I’ve replaced at least a dozen. Multiple brands, ranging from rando amazon brands to name brands like CREE and GE.
I’m under the impression at this point that they just do not do well inside can lights. I honestly don’t think the average lifespan is much higher than incandescent in that scenario.
It was hailed for its improvements in stability from the time it was released. My recollection was that it was a massive improvement over 98/ME lineage. It was mostly a wash vs Windows 2000.
Yes, it became more stable with the service packs, but it was a significantly more stable OS out of the gates than anything consumer users had been getting.
Rampant malware was a separate (and very significant) issue.
I was a windows 2k user during that time because win xp was horribly unstable till sp3. It was rock solid after that, finally as good as windows 2k. Though I never liked the Fisher price color scheme.
> My recollection was that it was a massive improvement over 98/ME lineage.
That much is true.
> It was mostly a wash vs Windows 2000.
No, not really. They did some empirical testing at the university I went to and the conclusion was that they kept the Windows boxes on 2k almost until Vista.
My university switched pretty quickly. But I do not know how empirical that decision was. Anecdotally all of my friends made the switch from 2k and were fine with XP. But again, anecdote. Your university apparently found that 2k was meaningfully more stable for them.
Sure, but there were also multiple points in time (even after SP2) when you had to unplug the network to install it, because in a couple minutes of being online or in a large LAN it would get infected during the setup and shutdown. You also needed all updates and a third-party firewall on a CD. Win+R shutdown /a is still in my fingertips after all these years.
No it wasn’t. XP was quite solid in terms of stability, miles beyond its predecessors. You have to remember that its mediate predecessor was Windows ME.
It was also far more secure, but it was still not nearly secure enough.
> ”Upon its release, Windows XP received critical acclaim, noting increased performance and stability (especially compared to Windows Me)…”
Weird that contemporary articles praised its stability then.
> That's one way to say "plagued by a decade of botnets."
No, it’s a way of saying that it introduced real identity-based security isolation to the OS. Prior to this every user had full access to the entire system incisions everyone else’s data who shared the system.
Unfortunately Windows XP was not hardened to the reality of the internet. (Nor were any of its predecessors.)
That’s kind of a weird take. It’s perfectly reasonable that Apple has not attempted to yank all the “NS” references out, but they are absolutely a holdover from NeXTSTEP. That NeXTSTEP no longer exists does not change that.
This is right. Not only are ethics courses required for accreditation, but ethics is built into a number of other courses. It was primarily the design courses, but there was usually at least a module on some kind of ethical failure in whatever system the course was covering, like embedded, enterprise, or whatever.
And that’s ok, I am at the point where I would rather to see typos or grammar errors too than a very well written text, as I know a human put the efforts to write it
That is not how the real world works outside of anti-AI communities. Typos/grammar are seen as unprofessional and are more likely to cause negative sentiment/backlash than overused design.
I’ve seen several of these “slop design” critiques lately. They don’t seem to be coming from people with strong design skills. (Presumably qualified designers have better things to do than critique AI designs. Also they probably know how to get what they want out of the AI instead of accepting what it creates.)
> How can one know if the engineers' proposed "BIG systemic change" is appropriate and complete, without knowing the details of the problem it is addressing?
That’s the trust thing. Maybe the SVP trusts the people in his organization are capable of making the appropriate change without his supervision and what he’s doing is coaching them on how to do an incident postmortem properly.
Of course as you called out, the SVP might already have all the necessary details to do more than that. But simply pushing people in the right direction is a big piece of leadership’s job, at least when they have people they trust.
“Trust” is usually bounded. I trust my elementary aged son to get dressed for school without supervision. That doesn’t mean I trust him to start a campfire without supervision. A chef might trust that their new employee is a hard worker and well intentioned. That doesn’t mean they also trust them to create and serve original dishes.
Here you are recasting “I trust that, despite the bad outcome, everyone’s actions here were reasonable” as “I trust that you are going to solve this fully without my guidance”. The fact that the word “trust” appears in both of these statements does not make them equivalent. Trusting that people are capable and well intentioned does not mean trusting that they will accomplish the same thing without you.
“My made up scenario is definitely more realistic than your made up scenario.”
Who goes shopping for the meal before they even have a number of guests?
reply