cougarmeat

So how again did the watch save him? The driver of the vehicle, as well as three nurses, were on the scene to help him. I'm sure they could also call for assistance. Just because someone is wearing an Apple Watch doesn't mean it "saved" him. If Apple has to reach that far to promote its product, its value is questioned.

Once I read about a ham radio operator who broke his ankle on a hike in Oregon. The piece said he was able to connect to another radio operator in Montana who contacted S&R to assist the person on the trail in Oregon.  I contacted the ham because I was curious how, with a broken ankle, he was able to put up the required Antenna (usually a 30 ft length of wire).

Turns out, the guy was assisted by four hikers who were on the same trail; one was an EMT. The other hikers put up the antenna. The EMT attended to the ankle as best he could. The injured hiker had shelter and food. Because there was nothing left to do but wait for S&R to arrive to help him out, the others continued their hike.  Quite a different take than the original headline.

So again - how did this watch save the pedestrian who was already attended to by the driver and three nurses?

"... the document, this this anti-disinfectant warning highlighted ..." What I don't understand about this generation is the amazing number of typo/grammar errors I see in their published work.

These errors are so easily picked up by using simple, inexpensive software grammar-checking tools. Also, listening to text read back (Option-Esc) would audibly point out the "this this".

I am not picking on the author; he had the misfortune of being at the tipping point of my ire. It just amazes me how blatant and frequent such errors have become. The younger generation thinks we are picking on them because they didn't invent the transistor, or laser, or space exploration. They give us Rap "music". But then again, to be fair, they are improving battery chemistry.

I'm avoiding making this rant a commercial for a grammar-checking product so I won't name, names (and there is more than one). It's just that more and more, with professional online posts, newspaper articles, and even headlines, such errors stand out so clearly to non-professional proofreaders. And they take so little effort to avoid. Why not try?

I certainly make mistakes in mine, but I'm not a professional writer. I don't get paid for the quality of my product. But I do make an effort to avoid such mistaks.



Yes, that was a joke.

With Microsoft leading the AI advance, I no longer fear AI taking over the world. I think of all the programs MS has "acquired" and made worse while driving better-designed programs out of the market.

And remember, $2,000 in the 70's was much more than $2,000 today.

But while more cores are nice, I'd prefer more time spent on "smart" utilization of those cores. For example, over the decades there have been many development languages for Mac, Current examples would be Xojo, X, and Swift. But trying to take advantage of those multiple cores is a major challenge with them and often the overhead - especially when development time and maintenance are factored in - exceeds the benefit.

A simple answer is, "Well that application is not one fit for parallel processing." But is that always the case? I'd like the compiler to say, "Well, well, well, looks like I have 8 (or more) CPU cores. How can I segment this code so it executes in the shortest possible time?"

In other words, it seems like the field where it's beneficial to have multiple cores is pretty narrow. Sure, it makes great marketing copy. But it seems that unless one is actively involved in video editing, multiple cores, CPU or GPU, will hardly make any difference.

Ref: one of the first posts - Somehow I am able to understand things without, "having a meeting about it." How do I do that? I would also not implement a policy about something before I understood the issues. Unfortunately, many political gestures (jesters) are all about theater. They want to look like they are doing something.

A great example is the USA's TSA policies. You can't bring more than 3 oz of some liquid or toothpaste tube with you, but nothing stops two or more people from combining their items once on the plane. Or, the TSA wouldn't let me bring nail clippers across but I could buy them in the gift shop on the other side. It's just theater. It looks, to the unsuspecting public, like something useful is being done.

The downside is the time and resources that are being spent creating and maintaining ineffective processes - taking time and resources away from finding actual, effective solutions.