I use nextdns and recommend it. You can tailor the blocklists to your liking as well.
If I had to guess, I'd say they will probably roll out new XProtect signatures [1] soon, assuming they haven't done so already for these samples.
I also just learned that you can see when the last update was with the following command:
```
system_profiler SPInstallHistoryDataType | grep -A 5 "XProtectPlistConfigData"
```
And then any updates are added to `/Library/Apple/System/Library/CoreServices/XProtect.bundle/Contents/Resources/XProtect.yara` (for macOS 11, at least).
While the mere presence of MS on a resume may not mean much to employers, I almost think it’s more important to weigh its usefulness against your current skill set. For instance, I work in tech but majored in something other than CS, and so I sometimes feel “weak” when I need to write more formal code. I’m going back to get my masters in CS so I can learn some of the foundational aspects that I unfortunately missed out on. I’m not as much concerned with fluffing my resume as I am filling the CS gaps I currently have.
Now if I did major in CS, I’m not sure I would still pursue a masters. But I didn’t, so there’s certainly value there for me.
This has been brought up before on HN: https://teachyourselfcs.com
You don't get initiated by the teachers, you get initiated by doing the practice problems so you can develop schema for what strategy works.
The biggest issue I have with note taking is not the medium or app, it’s the fact that I would often write something and never look at the note again. This essentially made the act of note writing, at least for me, futile since I rarely remember my notes as I’m writing them.
The best solution for this, I’ve found, is to still take notes on the bigger picture but then to add the smaller details, definitions, concepts to Anki [1], which literally forces me to review those smaller details again and again until they “stick”. Doing so then makes me want to revisit the notes to get the full picture. As a result, my memorization of all kinds of things has greatly improved, which makes future research and documentation all the more better. It’s a very good positive reinforcing learning method and I recommend it to anyone who may have similar issues.
For me, if I have some more long-running projects or ideas I might return to and e.g. give a presentation about them at some point, I find using https://orgpad.com an alternative. It tries to be a general tool that helps you connect the dots in a graph and that helps structuring information more like your brain does instead of forcing the linear approach of lists or longer texts. It doesn't force a scheme or anything like that on you and it can quite easily be turned into presentations e.g. like this conference talk on Graph isomorphism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8P7UwHhAA Btw. Orgpad is also a project, that is completely written in Clojure/ ClojureScript. (Full disclosure I have consulted and still consult the developers on orgpad.com infrastructure.)
I the end, if you have the wrong tool or the wrong method for anything you are going to have a bad time even if the tool or method is useful in a different setting. An analogy: You can hardly unscrew something using a hammer unless you want to have more problems then before.
I always find this kind of mindmap stuff to go beyond my screen size too quickly though.. I'd love to have something like this in VR so I can walk around and write stuff everywhere, move things etc, just like I have my walls covered in stuff like those stalkers in horror movies :D
VR would be great for this I think. I might even make an app like that.
VR would be great. As it gets more adopted, we will certainly play with this technology. Currently, we use 43 inch displays as a replacement in our office.
I find since I moved from Tomboy to OneNote that my memory is significantly worse.
Tomboy didn't support pics so I was more tuned in to meetings as I was actively processing info in order to note it down in my own words.
Now in Outlook I often tune out when I feel something is less relevant, and I lazily take screenshots "in case I need to look at it later". Then, when something comes up that is more relevant to me I'm tuned out and need to catch up. I also remember information much less long because it never really entered my brain at all.
So yeah it definitely helps for that purpose, at least for me.
I recently started working with a new client. 7 years ago and many companies past, the now-CEO asked me to set up a system for her and I took ample, random meeting notes. I still have those notes as plain text in a folder, organized by year.
When the new client asked for a design proposal and said they're getting resistance from the C-suite, I could pull up those notes and make some seemingly omniscient recommendations quite quickly.
I tried too many of the note taking services, but really, a plain text note with a YYYY-MM-DD title and stored in a backed up directory is near-perfect and ultra-portable.
Same; some exceptions are when I write things down to turn into a presentation or blog post, or if it's like notes / actions from a meeting.
That said, for me writing things down does help me organize my thought process.
Another thing that I do think is beneficial but directly work-related is writing ADR's (https://github.com/joelparkerhenderson/architecture_decision... basically technical documentation, one file per decision (architectural, language, library, etc); I can start those as a stream-of-consciousness ramble, then add some research / alternatives, and finally do some formatting and commit it into my project's repository.
From there it'll take on a life of its own, I'll reconsider things down the line (most recently, replacing Reach with React Router because the former is end-of-life and in retrospect had some quirks I ran into). My hope is that when more people join my project or take over, they'll be able to read it and understand where things have come from, and then add their own ideas to it.
Of course, they'll likely opt to just ignore it entirely because tl;dr show me the code.
Also interesting that the dev kits use the same chip as the latest iPad Pros (A12Z). I’d love to see the two OSes merge to some extent because I love writing on the tablet but find iPadOS not the best for general dev work.
Oh, 1,000%. Even basic tasks like working on a file, then pasting said file to a cloud storage app and then to an email/slack channel take an order of magnitude longer than it would on a computer. Long way to go before the iPad becomes a true Pro machine, but for some fields, it's basically there. Still, such simple quality of life improves that are mainstay/muscle memory on computers essentially take time and animations and taps to execute.
Same here. I don’t think the majority of folks will start working remotely permanently, but I could very well see more and more people splitting time between WFH and working from the office. If some people on a team start to do it, others on that same team will start to ask if there’s still a reason for them to still be coming into the office every day. And I think this is especially true for densely-populated areas as people realize how much time and stress are saved not having to commute into the office _every single day_.
Before covid, being able to work from home once in a while was something of a perk. After a few months of fully remote it is now a hard requirement for me, a significant chunk of my work time has to be able to be home office, or I'm walking away.
As someone who works at a company that is normally pretty split between offices and remote/WFH, I've seen this first hand. I don't actually mind going into the office now and then (and it's only about a 30 minute commute). But (increasingly pre-Covid), I'd go in and not run into anyone I worked with or even knew. Eventually I just gave up my desk when I had to move anyway. And pretty much stopped going in at all unless I had a specific meeting.
I agree on the free publicity part. Don’t think I would’ve given this product this much of my attention if it weren’t for this whole debacle. The free publicity in this case is likely to turn out to be a net positive for Basecamp.
I could honestly see it both ways, but this argument seems relatively weak to me. The court here isn’t necessarily creating legislation but rather are making the judgment/interpretation that “sex” does include sexual orientation. From what I can tell making those kind of interpretations are at the core of the Court’s purpose.
That is exactly what the majority opinion stated in response to the historical meaning argument. It is not reasonable to expect every time a court finds a law should be applied in a way its never been applied before to then throw up their metaphorical hands and say "welp. Guess we have to let the legislative branch do something, our work here is done."
Re-interpreting existing law is a HUGE component of our legal process. This goes all the way back to common law roots -- the court does not PREscribe law from above arbitrarily, rather it DEscribes the existing societal contract.
> Re-interpreting existing law is a HUGE component of our legal process.
It is, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be.
Decisions like this are ultimately political. The Court has basically decided that discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender now counts as discrimination based on sex and hence is prohibited by law. But decisions about what real-world actions count as what legally recognized actions are political decisions, and political decisions in a democracy are supposed to be made through the democratic process, i.e., by the people or their elected representatives.
> This goes all the way back to common law roots
Yes, but those common law roots are not based on democratic norms; they come from societies that were not democracies but monarchies. A case could be made that our concept of "common law" has not kept up with the evolution of our society from monarchy to representative democracy.
Of course, an opposing case could also be made that even though our society is nominally a democracy, that doesn't necessarily mean that everything in the law should be democratically decided. Our law does recognize fundamental rights that cannot be changed or removed by the democratic process, and at least part of the process of common law is supposed to be to provide a way for people to have those rights recognized and respected even if there is no explicit statute that does so. Then the question would be whether there is such a right not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation or transgender.
It's the same BS that got us out of control qualified immunity, just because a court hadn't already found that the precise way a cop/government official violated your rights was a violation of your rights they couldn't be charged for it. [0] More conservative justices love originalism because it lets them just throw back to the decisions of a more backwards time and say, 'well we have to respect their direct explicit intent' [1] it's a convenient way to not move forward.
[0] Never mind that it also expects the existing case to be /exactly/ the same situation.
[1] Often just what anyone appealing to originalism wants them to have intended.
> The court here isn’t necessarily creating legislation but rather are making the judgment/interpretation that “sex” does include sexual orientation.
No, the majority opinion is not doing that. It is not arguing that "sex" includes "sexual orientation". It is arguing that, in order to discriminate based on sexual orientation (or transgender), you have to also discriminate based on sex.
The dissents disagree with that argument. But both sides agree that "sex" does not include "sexual orientation"; they are distinct concepts.
Thanks for the clarification. I read Kavanaugh’s dissent instead of the Court’s opinion, so I made a wrong assumption. You are correct, they aren’t making the argument I was thinking they were.
With that said, I still think that this is far from the Judiciary system amending legislation.
That’s a really simple but great idea. Thank you for that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve learned something while working but have been too lazy to find my notes and figure out which note to put it in. And so I never end up making a note of it in the first place.
