The hard drive from my MBP, which is soldered to the motherboard, just died. Will probably be ridiculously expensive to fix.. thinking of getting a razer blade, but i've heard they have quality issues too =\
I also bought the new macbook pro 2016 (15" base), I've been a linux user for 10 years (xUbuntu) and have been liking it quite a lot. The build quality really is spectacular. The speaker are MILES ahead of any laptop speaker I have, my favorite feature of the new MBP. I also have a 2 year old MSI GS60 with a 970m for games. I with they kept the escape key though, the function keys, while used, I can live without. I've had to remap some keys in sublime, which took me a few days to get used to, but that's all. I use VI bindings but have been using CAPS(remapped)+F as escape since forever (I know it's bad, and it sucks when I don't/can't update my vimrc in new servers but it so easy I can't go back).
The dongles I don't care much about, it's a hassle but not that bad. I bought an AUKEY 4 usb hub plus hdmi which takes care of usb and video for work (I only have a 1080p monitor at work so the crappy hdmi is enough).
One thing that does bug me is the soldered on SSD. It's great and really fast but was, IMHO, a horrible design decison. Not being able to pop out the drive of a dead or old computer is rediculous. I actually had an SSD die on me a month ago and lost a week of work I hadn't pushed (I know I'm wrong but it's been so many years since an HDD failure I got sloppy). If this happens with the MBP it'll probably render it unusable or will probably be a VERY expensive repair. Forget about planned obsolescence, this is planned BUTTF*ING, no vaseline. Given that I know one day I'll be royally screwed, now I push to git more often.
Also, I depended on co-workers to build iOS apps, which was the main reason I got an apple, don't think I would have gotten one if apple let me build in linux though just because of the price. Screw xcode.
All in all, is it worth it? Don't know, as a developement machine for work it's great. Speakers, like I said and also touchid are great. Touchbar is only really good for changing volume or brightness with a slider, which I enjoy but is not really worth it. For everything else, as a developer, if I'm looking down at my keyboard or touchbar while programming I consider I'm 'doing it wrong'. Finally, this isn't new to mac developers except for the size but the trackpad is great! I've always hated trackpads and carried my much beloved logitech marathon mouse. For the first time I actually don't feel the need for a mouse. The gestures, palm recognition, etc. is very well sorted out. Occasionally I get some palm rejection problems because of the side of the trackpad but it's rare.
My 2 cents:
- I don't like the logo, it looks like you just picked a font on google fonts
- The whole brand identity seems completely disconnected from 'hardbacon'. It's a strong name, why have it then?
- I don't get it, are you a content site for financial advice? With comparators? What's the business model, referrals?
Don't mean to be a dick, just trying to offer my sincere view. Good luck!
I'm a civil engineer. This is bullshit. Reinforced concrete uses much less concrete because, well, you have rebar to take care of tensile stresses and concrete does well with compression so it's much more efficient, which is basic. Also, and a very important point, reinforced concrete (in general) tends to fail in non-catastrophic ways making it safer to use and easier to spot conceptual errors in the project and building process. Reinforced concrete can also be recycled, the concrete becomes structural blocks (I even worked with these before) and the rebar is steel so thats easily recycleable too. In the end, it's cheap and affordable so you can build much more with reinforced concrete than with concrete reinforced with carbon fiber which would last forever but would cost a fortune (this can also be used to reinforce reinforced concrete...) making housing unaffordable to a large part of the world. Do you also really want to spend that much more to make a project to last 500 years without using reinforced concrete? You know that goes into the equation when engineers project strucures right? Oh well, clickbait.
The point is that longer-lasting structures should be cheaper, but because we don't factor in environmental harm and lifecycle cost into the price of things we end up with cheap buildings that exist to generate ROI ASAP.
As an aside, fiberglass (similar to carbon fiber) is used frequently (but still not much, relative to steel) in many applications. We use it extensively in underground applications.
The problem with fiberglass reinforcement is that it does not undergo ductile failure like steel does. Steel will yield and, in addition, has strain hardening behavior. Fiberglass just fractures and that's that. Extra precautions must be taken when using fiberglass in failure critical members.
Steel and concrete also have similar moduli of thermal expansion. This means that as the temperature fluctuates, there is minimal internal stress owing to the similar strains.
Why not just use straw, instead of carbon fiber, in concrete? Straw is comparable to steel. Chopped straw is used for stucco, but it can be used in reinforced concrete too.
It is hard to calculate amount of straw, which is necessary to reinforce concrete, because it strength varies, but it cheap, so just triple amount of straw.
Straw could probably be used effectively for lightly loaded structures (slabs, bearing walls in nonseismic areas) the same way that fiber is used currently. It is essentially for crack control and provides nominal flexural capacity which is generally hard to quantify but there are some formulas which are accepted.
Using straw for anything that is loaded in flexure will be a disaster. Reinforced concrete theory relies on the reinforcing to act as a crack stopping mechanism which will yield in a ductile manner. Straw's variable strength and inability to place it at critical sections means that it cannot perform the function of reinforcement as it will be possible to encounter localized weak reinforcement which will not prevent cracking and loss of section leading to progressive and sudden failure.
When straw/wood is enclosed in concrete with some lime, it does not rot. I saw video[1] of remains of houses built by German prisoners in Siberia using "soft concrete" - concrete with wood chips (cement bonded particle board, AKA Arbolite, fiber reinforce concrete, Papercrete, etc.). They are looking good after about half of century without any maintenance of houses, even in broken walls without roof.
From my own experience, I saw that wood rots quickly for about 1cm (1/2") when it contacts with concrete or cement stucco, but remains intact when enclosed in cement-lime mix. IMHO, lime is important to save wood/straw from rotting.
People didn't have a different perspective back then. It's just survivorship bias. People built plenty of crappy disposable buildings 116 years ago, you just don't see them because they were crappy disposable buildings built 116 years ago.
Mine is just under 200 years old--also in the eastern US. It would be pretty silly though to view my house as this incredible structure that a farmer built 200 years ago to last for the ages. The fieldstone foundation is original as are various posts and beams. But the house has been expanded, rebuilt, updated, etc. in all manner of ways since it was built.
Interesting! I rather liked the part on closures, neat little hack, I feel the hacky nature makes them produce rather unreadable code (or at least real funky). Lua's closures are really nicely implemented, makes me actually prefer them to classes since in Lua it seems to be the other way around: classes are readable alright but you end up writing a lot of boilerplate code or having to use a library to do OOP.
