They never once mentioned the word Boeing. Every news article about the incident mentions the plane type, but not this skit.
The plane in the green screen backdrop at the terminal isn't even a 737. The side windows on the cockpit of a 737 are lower than the front, on an A320 they're in a straight line like in the skit. I'm pretty sure that's an A320.
Maybe the SNL lawyers were scared of getting sued and vetoed earlier scripts, or maybe they got paid off, or maybe my wife is right and I'm just a skeptic, but that seems suspicious.
On the other hand, the aircraft taking off with a slide deployed is a 737, so maybe they were working mostly with off-the-shelf assets to complete one skit in an entire show of same, and saved the relatively time-consuming animation work for where they had to use it.
Presumably they assumed no one would be paying all that much attention to stuff like an aircraft out a terminal window in the background, which looks nothing much like Boeing or Airbus and would not much surprise me to learn was produced by a diffusion model.
While perhaps a nominal iteration of improvement, cable was this way too. You didn’t have to have the $100 /month service package. There was always the $30 /mo basic cable (no guide box).
The industry simply recycling its business model in new delivery methods is a valid complaint/perception.
Mind boggling that someone can compare the utility to cost ratio of cable/satellite TV requiring contracts and installations to on demand libraries of near unlimited content with instant sign up and cancel abilities on every device.
There is on paper and in practice. Yes, streaming has a ton of content… you still watch a handful of things because there is far more noise than signal.
The noise is far easier to avoid since I have on demand access to exactly what I want to watch when and where I want to watch it. The situation is objectively much better than it was during cable/satellite TV days.
But! With cable, if you didn't buy the upper tier packages, you may have missed out on some great shows/networks (e.g., HBO). And cable companies often use contracts to make downgrading expensive. With streaming services, cancelling after you've binge watch the shows you're interested in comes with no penalty.
> cancelling after you've binge watch the shows you're interested in comes with no penalty.
...for now. We'll certainly see these kinds of shenanigans before too much longer. Take ads. They're creeping in to paid subscriptions now - despite the fact that an allure of online streaming is that you can pay not to see them.
Where there's the possibility of a revenue play, it will happen eventually.
There’s a ceiling on how much pain they can put people through. Too much, and it’s back to piracy. That’s the difference now. Back in the cable days people didn’t have that option.
There's a ceiling but I'm not sure an annual subscription is that. And if a random person feels they have to pirate a random show because they don't care about anything else on a given service, that's in the noise.
I'm pretty sure the percentage of people doing the binge/subscription change dance is pretty small.
The problem with cable was you couldn't have 'basic cable + FX' or 'basic + AMC' it was $30 for lame selection of mostly crap and then $80 - $100 for anything better.
The tech industry's definition of "disruption" has been pretty clearly validated by now as "undercut established players then appropriate their business models with little innovation". Streaming is a change from syndicated programming but introduces its own issues.
Really? Only power users can search on an iPhone and click on a link and go to the TV app or is it only power users who know how to subscribe and cancel a subscription?
And only power users search Google for “Orange is the New Black” and click on “How to Watch”?
Well, there is evidence that you are incorrect seeing both the published growth in streaming services and the decline of the number of people who have cable…
I think Musk drastic method could bring interesting changes to twitter.
But building wechat is not my idea of a better world.
Cashless societies are one step away from diving into dystopian nightmares. And a centralized chat and payment system is just way too much power in one spot for the gov not to abuse it.
I wish I could believe that Microsoft appreciates Excel that much. Excel is one of the most empowering applications ever written and the single greatest thing Microsoft has ever been involved with.
Credit where due, spreadsheet applications were already established AND bundled into suites by the time Microsoft got around to leveraging their market position to make Office the de facto standard. But, yeah, I owe most of my career to making real web apps out of badly designed, hard to use, vile to share, yet somehow better than nothing Excel workbooks. Even with all the modern trappings, and besides specific applications like Photoshop or CATIA, you could probably still run a company on just email and Excel, because people will make Excel do whatever they need, no matter how lumbering the monster becomes.
That undersells the innovation of Excel, which started out as a Macintosh exclusive before being ported to Windows.
It was the first major spreadsheet to be GUI-based from the ground up. It didn’t need Office bundling (which came much later) to dominate, it was by far the superior spreadsheet in the Windows 3.0/3.1 era.
What most techies don't get about Excel is that people wouldn't build their businesses around it if it weren't a really powerful abstraction. Sure, a dev could set up a CRUD app, but then you need a dev, which is far outside the budget of most SMBs. Rather than Excel being the root of all evil, we should view it as the empowerment tool that it really is!
I don't see where is that a problem?
People who will be using Teams are people using Office 365 daily. Having a cohesive ecosystem makes complete sense. From a UX too.
The problem is that Teams is used by companies who have IT departments that do absolutely insane things like DELETE THE CHAT HISTORY AFTER 24 HOURS because of some sort of perverse, contrived "security" issue. These are the morons that Microsoft is selling to, and giving advice to as on how to configure it. So you wind up with a system that's almost worse than not having anything at all. Our Sharepoint installation was so bad, Microsoft was hired to come in and "relaunch" it. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed. Teams isn't necessarily evil, but it's a "code smell" about the corporate IT culture if that's what the company uses.
I'm old enough to remember when Skype was really neat, and it's just another in a long, long line of grievances I'll hold against Microsoft till I die.
Companies love Microsoft because of how many footguns they have available in settings and in group policy configuration. The defaults for so many of the applications are actually remarkably nice, and then it is amazing how many IT departments see the massive list of settings and group policy configurations as a buffet of "security options" rather than a terrifying hall of footguns, because who needs feet or nice things.
> DELETE THE CHAT HISTORY AFTER 24 HOURS because of some sort of perverse, contrived "security" issue.
Seems much more likely to be due to legal reasons than for security. If the chats are not retained, they can't be found in discovery. (And given chat is even more informal than email, people probably say a lot of things they shouldn't in chat).
Look, I fully understand the reason given, and, like government programs, it all sounds nice and looks good on paper, but we are simply NOT in that litigious a business space. And, frankly, simply deleting everything as we go seems like something that public safety laws should PREVENT, but I digress.
Back to the "code smell" of the IT department... For instance, I opened a ticket for my new laptop for something that is not common, but it can be self-selected from the menu of requests to make, so it's not like it's a one-off. After THREE WEEKS of emails and chats and calls with NINE DIFFERENT PEOPLE, I found that we... STARTED COMPLETELY OVER. It would have been nice to be able to look back over the history to name and shame, and point people back to what had already been done, since, apparently whatever ticketing system they use is completely useless.
So when even simple things take a month to do in your company, having, say, 30 days of history is not unreasonable. In fact, it's almost necessary.
That seems like a more reasonable policy if you've ever had your email/chat logs subpoenaed. If that stuff's auto deleted, then it's easier to have open discussions there, but yeah, no history.
For meetings, calls, screensharing, and scheduling it's superior to Slack in every single way. Written experience is worse though. If only Slack spent a month writing a "Schedule a meeting with those people, and add the meeting with a link to everyone's calendar" feature, they would be on par.
One reason Slack maybe doens't, is nobody actually chooses Teams over Slack because of feature set. They choose Teams over Slack because it's "good enough" and included with Office360 which they already have. Meeting Teams feature set may not actually get Slack any more customers at all.
We do use Teams and Slack, Teams for scheduled meetings and Slack for everything else, just because Slack's scheduling is non-existent while something great comes out of the box from Teams (and yes, also because we get it "for free" through O365, and wouldn't be paying for Zoom). We wouldn't have to deal with Teams if Slack upped their game.
It's not a cohesive ecosystem. Office + Zoom + Slack* is way more cohesive than Office + Teams. There are specific complaints, but overall one part of it is just the "tool that does one thing well" vs Frankenstein that tries to do everything idea
*except I can't copy paste images from slack into office documents, this is a major hassle
360 degrees away? Why don't you try this and see how far you get. Look at something now turn a full circle (360 degrees) and start walking, become amazed that whatever you were looking at is now closer.
The joke is that MS brands its online services as "365", but they have enough outages for people to say things along the lines of "more like Microsoft 360, amiright?"
Well, Excel does not come with a complete broken auth. MS posts stats of how horrible the Internet sec is and it is just that you mostly can't even use the service without going into auth hell.
Ok, if you get into Harvard, go to Harvard. Your opportunities in the long run should outweigh any sort of student loans you have to pay back. If you're going to NoName Private College that's 90% of the cost of Harvard, go to state school instead.
And apply to scholarships. Lots and lots of scholarships.
JavaScript is a dynamically-typed language. Parallelizing the type checking with bundling gives you the best of both worlds: the speed when writing in a dynamic language and the type safety that comes with a static-typed language. For me, I like to write my code and not too concern myself with types until I’m close to committing; that’s when I fix type errors.
> I like to write my code and not too concern myself with types until I’m close to committing
I'm genuinely curious here. How do you ensure contract correctness? The whole point of static typing (or rather explicit typing) is to declare and enforce certain contract constraints prior to writing [client] code, which prevents certain bugs.
What's the point of using type-safe language if you deliberately circumvent type safety? If you "fix type errors" by declaring things to be strings you do not get much more type safety from TS than plain JS.
This is a good question. I had a hard time drawing a line between perfect type contracts and dealing with JavaScript's idiosyncrasies. There is a lot of behavior in JS that is very hard to produce strong, reliable types for. If someone overwrites a prototype somewhere, your types are probably incorrect no matter what you do. Add in the fact that TS types can't really be accessed at runtime (mostly) and it makes type guarantees even harder to enforce with 100% accuracy.
It helps to think of TS types as a guarantee of behavior and an encoding of intention, and of TS itself as a really smart linter. As long as you use my function according to these types, it'll behave as expected. If it doesn't, that's my problem and I'll fix it. If I say my function returns a string, you can use my function's return types as a string with the confidence that that's how I expected it to be used. TS will make sure that everything agrees with my type assertion, which removes the need for checking the types of parameters in tests, for example.
That “sink or float” metaphor was clumsily written and reminded me of someone wanting to convey something important, but didn’t know how or what to say. I’ve only watched one episode, but that episode was not good.
In contrast House of the Dragon is better written, equally gorgeous, and is far more interesting. At least it is 3 episodes in compared to the 1 RoP I’ve seen.
I watched the first episode of House of Dragons passively in the background while doing work, but it kept catching my attention. I watched it again in the background, and other parts of it kept catching my attention.
By episode three, it had my devoted attention. This is definitely a great show.
I would suggest watching the second episode. It gets better. I think the first two episodes should have just been one long episode. The first felt like it didn't go anywhere, and then the second pulled it together.
fwiw, to convey that not everyone on either side is a bot, i can barely get through an episode of HOTD despite it's visual appeal while i wasn't even tempted to look at my phone during ROP.
HOTD, to me, lacks even one compelling, relatable, or likable character and has a boring story that feels as though is lacks any weight.
maybe it's because i just rewatched all of GOT thrones though and it's been a few years since i watched any of the Peter Jackson films. (and even longer since i read the books from both authors)
Thank you for this comment, as a non smoker, not fat person, this is probably the most helpful comment of the week ! I made a [Ask HN] post [1], to solicit further tips.
Yes, LaMDA is not sentient. But this begs the question: as these models become more sophisticated, and we did end up creating a sentient AI, how would we know?
