1STnTENDERBITS

anton zuykov said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

That is a terribly written admonition on the back of that card.  It reads as if the Apple gift card won't cover sales taxes on purchases.  There's no context for a person to think it's related to the prevention of an IRS scam.   I seriously doubt anyone making it that far into being scammed is going to be deterred by a warning reads like that.  It would almost be less confusing to have nothing at all.

I agree. If a person is stupid enough not to know how IRS works, that label in red will do NOTHING to fix that.. (and it should not)

Yeah, I think you may have missed the intent of my comment.  It's not meant as an insult to anyone.  It's a criticism of how the warning is written.  The sentence is awkward and it lacks any context regarding IRS scams.  

Stupidity really has nothing to do with this.  I think ignorance may have been the world you were looking to use (I hope).  Being ignorant of a scam is not an indication of stupidity.  

That is a terribly written admonition on the back of that card.  It reads as if the Apple gift card won't cover sales taxes on purchases.  There's no context for a person to think it's related to the prevention of an IRS scam.   I seriously doubt anyone making it that far into being scammed is going to be deterred by a warning reads like that.  It would almost be less confusing to have nothing at all.

coolfactor said:

emoeller said:

dysamoria said:

What’s the availability of GaN?

Gallium is an elemental metal with a uniquely high melting point (its solid usually but the heat of your hands can turn it to liquid).  It does not form natural deposits but rather comes as a byproduct from Bauxite (Aluminum), zinc and coal mining.   USGS estimates there is over 1MM tons of Gallium in known deposits and pricing is between $150 and $300/ Kg.  

As a geologist there are some inconsistencies in these numbers, such as not all bauxite has recoverable Gallium and because of its unique low melting nature it cannot be uniquely certified as to quality like a gold bar for example (its difficult to trace and susceptible in electronics to contamination).

GaN works in some electrical applications, such as the chargers note,  but it would be difficult to scale as chip sets (about 10 years ago Ga Arsenides were contenders to supplant silicon).   There are some really exciting programs looking at high temp superconductors, light based chipsets and quantum effects that will most likely be the best candidate to take over silicon in the future.

High or low melting point? Did you contradict yourself between the first and second paragraphs?

... the heat of your hands can turn it to liquid.,,   Contextually, I'd say low.  'High' was most likely an error.  

andrewj5790 said:

Though the actual survey was conducted by a third party, not Jamf itself, according to 9to5Mac. Which keeps it from being directly biased by Jamf. 

That's an incorrect conclusion.  Jamf commissioned a survey that shines a positive light on products that directly affect their financial prosperity.  Of course the survey is biased.  It's meant to be biased.  It's a marketing piece for Jamf.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Jamf isn't claiming scientific facts or impartiality with the survey.  They're simply trying to reinforce the positive associations the Mac users they surveyed already have with their choice of Macs as computers.  The survey was always going to be positive because that's what it was designed to be... a positive marketing tool.  It's a smart, proven, and dead simple technique that is used all the time.  

The problem occurs when forum type people try to pin more meaning to the survey.   "Jamf sucks.  They're just trying to trick you into buying machines that they support."  No they don't, and no they aren't.  On the other side of that coin: "This proves that Macs are better than PC's and anyone that says differently is just a hater"  No it does not, and no they aren't.  ← That's just dummies spouting dumb stuff.  

The survey is just effective marketing.  Nothing more.
 

radarthekat said:

Tough to normalize these surveys as stock price and other issues come into play.  It’s hard to imagine a CEO actually wavers so drastically in his/her management and employee relationships as to make the swings in these surveys accurate.  And that should tell you a lot about any given ranking along the way.  

I guess it’s like Buffett says, popularity contest in the short term (voting machine), weighing machine in the long term.  Better ways to measure the character of a person than anonymous surveys.  

The swings in the survey aren't actually tied to the CEO's performance relative to the employee's assessment of the job they are doing.  The swings are entirely determined by by the score of the individual vs the score of the entire list.  Here's an easy example:
Let's say a CEO is on the list for 10 consecutive years.  Each one of those years he has received the exact same score, a 95.  The CEO's ranking during that 10 year timeframe was 4th, 15th,  23rd, 8th, 33rd, 19th, 52nd, 6th, 40th, and in year 10 he was ranked 11th.  Even with the exact same 95 score, the giant swings still occurred because in each of those years the number of CEO's with better scores changed.  The first year 3 CEO's had a better score.  The second year 14 had a better score.  In the third year, 22, and so on for every year.

Tim Cook received a 92 this year and ranked 69th.  Next year he could receive a 94 and still have a lower ranking than this year if 69 other CEO's have a higher score.

There are no insights to be gained by trying to analyze the swings.  They are what they are.  Governed by 'relativity'.

The only insight to take away from the survey is a group of 100 CEO's are, by and large, liked by their employees.  Any hot take beyond that is suspect.