There were two groups that could receive a bailout - owners of the bank, so the bank could survive, and depositors who had deposits larger than the insured amount. Only the latter received a bailout and were made whole beyond their level of insurance.
I always thought it was something like a comparison between ballistae with fewer shots and larger arrows (javelin size, really) doing more damage, and a storm of smaller regular arrows. Maybe I was being too generous with my interpretation.
We have oscillated back and forth with each being the exciting new solution for what sucks about the other for decades, though. This is just the latest swing of the pendulum to one or the other.
I guess they are round now, maybe that was the one missing ingredient that means we will be on cubicles forever and everyone will finally understand why they are better?
Progress in science as I understand is only on the shoulders of giants (previous research), not starting over from first principles with every generation. If we did that we'd get nowhere, each generation would get to the wheel or so and then the next one would start over.
I don't think gp is talking about continuous refinement of ideas, which I get the sense is more what you meant. Spending time and energy reinventing cubicles again and again every 10 or so years seems best to avoid, in my opinion.
Sometimes. Other times (most times?) it seems like a kind of reactionary contrarian arrogance that people who have done/studied/experienced X surely have no idea what they are talking about and be dismissed by anyone who has experience with computers.
Having been around for cubicles, its surprising to see them described by a new generation as some kind of utopian ideal. Even if they are round now, instead of square. Roundicles?
Best not think too much about what we will call the ones for the test team.