JustSomeGuy1

leighr said:

It probably should be called “pregnant woman dressed as a man” (which is effectively male misappropriation) as we all know that it is scientifically impossible for a male to become pregnant.

twlatl said:

There is nothing logical about a pregnant man. Nice attempt to write thousands of words to legitimize it, but a pregnant man emoji is as useful as a emoji of a fish riding a bicycle. Both are pure fantasy. 

DuhSesame said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

DuhSesame said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

The server market is really distinct from the workstation market. And why do you think TR isn't selling well?

But again, I say it's not relevant, because we're not talking about some random risk-averse IT manager, or the tech team at Amazon's EC division. We're talking about Apple, which is supposed to have some vision, and to "skate where the puck is going to be, not where it is". The puck was obviously headed towards AMD in 2019.

“Vision”, okay…I’m sure they have planned to switch way back then, well scheduled during or even before the current design.  Whatever this product is marketing at, it should primarily cover this transition period first, not fighting spec wars.  28-core is enough for couple of years, may not be the best, but does the job, and way more reliable.

That’s the other issue, as you want a serious production system to work 100% all the time, where IIRC Zen 2 does tend to glitch if someone maxed out their PCIe lanes.  This is why there’s now a TR Pro to cover this segment.

You keep claiming that Zen 2 had reliability problems. Source?

But not relevant anyway, as you seem to be saying this about the desktop chip. That's not what we're talking about! The chip in the Mac Pro is a Xeon, providing >40 PCIe lanes and 6 channels of DRAM. If they'd used a Zen 2 chip, it would have been the EPYC, in order to provide as many PCIe lanes (or more, EPYC has 128 PCIe4 lanes), and 8 channels of DRAM. The desktop chip would have been a nonstarter at two DRAM channels, nevermind the smaller PCIe config.

I think everyone’s favorite Techtubers (LTT) did an episode on this.  I’m just too lazy to find it.  And I doubt Apple is interested in full-blown Server chips.

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

red oak said:

crowley said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

Apple tends to fight all the fights it thinks it has a chance of winning. The fact that it didn't fight here is suggestive, though clearly not conclusive.

But beyond that... I seriously can't believe how much sh*t so many of you are full of.

I don't know this woman and I have no idea whether her complaint had any merit or not. But for you all to insist that she make a grand sacrifice for others to demonstrate her honesty is risible. How many of you would have the courage to do that? A bunch of cowardly internet commenters hiding behind anonymity and outrage. (And yes I'm entirely aware that this applies to me too, in this case. Not happy about the company I'm keeping at the moment, but whatever.)

You don't know what her life is. Maybe she is a grifter. Or maybe she's a single mom who thinks it's more important to feed her kid. I honestly don't care enough to find out, but I'm not going to judge her when I'm that lazy. I *do* judge the lot of you however. A pathetic crowd so panicked at the possible loss of their male privilege that they are willing to spend their time commenting on a nothing story like this to make themselves feel better.

And a special shout-out to "Beats" for this: "...a person who understands women more than women do", hilarious. I don't have a clue about women but I clearly understand them way better than you do.

Well said.

She has made a career doing this at previous jobs.   She blew up a chance at a lucrative career at Apple.  Likely now un-employable in the tech sector

She is the sort of person who is a cancer inside the likes of an Apple 

The "sort of person" being someone cares about pay disparities, discrimination and workers rights?  The "likes of Apple" being anti-union, top-down directive, closed-shop secrecy favouring corporations?

Yeah, you're probably right, though "cancer" might be better thought of as a ray of light.

In a horse race, all the horses have the same job.  But not all of them do that job equally well.

In a professional organization (unlike one employing unskilled blue collar labor) pay is based not only on job description but how well the person does that job.  Does the person show up for the 1:00am meeting their CEO just called?  Do they have BOTH the skill and the commitment required to do that job exceptionally well?  Those that do get rewarded appropriately -- which is why salary comparisons can be very unhealthy both for those doing the paying and for those getting paid:

In those situations, a lower wage might indicate discrimination or bias -- but usually it indicates a lower quality employee.

There is a fine line between a demanding employer (like Apple) and an abusive one.

... But, to those lacking in ability and/or commitment, there is no difference.  They seek the lowest common denominator and want all to sink to the lowest level.

Yeah, and?

Nothing in there, "demanding employer" or not, gives Apple any permission to stop employees from discussing wages, which as I understand it is explicitly against California law.  Nor does being a "demanding employer" give them any kind of shield from open discussion of workplace issues.  Indeed, the very fact that there you say there is a "fine line" (I'd called it a blurry line at best) means more transparency and conversation is required.

Being legal has little to do with being right. 

Under that guideline, Rittenhouse was right to make himself a vigilante and wade into a hostile crowd using his AR15 to intimidate them.