Pretty similar to how a lot of people in IT are using it:
- Generating boilerplate code for a process - saving time and then just customizing basic code after feeding it an idea and some basic requirements
- Troubleshooting - especially on systems I'm not familiar with - this often gets me 95% of the way to a solution. Obviously not just copying & pasting scripts it spits out, but it's been very good at figuring out some obscure linux issues, oracle config issues, even 3rd party integration software.
- Meal prepping - give it a list of ingredients and preferences and have it spit out a plan on how to portion it out, make each different meal roughly equal nutrition-wise, plan out when and how to cook each piece on a day to make it the most efficient, and even generate a shopping list. Output it into a nice table and the hardest part is done.
To everyone saying GCP will be gone - it generates over $8 billion in revenue per year and $400 million in profit. There's no chance they kill it any time soon.
Yes it posted heavy losses in the past, but any major infrastructure does, and obviously there is a major amount of potential - and they have around 10% of the total cloud market share, not insignificant by any means.
One correction. It's not $8B per year, it's $8.4B in the last quarter--which is over $32B annualized, especially considering the last quarter's revenue grew over 20% from the same time last year. GCP's profit margins are low (for now) but positive. [1]
Moreover, per its filings, Google had almost $65B of contracted backlog representing customer commitments for future purchases (over multiple years), primarily related to Google Cloud. That is not to say those can't ever be unwound or delayed, but it's a pretty meaningful amount, even to a company the size of Google. [2]
> Ratings Downgrade: The rating downgrade of the United States reflects the expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years, a high and growing general government debt burden, and the erosion of governance relative to 'AA' and 'AAA' rated peers over the last two decades that has manifested in repeated debt limit standoffs and last-minute resolutions.
Yes, but there are two other reasons before that (projected fiscal deterioration, high debt burden). So it's in the list of reasons but, not at the "very top".
A high and growing debt burden on the US government has been true for decades, that hasn't changed, what seems to have more impact is exactly the erosion of governance. The constant stand-offs holding the budget hostage isn't a thing that happens with other AAA-rated governments, it's pretty unique to the USA and has been happening constantly for the past decade+.
I believe what the other comments mentioning "at the very top" mean is that it's there on the by-line, not buried somewhere else in the report. To me it makes sense to call it "at the very top".
Homelessness isn't just caused by someone not having a home. There is a massive overlap of mental illness and substance abuse/addiction.
Just giving a homeless person a house will not solve the underlying problems that caused them to be homeless in the first place. There needs to be movement on multiple fronts - mental health, physical health, rehab, job training, personal finance, etc.
If the solution was easy, someone would have done it. The uncomfortable truth is when you have someone who is addicted to heroin or fentanyl or meth who isn't really participating in society like everyone else..sometimes there's not much you can do for them. Overcoming addiction is incredibly challenging even for people with means and support systems. Without those, sadly the numbers are abysmal.
There's a compelling argument [0] that the biggest driver of homelessness is a shortage of housing. Mental illness and addiction can lead to homelessness, but homelessness can also lead to mental illness and addition. There are lots of places suffering severely from the fentanyl crisis, but where homelessness is less of a problem.
The solution may be simple, but it's not easy. (And it's not the entire solution either) Building large quantities of housing is a difficult problem, especially in California.
15% of the homeless in SF have a traumatic brain injury. That statistic means almost 1 in 5 right off the top need long term medical care. "Mere housing" won't do jack for those people.
Even more have mental health issues. Some have physical health issues. The number of homeless who are perfectly healthy and just need housing is vanishingly small--those homeless are generally hiding from someone and won't want to be part of a tracked program.
We know what needs to be done: long term healthcare that needs lots of money.
We know what happened in the past: those facilities were horror shows because of underfunding.
We know what the "solutions" were in the past: shut the facility down and throw those people out onto the streets and let the prision system deal with them.
The starting point for solving homelessness is universal healthcare. Nothing less. Without universal healthcare, everything else to "solve" homelessness is just rearranging the deck chairs.
If it was just a matter of house prices, why isn't California's homelessness solved by cheaper homes in Fresno or other parts of the state? I can't help but feel there's more to it than cheaper housing.
Strangely that's not what Finland[0] has found to be the case. By using a housing first approach they've been able to severely decrease the number of homeless people.
You are absolutely correct that other interdictions are needed as well.
I think the fallacy you're making is assuming all homeless have the same problems. There are definitely some homeless or near-homeless people where having a safe place to sleep, shower, and store their belongings will allow them to hold a job long enough to get back on their feet. There are others that need serious rehab. There are others that need mental health counseling. There are others that will never be able to care for themselves and need to be put in a care home.
So really there is no one-size-fits all solution. Individual treatment is needed, and early intervention always has the best outcomes.
edit: for the record I think this limit is stupid and the biggest flaw of the Air. You're right that other than that, it's a damn near perfect daily driver.
I couldn't agree more - I was shocked when I discovered the Air can't natively drive two displays, even with many docks. The only real solution are things like that kensington dock's display-over-USB hack which is not as reliable as a native monitor connection in my experience, and requires additional driver software on your OS :(
I just took it for-granted that every laptop in this price range on sale today will by and large be able to drive two external displays, but nope!
I ended up using a "double wide"/32:9 style monitor - the Samsung CRG9 - these 32:9 panels can be had in 5120 x 1440 resolution, which is exactly the size and res of two 27 inch 1440p panels side by side but in a single display. Works great on the Air, although its not a super cheap option.
Which comes with drawbacks. Video is sent out compressed over USB protocol which requires CPU cycles, more resolution + moving images = more CPU grunt required. Plus there is the risk some update will break the driver making your dock useless.
I think you're right, but the irony is the segmentation isn't working - in my experience no customer notices this drawback on the Air until after they've bought it. Everyone (quite rightly) assumes a 1000 dollar+ laptop will probably drive two displays in a pinch.
I don't know anyone who went "Ah! only one monitor support!? I better move up the range to get that 2nd display support..." etc. You would really need to get into the weeds on the spec sheets to notice ahead of purchase.
I actually find many more people doing the opposite - choosing to move "down range" to the Air for the form factor, given it still has a great CPU. These power users who choose based on the great form factor get hurt the worst on this.
The M2 MBP also can only drive 1 external display. The M2 Pro and M2 Max variants can drive more. Apple only put two display controllers in the M1/M2 chips which is why they support so few monitors.
It's still for market segmentation but there is a hardware reason.
We're allegedly going to see this in 2H '23. The 2 CU iGPU performance is about half of a 5600/5700g, so if we see an 8-12 CU model...it could completely replace the low-mid market for gpus.
Do you expect it to scale that well? If it were linear it would reach something like a RX 570, but isn't it more likely it will just be a bit better than the graphics of the 5700G? So probably not even beating a GTX 1050?
It's movable of course, but this is still a downgrade from win10. My biggest peeve is that there seems to be no option anymore to not-condense icons, and you can't change the notification color (when an app flashes its icon).
I miss notifications on my work computer all the time because the flash color just doesn't stand out very much with my dark theme, and I can't even expand the width because...well it feels like they released an unfinished and unpolished product, again.
I hate that there's trade-offs that shouldn't need to exist with every new version.
Meanwhile my mac I don't think has ever lost functionality or customizability in the last..8ish years I've been using it as my daily driver.
edit: caveat...this is a work computer and obviously has group policies/etc that might affect things. I will correct this post if I'm wrong :)
Agreed - especially if I'm remoted into a box and not necessarily running a full-resolution screen. Bad UI design is magnified when you're at 1024x768.
I find it somewhat ironic given current GNOME that when I was choosing between GNOME 2 or KDE 3 back in the day, GNOME 2 won as bits wouldn't float off my screen...
It just doesn't make sense though for that reason. You can't sneak up on an engine. There's not a single engine out there that wouldn't recognize a mate in 2 moves. Unless the opponent blunders (which actually might be forced if the best defensive move is blocked).
It just seems like you're changing the objective of the game entirely to the point where it's only slightly related to chess.
- Generating boilerplate code for a process - saving time and then just customizing basic code after feeding it an idea and some basic requirements
- Troubleshooting - especially on systems I'm not familiar with - this often gets me 95% of the way to a solution. Obviously not just copying & pasting scripts it spits out, but it's been very good at figuring out some obscure linux issues, oracle config issues, even 3rd party integration software.
- Meal prepping - give it a list of ingredients and preferences and have it spit out a plan on how to portion it out, make each different meal roughly equal nutrition-wise, plan out when and how to cook each piece on a day to make it the most efficient, and even generate a shopping list. Output it into a nice table and the hardest part is done.