Yeah. Did the author actually go to these stores? I grew up in the 80's and 90's, went often, and did not have any of these experiences. Generally didn't have any conversations beyond checking out (and arguing about rewind fees)
I understand this is just subjective with a sample size of 1.
Anyone else find the same, or was it some kind of great movies social hub?
I had a similar situation 2 years ago. Correct these tools could not do those things, but people still used them for it. As well as diagnosing their dogs with cancer and whatever else.
Wow. Yeah. That's unreadable - my frustration and annoyance levels got high fast, had to close the page before I went for the power button on my machine :)
Been working to write books for a while now using LLMs. Wasn't very good until recently- the newer models with the larger context windows are pretty good at it, and Cline is amazing (and not just for coding!)
As many have said, don't treat them as side projects. They were apps or products you were working on - if they were at all "real" (e.g., had users or customers) than it was a startup you were trying to get off the ground (a lot of startups are bootstrapped that way).
I've done a lot of this in the past - I built a platform and apps for consumer-focused location aware in the early 2000's, and another app that ended up with around 12 million users.
When I interviewed at Microsoft Research, we barely talked about my "day job" (fairly straightforward C#/.NET enterprise stuff). They ended up focusing on the side stuff - because it was just me doing the design/architecture/coding/company, it was innovative, it was interesting - and I was super passionate about it.
Uhhhh.... holy crap, sorry... but what is the author smoking? I started out with PC's in the early 80's. They were HARD to use (granted, as a pre-teen, I fell in love right away - but I was already a nerd). They were not intuitive. They didn't do very much. They generally sucked for most people, unless they were using a word processor (and even those were tough for some people)
Today, everyone can use one. They are very powerful, do a lot of things, and are comparatively simple to use - I mean, my MOM can use the damn things, which she never could have done in the 80's and 90's. And with very little support for me!
+1, around half of the things the author mentions seems like a pure nostalgia.
Some of the points contradict with each other - he praises having independent OSes (and read-only disks) in one point, and then he wishes for settings to be consistent through OSes.
Also, some of the things he mentions already exist in MacOS, which is weird because he uses an old MacOS as an example. For example one application-one file is still true - most apps are packages, and you can have multiple versions of each app on the same MacOS, and it doesn't matter where you run them from.
Sure, the settings are stored in separate directories, but this was also a conscious decision. In the times of DOS, you had your user files and folders scattered everywhere, and now it's in your home folder.
He also postulates for an abandonment of linking ("each object representing a file, not a link to a file") - that's actually quite interesting. I think it would go badly quick, but a nice idea.
Ah, and finally - no auto updates. Sorry, but if we have persistent internet, we need auto-updates for security reasons. I absolutely hate it at times (especially on Windows), but it's a necessity to keep the security :/
+1 also, I too came through that period, and it was a tricky time, but it was an exciting time as there were many different kinds of computers, and every advance was exciting, knowledge was hard to come by and we heavily relied on books and magazines and other people to find out things. If you went from one computer system to another, was only a slim chance you could do anything unless you had a manual or something to refer to.
For example, what if we assume for a moment that this makes sense from a crime-fighting perspective. That is, the marginal value of future-crime prevented by withholding the cryptocurrency is greater than the value of the crime-fighting that could be financed if it were auctioned off.
If true, it would also follow that the DoJ should be buying cryptocurrency on the open market to keep it idle, at least until its price rises such that an equilibrium is reached, where "withhold-from-stream-of-commerce-value" and "spend-on-crime-fighting-value" become roughly equal.
I understand this is just subjective with a sample size of 1.
Anyone else find the same, or was it some kind of great movies social hub?
reply