First, you should find out exactly what is happening. Coroborate what he is saying.

Assuming things are as you say, fist thing is to teach fear management. Do light fear training. Nothing extreme, ideally something tailored to his psyche. Without this nothing is gonna work.

Then, teach him crowd control. I'm not joking. There is science on how to deal with a crowd. You don't need to explain advantages of Android, but how to use them to stand up to those kids.

Both of these skills are universally useful, and will help him in life almost guaranteed.

The general problem with starting with desired result and working towards the implementation is that there is no guarantee you will find solution.

Not all desired results are feasible or possible even.

Maybe people simply have different spending habits. Personally I try to stay away from "pay as you go" businesses. Moreover, I try to pay for the year upfront if I can help it.

Purely psycologicaly I think it's an attempt to take control of your future, you know? Reducing uncertainty is more valuable then many things... "The best way to predict the future is to make it" and all that.

Like, if I'm not sure whether I'll need it and how much of it I'll need, there is something wrong and I'm not gonna buy it at all.

First, everything is a tradeoff. Do not expect to have a cake and eat it too.

Secondly, thiese are indeed two different levels. A database that serves as a single source of truth can be implemented as an entire cluster of serves with no single point of failure.. At least in theory ;)

You need to check for empty files

find ... \! -empty ...

they have the same hash, but they do not need to be treated as duplicate

one way to understand how to break things is to first build a couple

when you build things you can understand the trade-offs people have to make which gives you an intuition for weak spots

This is what I tell everyone interested in becoming a pentester. Know your enemy.

You are not wrong, but All Economics is like this.

A "law" in Economics is supposed to work over infinite amount of time, over infinite amount of participants and so on. Technically they are not laws, but idealised long time trends.

Obviously they do not work exactly in real world, but that doesn't mean one should dismiss them entirely.

Apple due to it's market positioning has to put the most powerful cpu available. They weren't able to cool it though, so it was constantly throttled down, which is inefficient because you have to pay for the whole thing while you can only use 70% of it.

Now they put weaker chip but it can be utilized to its full capacity, so essentially at the cost of capital expenses, they significantly cut per laptop expenditure. Also internalizing more r&d helps with taxes.

I don't know whether potential instructions set optimization will yield that much, because Mac needs aren't really different; maybe they will focus on battery life more then other laptop manufacturers, which they historically did, who knows.

Face it, software is judged by amount of recent commits. You can't have lots of commits if you build right from the getgo. Therefore "software built to last" is doomed for obscurity.