Humans *do* see case as significant. Do the names ExpertsExchange and ExpertSexChange look the same? Should they be the same file?
Depends on what is being capitalized. Humans may not notice EXcel.exe is not the same as Excel.exe and assume they are the same application. The counterpoint to Linus is domain names are not case sensitive. The URL after the domain name is case sensitive. Imagine if every website owner had to register all case sensitive variants of their name to avoid malicious actors from setting up fake websites. Chase Bank would need to own Chase.com, cHase.com, CHase.com, etc.
No you missed *my* point. My point was that by comparing to a mercury thermostat you've limited the discussion to being able to turn the temperature on at a given point.
1) When did I ever discuss a mercury thermostat? You really like bringing up strawman arguments. 2) My point which you missed AGAIN is that a consumer paid more for the ADDITIONAL functionality of a smart thermostat over a dumb one. That functionality can be and has been taken away at any point. Support can be dropped at any point. A dumb thermostat has no functionality that can be taken away with an update.
The Nest will keep working just like your mercury thermostat regardless of the state of "support". If a thermostat to you is a mercury switch, then this announcement means precisely nothing for a Nest thermostat. Objectively your complaint is meaningless.
What part of you paid MORE for functionality that can be taken away is unclear to you? Consumers might have paid LESS if they knew that extra money they are paying is only for temporary benefits.
Literally everything since it's the only function being removed here, and incidentally a function your mercury switch doesn't have. So clearly the entire premise here isn't important in the slightest.
AGAIN missing the point. The dumb thermostat NEVER advertised it had a functionality that was taken away. That was my entire premise: Any and all smart devices can have functionality taken away with an update. Support can be dropped at any point. The dumb thermostat has the exact same functionality as when it was purchased decades later.
Invested: verb1. put (money) into financial schemes, shares, property, or a commercial venture with the expectation of achieving a profit. Literally invested. If you have a mercury thermostat at home, and you instead switch to a smart modulating thermostat you will save actual money over time, the device will pay for itself and save you money going forward.
1) How much is your savings if you have to pay MULTIPLE times for that savings? You don't really think about did you? 2) The smart features of a thermostat only work add to comfort while saving cost. You know you can permanently set a dumb thermostat for maximum savings right? It won't be comfortable to have the house at 50F in the winter and 80F in the summer, but I guarantee you it will lots more money than a smart thermostat.
Yes. I also know manufacturers of smart devices who don't do that. Your generic article is pointless. Show me a list of smart thermostats from other companies that no longer work. I'll wait.
1) And you missed the point AGAIN. You cannot guarantee that the lifespan of your smart device. No one can. 2) You want a list specifically of thermostats because the list of smart devices that are dead destroys your point. My original point is SMART devices have a hidden lifespan. Consumers paying more for smart devices have to know those additional benefits may be at best temporary. They might last a decade; they might last a year.
There's no reason you can't use your nest for another 20 years either. In fact if you buy one now you'll probably save money over whatever dumb thermostat is currently burning energy in your house.
What part of it will not have the features consumers paid for when they originally purchased it is unclear to you? You keep avoiding this point. If the Nest does not have the smart features, the consumer might have said money by not purchasing it in the first place.
Nope, not a strawman argument at at all. You're using a Google Nest, from a company that infamously kills its own products to the point that it has a whole website dedicated to its corpses to draw an argument against smart devices in general. I'm calling your argument out for the bullshit it is by stating the obvious. Now please, since we're talking about thermostats where's that list of other companies killing thermostats that is making you cling on to your old crap so desperately?
1) I NEVER said it was for sport. NEVER. Stop using strawman arguments. 2) Google is not, nor ever will be, the only company that removes features from smart devices AFTER consumers purchased them. Wyze, Samsung, Amazon, Phillips,etc. have all removed functionality after years.
Your mercury thermostat isn't supported by the manufacturer either. Try and get a replacement vile of mercury and see how it goes.
Wow you have a real penchant for missing the entire point. 1) The dumb mercury thermostat DOESN'T need support as the dumb thermostat cannot be updated to be remove existing functionality. 2) You do know mercury thermostats last decades right?
A remote phone doesn't work, whoop de fucking do - you can't do that with your non-smart device either, so had you invested in Google you'd still be miles ahead of where you are now, even without support.
WTF is a remote phone have to do with manufacturers removing functionality from devices?
you can't do that with your non-smart device either, so had you invested in Google you'd still be miles ahead of where you are now, even without support.
What does "invested" even mean? If you paid Google for a Nest device, you'll pay Google again for another device to get functionality that was in your original product. With a simple thermostat, it works without Google's intervention and you have to paid the manufacturer ONCE for the functionality. You seem not have understood that point.
Also this isn't a problem with "smart" devices. It's a problem with "google" devices.
Dude, you do know other manufacturers of "smart" devices routinely change the functionality of their devices and drop support right? Even the FTC has reported that smart devices have a hidden lifespan.
There's countless other thermostat manufacturers on the market that have no problem with obsolescence.
The thermostat in my house is at least 20 years old. The thermostat in my parent's house is at least 40 years old. Those thermostats may not last forever but there was no obsolescence.
. Heck Honeywell allow you to integrate your comparatively ancient Wifi thermostats with their fancy new Ecohome thermostats as well.
You do know Honeywell still sells dumb thermostats right like this one that looks like the one in my parent's home.
Not every company kills products for sport.
Please cite where I ever said that. I didn't, did I? So your point is a strawman argument.
Because if you can do it for free on TurboTax.
The problem is the qualifier "if you can do it free" part. You mean the same TurboTax that was sued by the government for deceptive practices that promised customers a "free" filing but charged them anyway.
Firstly, speeding up the blockbuster process by a factor of two means reducing the paychecks by a factor of two which functions as staff reductions on a take-home-pay basis. Whether the process goes faster or takes the same time with less people is immaterial.
But you are assuming that companies hire and/or pay more rather than just load salaried exempt staff with ridiculous amounts of work. My experience is companies do the latter than the former.
In theory, if you built an AI that could create whatever movie you told it to, you'd have an explosion of creativity as everyone currently on a movie set started making their own entire movies from start to finish, solo (with AI).
If you read the summary, Cameron is not advocating for AI to generate the entire film. He is advocating for AI to help speed up the workflow of VFX. VFX artists will still be needed. For example, currently AI can generate code if requested. The code most of the time does not work if the request is too broad. Specific and narrow requests are far easier to do with AI. Not "Generate a new game . .
In reality, we still live in a world with an economy that requires people to work, and they have limited money and free time to spend on the output of other workers. What I expect will happen is the VFX will get less expensive and the savings will go into the pockets of the financers while a lot of VFX artists end up out of work.
The number reason I see that VFX are terrible is the producers or directors assume that VFX can be done easily, quickly, and cheaply without any planning. Simultaneously. So they devote a tiny amount of money and time for VFX but do not pre-plan for using a lot of VFX. "We'll fix it in post" does not always work out well.
For example, the movie Cats which is generally regarded as having terrible VFX. The director, Tom Hooper, had no experience with large scale VFX. Almost every character was going to be a cat covered in fur. Did he use motion capture suits that would help VFX? No. That simple aspect would require the VFX artists to digitally alter by hand every character in every single frame for a 110 minute movie. It is reported the VFX company had 4 months to do all their work when it probably needed 6 months or more based on what was requested.
On the flip side, some movies devote a huge budget to the VFX and do not focus on the writing, plot, casting, etc. So the film looks great but is terrible.
Heat pumps sound great til you get a fat electricity bill in summer when you least expect it.
And this is the major flaw in your arguments. People generally do not run a furnace in the summer to heat a home; the furnace cannot cool a home. A heat pump can cool a home and with global temperatures rising, more people are going to need cooling in the summer.
Why the hell wouldnt they want to sell you more expensive heat pumps?
There is a difference between price and profit. If they get more profit per unit on a model, they are going to push that model even if another has a higher price.
One moment it's sunny,
Isn't the British term for that called "summer"? I hear it is the best day of the year for some people.
Your obviously not in IT or you would know how good Azure is. You want cloud based Active Directory or DNS or Single Sign-On that doesn't suck ass and is secure then you want *Microsoft* Azure and that's just the easy picked services.
As someone who works in IT, I would use Azure only if held at gunpoint. It "works" is the best way I can describe it. The problems our company has personally experienced: Outages. One of the main reasons to move to the cloud is supposed to be 24/7 reliability that we do not have to maintain our own infrastructure. We have experienced wide spread outages that affect all of Azure to routine affecting our own Azure servers. While no cloud is perfect, the reliability is less than stellar.
Azure works best if everything is Microsoft. As soon as there is something non-Microsoft in the mix, it's a pain to use and workarounds have to be found.
The last part of problem is cost. While every cloud provider is not as cheap as every vendor claims, MS seems to have a "throw a dart at a board" cost estimation. Renewing services year to year was only 15% for one service but 3X for another depending on what I can only guess relied on a random number generator and not factors like usage, bandwidth, etc.
"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken
