Cavium is actively competing with Intel, offering ARM for the server space. You can rent cavium CPUs from http://Packet.Net for a lot cheaper than Intel
Qualcomm's server unit demise has more to do with management than tech - Cavium built it's processors with fewer dollars than Qualcomm.
It'd be nice if Apple's iOS JavaScript core reached parity with W3C features supported on other platforms and browsers. Notable emissions are RTC data channel, WebGl2, WebAudio, iffy PWA support ...
All that speed won't allow a developer to circumvent the app store for features pedestrian in other browsers and platforms
Apple, as always, is so full of shit when it comes to privacy.
"Don't buy Android phones if you don't want big brother type surveillance from Google, buy Apple for China-esque social scoring surveillance. Oh, and we have no use for this score expect fraud prevention, trust us"
Trial by social media apparently overrules the opinion of the actual justice system. The courts acquitted the author of the essay, but the editor paid the price for publishing it. Not only has the messenger been shot, the credibility of an old media house has decreased. Ironically, the news is published on NYT - an org that had the guts to ignore social media lynch mobs while hiring Sarah Jeong. The editor of the New York Review of Books is much less visible and controversial - pity that this happened. Must've been an easy target for a trigger happy boss.
The big question is "what impact does it have on the bottom line"?
If the react native app is sufficient for it's intended audience, then learning dart/flutter, or 2 native platforms is academic at best, as it's unlikely to sway revenues.
Maybe certain use cases can never be handled in react native, but for most, it's sufficient to not impact revenues.
At the end of the day, the user doesn't care about your programming stack, only results, and react native has been deployed at scale by large corps to demonstrate viability for most, if not all cases
Depends - it's defined as "offering nothing challenging". Creating content for others to read online has become as essential as being able to write with pen on paper. So in a sense, a CMS that isn't challenging for the average Joe is indeed better off being 'vapid'
The Oxford definition is a bit more specific: "offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging; bland". It doesn't really mean effortless or intuitive, more like the simple in simpleton. (The origin is apparently from vapour and was used to describe stale wine. [1])
Vapid, to me, is like an agressive ignorance or boredom. Someone uninteresting and yet proud of their 'basic-ness'. Someone concerned with the valueless superficial representation over the real article.
A stock goes up when someone buys it and down when someone sells it. Valuations based on financial numbers work only if decisions to buy or sell are also based on that framework. In this case people are buying based on the felling that this is "the next big thing" without looking at the numbers. So, since people keep buying, the stock keeps going up. They will get slaughtered, but it will take time.
There are not many shares available (mostly locked up by insiders) and the whole sector is the new bitcoin for retail traders. Call it the Robinhood effect. It's going to be ugly when it pops.
There are a bunch of weed stocks with these same types of numbers. See weed.to and Aurora Cannibis. It's mostly speculation as to what the market might become. Like a startup forecasting numbers tends to be worth more than one that is actually in the market.
"Market cap" = #traded shares X share price. It does not reflect any real value short term, only the greed/fear state, or where we're at on hype cycle etc.
This law is nothing new to digital advertisers. The New York Times is also forbidden by law to advertise job or housing ads that discriminate against protected classes in its classifieds page, and this has been an uncontroversial state of affairs for decades. Facebook is being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else.
> What next? Hold AT&T culpable for providing internet to these advertisers?
If AT&T is otherwise interacting with the content (e.g. throttling or zero-rating based on it being an ad), I don't see a problem with that.
Traditionally, common carriers were protected under the premise that they didn't discriminate based on content. In this respect, I think internet carriers are putting themselves in a precarious position in not supporting net neutrality.
Once a carrier shows that it can (and does) discriminate content, what makes it different from a publisher like a newspaper?
Merit is more probabilistic when socioeconomic factors depress performance.
You'll have a few outliers who kill it in secondary/middle/high school, but for the most part, people who are less well-to-do perform less effectively, and there's more and more research pointing to the likelihood that survival pressures negatively affect academic performance. Maybe not alone, but they're likely connected. (Edit: tylerho references this here—https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18018383)
"Hey why is your school almost 100% white when they are only 40% of the city's population? Why are they no black people? Implement a merit based system, of the color-blind variety!"
result
"Hey, your school still has no black people and its 70% asian!" Asian population represents 10% of NYC.
Always an entertaining case study.
Nice to see some studies into possibly more inclusive and holistic solutions
> Why is financial aid tied to family income? Why isn't it granted in order of merit?
I grew up dirt poor. By the time I was in high school I had figured out I needed to do honors classes etc, but kids in families with resources started doing those classes in 7th or 8th grade. A doctor or lawyer understands the value of education for their 12 year old far more than a janitor. Many schools weigh GPAs more heavily for those in honors classes, so even if you're on even footing intellectually, you can't catch up. In other words, we're talking about the merit of the parents' involvement, not the merit of the student.
Now if we can redefine merit to be a raw IQ test at age 16, I'm all for it.
> Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt
Family income probably also speaks to how much they could contribute to the education cost. While in high school they likely had nicer cars and clothes and phones than the kid whose family made $30k.
No - this isn't equal opportunity, it's equal outcome. The outcome mandated is college admission.
True equal opportunity would grant aid on a merit system. Unless your argument is that familial wealth impacts merit, which I'd like to see evidence of, it's the fairer way to administer aid.
> Unless your argument is that familial wealth impacts merit, which I'd like to see evidence of, it's the fairer way to administer aid.
There's just assloads of studies showing high correlations between familial wealth and pretty much every measure of academic success we have ("merit", in your parlance).
I mean just searching "wealth impact test scores" on Google returns like 20 results that'll give you the evidence you're looking for.
Correlations don’t mean anything; maybe merit => wealth, in which case the parent poster would still be correct. You have to show a change in wealth causes a change in merit, with all else constant (which happens to be true; see my other comment).
Ah, so you routinely do not hire the best candidate for a job at your company? Mind you, "Best" doesn't necessarily mean code-ninja, just the overall best-fit (behavioral, experience, academic, ...) - you know what we all call "merit".
Or are you saying your definition of "best" includes familial fiances of the applicant? Why doesn't https://www.headlightlabs.com/ include applicant's finances as a parameter?
It seems like you're more interested in arguing semantics and defending your viewpoint than having an actual discussion, so I'll leave you to it.
Definitely feel free to point me to the studies showing familial wealth has no effect on whatever "merit" might mean to you, though. I've shown you how to find plenty to the contrary.
Poorer people are “dumber” because they presumably have to devote more background compute to e.g. figuring how how to pay rent: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13830
"merit" as measured by something like an SAT score has pretty obvious ties to factors that are controlled by or at least correlated with family wealth, such as informal and formal extracurricular instruction, how much your parents read to you, which registers of English you are exposed to as a child (affecting, at least, vocabulary), whether you have a safe and quiet space in which to study, whether you need to work as a teen to support your family, whether you ever went hungry (yes, this happens, and in astonishing rates even in America), etc., etc. Even the kind of English you speak can cause educational issues if it differs enough from the variety that is used in schools[1]:
"[L]anguage variation may increase the cognitive load on students who speak AAE and thereby affect their understanding of and the speed with which they work through STEM texts. They examined the relationship between the linguistic complexity of math word problems and success in carrying out the computation for 75 African American second graders. They found a statistically significant effect for possessive –s (e.g., ‘my mama house’ vs. ‘my mama’s house’) and 3rd singular –s (‘He eat a lot’ vs. ‘He eats a lot’) on the students’ math performance: for students who were highly affected by linguistic differences, about 15% of them would have answered 94 more questions correctly (about 9% of the total) if these linguistic features had been removed. Terry et al. suggest that some AAE-speaking students face an added cognitive load on their working memory when they read and process math word problems, due to language variation – and time spent ‘translating’ while taking standardized tests is time lost."
How does it equalize opportunity? 130K a year with a family is solidly middle class, maybe even on the lower end in some communities. They are likely not going to be paying for tuition, meaning it will get punted as student debt. This is punishment for children who were so absurd as to have two working parents more than 'equalizing'.
In case your argument was not about a hard treshold (which isn't the case as pointed out in this thread.) :
How do you define merit?
A family with a higher income are in a better position to leverage their means into a better education and conductive environment. From a systems point of view, you want to balance this out by boosting families or persons of lower means to equalize the opportunity to actually engage in the meritocracy. Subsidizing purely on test scores or similar tends to favor families that already have a high income.
>Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt...
I live in the Rice U neighborhood. (Museum District). I'm very familiar with Rice. Believe me, if your hypothetical student really were the "most meritorious" student at Rice University, she would already have a full ride scholarship.
And if your "most meritorious" student at Rice University does NOT have a full ride scholarship, then she is not the "most meritorious" student at Rice.
The types of financial programs in question are for students who are qualified enough to get into Rice, but whose families are not well resourced enough to pay for Rice. These sorts of programs are laudable, and they are exactly what we need to be doing. There are "country bumpkins" from Angleton and Nacogdoches who are as ready to enter Rice as the sheltered kids behind the gates down Sunset in Houston. It's a GOOD thing that Rice is affording those less privileged children that opportunity.
What happens after Rice? Is everyone graduating equal, or do we need to apply the "privileged children" label to some?
What is your recommendation to companies that go to Rice for hiring? Hire the best - whatever their objective definition of best is (which I presume doesn't have a privilege filter)?
The object here is to get talented people an education. What they do with that education is their decision. The owners of your hypothetical company can do whatever they please with the educations they have obtained over the course of their lifetimes. And the students, who now have an opportunity at a cost free education, can similarly do whatever they please with the educations they obtained.
It's called freedom. Take all the educations we've been providing and go out and enjoy all the freedoms you have.
Maybe I'm not understanding your view correctly? What, exactly, is the problem with allowing poor or middle class students into Rice at a reduced rate? (Or even free in most cases)?
What is your recommendation to companies that go to Rice for hiring?
If it's for CS, don't bother. The kids're mainly set on FANG and while they're somewhat skilled the ones that show up at fairs are pretty milquetoast.
If you want the smart ones who aren't risk-averse, look at who's drinking at Valhalla. Also, look for graduates of Wong's 410/415 sequence if it's still offered.
If it's for CS... get an Uber or Lyft from Rice University to Hobby Airport and get on a plane to San Fran so you can go interview the Stanford grads instead. Those guys are second to none.
It's more that, as a hiring fair thing, you're gonna be running up against the folks that are looking for enterprisey (say, Schlumberger) or FANG jobs. The culture there isn't one that is super startup-friendly.
FTA, first sentence: <quote>Rice University is "dramatically expanding" its financial aid offerings, promising full scholarships to undergrads whose families have incomes under $130,000.</quote>
One thing that I think is sorely missed in these calculations including the FAFSA is length of time the income has been made. There is a huge difference between a family with an 18 year old that has been making 130K+ for the majority of the child's life and the scenario where a parent made it to supervisor after X amount of time with their company putting them to 130K+ in the last year(s). Both look the same in a snapshot.
Qualcomm's server unit demise has more to do with management than tech - Cavium built it's processors with fewer dollars than Qualcomm.