Memorizing the words is one thing, but as the article mentions it's a lot more strategy involved. Rack management, memorizing the right hooks, knowing when to use the right hooks, closing up the board for your opponent etc.
> What I said then is that what is bad for junior-employee lifestyle is generally good for the firm; the fact that everyone is working too hard means that there’s a lot of lucrative work to do:
> “We recognize that our people are very busy, because business is strong and volumes are at historic levels,” said Nicole Sharp, a spokeswoman for Goldman Sachs. “A year into Covid, people are understandably quite stretched, and that’s why we are listening to their concerns and taking multiple steps to address them.”
How is this relevant at all? Boeing's cuts are being caused by a collapse of its commercial airplane business brought on by the pandemic. SpaceX doesn't compete in commercial aviation at all.
If you're referring to SpaceX winning the launch contract over Boeing, that happened a while ago, and has no connection to the pandemic or this layoff.
Congratulations to SpaceX for their accomplishment today, but it's neither here nor there for the topic of this article.
Boeing's Space branch hasn't been doing well in general. Starliner delays lost them a big PR opportunity, their Delta IV rocket is getting increasingly fewer launches due to Falcon 9 being a serious competitor, and their moon lander proposal lost to much less well established competitors.
Their problems in commercial aviation are undoubtedly worse and the bigger reason for this layoff, but another major division struggling certainly didn't improve Boeing's situation.
To me at least, the GP's comment read more like a shallow aggrandizement of SpaceX, whose successes and failures can stand on their own.
To connect the current layoffs at Boeing to the competition in the commercial space launch industry really seems to be motivated reasoning that focuses on irrelevant minutiae while the whale in the room is the impact of the pandemic.
Which is relevant insofar as Boeing's Starliner was on track to be the first American vehicle to deliver astronauts to the ISS in nearly a decade, but after their pretty bad test flight SpaceX overtook them and are now getting that sweet PR instead.
It's been a bit of a horse race. SpaceX was kind of in the lead for a while but then their capsule's thruster blew up in a ground test which set them back several months. Then Boeing failed their test flight which let SpaceX get back in the lead.
Except Boeing's Starliner so far has cost Nasa almost 2X as much as SpaceX, and is aiming for prices at around 2/3 more per astronaut (55mil SpaceX vs 90mil Boeing).
If it's a horse rase, the plough horse is neck-and-neck with the thoroughbred.
Maybe but we can't tell from this article which should have compared against the $75 Core i3-9100F or maybe the $160 Core i5-9400F, instead of filling their graphs full of unavailable, ancient Intel parts like the 4th-gen core i7 that launched in 2014, and then listing the 2014 MSRP as if that was a relevant point of comparison.
There's a hint as to why they didn't include the i3-9100F in the conclusion section: "Even with this, Intel's ability to provide enough stock of these low-end parts, depending on your location, is questionable as previously mentioned. Case in point: the company never even made it as far as sampling any of the 9th Generation i3 parts for review."
So GN looked at it, the lack of the IGPU basically killed the i3-9100F in premiere pro as did the lower base clock; even compared to the 3100. The i5 parts seem to do better particularly the 9600K (I don't see the 9400F which again would be hampered by the lack of an IGPU).
There are currently a bunch of this articles (and videos) out there.
Other do compare against that CPUs and it's still much better to buy the Ryzen then the Intel ones (at least if you go headless or if you will put one a dedicated GPU anyway).
R3s outcompete i3s, pretty much across the board. They are bested by i5+ for gaming, but not by much. They are competitive with, or beat i5s in productivity.
The top comment on HN for the Anandtech article (at the time of my posting) is about a comparison for a budget machine. They choose an i5-9400, because this includes an iGPU. If you are going for extreme budget, the low-tier Intel chips may win for this reason.
