There's a book "How to Prepare for Climate Change: A Practical Guide to Surviving the Chaos" by David Pogue that I found had some decent information related to your questions.
I remember when I first started out on my college academic path I tried a semester at a community collage. I don't recall the name of the class but it was something to do with computers. I figured start off with something I'm already good at and see what I get out of the experience.
It became apparent very early that I was much more advanced than the instructor. So much so that I realized this person was woefully unqualified to teach anyone anything about "computers". I remember the day when he looked at me and out of earshot of the other students said something to the effect of "Don't tell anyone OK?".
My next semester I made sure was at a proper four year college for CompSci.
I don't look back unkindly at my experience as a whole for that community college, it just makes some of the issues in the OP article ring true. Smart people will know the quality of education they're receiving especially when they're having to pay for it.
Without value judgement on the above quotes, I think Carmack is very much aware of his own lane and would say to take any comments outside it with a grain of salt. For instance earlier in the article, he states:
>I’m trying not to use the kind of hyperbole of really grand pronouncements, because I am a nuts-and-bolts person. Even with the rocketry stuff, I wasn’t talking about colonizing Mars, I was talking about which bolts I’m using to hold things together. So, I don’t want to do a TED talk going on and on about all the things that might be possible with plausibly cost-effective artificial general intelligence.
He likes to figure out new puzzles and how things work. He's an engineer at heart and that's very much his comfort zone. AGI is an exciting new puzzle for him. I'm glad he's taken an interest.
The lack of self-examination and self-awareness is stunning in these types of responses of people who may have some problematic aspects in their lives.
>But the cultural revolution has entered its mass-spectacle Reign of Terror phase
The author is another person who is upset because they got called out on some problematic aspects of their work/persona, a lot of people agreed, and it turns out the problematic aspects had an adverse affect on their lives.
Sounds like a good time to self-examine to me.
I've had to eat crow sometimes. I always try take it as an opportunity to grow and reflect.
This statement ignores the reason put forth by the authors of the research paper mentioned in the article - that anti-trust enforcement discouraged _mergers and acquisitions_ forcing companies to invest in research.
FTA:
>Arora et al point out that the rise and fall of the labs coincided with the rise and fall of anti-trust enforcement:
Historically, many large labs were set up partly because antitrust pressures constrained large firms’ ability to grow through mergers and acquisitions. In the 1930s, if a leading firm wanted to grow, it needed to develop new markets. With growth through mergers and acquisitions constrained by anti-trust pressures, and with little on offer from universities and independent inventors, it often had no choice but to invest in internal R&D. The more relaxed antitrust environment in the 1980s, however, changed this status quo. Growth through acquisitions became a more viable alternative to internal research, and hence the need to invest in internal research was reduced.
A good question would be, although there was a decline in these kinds of research labs, did the market make up for that decline though the current strategy of investment in entrepreneurs and startups?
Thanks for reminding me as I had forgotten. Still it seems a bit weird not to be able to discuss. Again, thanks for the reminder (I suspect others who read this thread may also be reminded).
You are correct in saying some questions are better than others. But again that's no reason to downvote as it actively discourages people from participation. I would think the best course would be to ignore and move on as the original comment on this thread mentioned. Downvoting can be a hostile action. Ignoring is neutral.
As per the guidelines themselves:
>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Case in point, my comment was downvoted, even though the subsequent comment was an illuminating reminder for myself and possibly others. Those downvotes seem somewhat arbitrary at best, hostile at worst.
I've no more to say so I will refrain from any further comments on voting dynamic.
Thank you for calling out the downvote issue. I've refrained from asking questions for this exact reason.
People should be encouraged to ask questions, even if from a position of lesser knowledge of the matter at hand. Those that do answer are probably not only helping the person asking the question, but those who may not ask the question even if it is one in their mind.
How many others refrain from enriching the dialogue for the same reasons?
From what I gathered FTA it sounds like the author is putting forth the notion that Facebook is relying on old, mostly debunked theories around a "backfire effect" - when fact-checking increases polarization and results in the opposite of the intent of the fact-check.
The author then goes on to discuss how more recent studies (including their own research) and even some of the original authors of that pervious research had changed course and believe that fact-checking can indeed help course correct those misled by misinformation.
Therein lies the rub, according to the author Facebook's policies around the original research hasn't been updated to match more recent findings. This can be troubling given the stakes at hand.
My very first splice job I did on a song was with Kraftwerk's Tour De France.
My friend and I wanted to extend the song so we could dance to it. So using a stereo system that had a cassette deck that could record from the turntable, I would cue the cassette to record, pause, then release the turntable, unpause the cassette, record the bit in the song we wanted to extend, and wash-rinse-repeat until we had the length we wanted.
This of course led to me down a long path of making beats, mixing tracks, and general electro-acoustic music shenanigans :)
There are some oddball finicky things about it (like not seeing the instance except in the Lightsail interface unless you manually fix or migrate it) but it was easy as pie.
Unfortunately I've been in organizations where this was necessary for exactly that...
Exec Manager (wanting to save face in next exec meeting) - Why did the team do that? It obv didn't work. Who's fault is this?
Product Manger - Remember we all signed off on this PRD saying we would try this approach? We also included a couple of alternative options we can explore in case the primary approach wasn't as effective as we hoped.
Upper Manager - ... (after a moment) Ok then, let's explore those alternatives.
Engineering Manager - whew
PRDs _esp those with sign off_ can cover your ass.
> To the gp's point, the single pair of UA sneakers I own are highly functional and sport-specific that only come out at the gym...but picking them out of a crowd of UA's lineup is difficult.
A very good summary. UA just doesn't have whatever it is that influencers, fashionistas, artists, and designers are looking for - which is mostly style/design/hype attached to good materials, exclusivity and comfort.
It's how great design translates into good brand marketing (read: hype) - UA isn't it.
A very broad answer to your query... sneakerheads run the gamut in terms of what they might look for or why they might want a shoe. A sneakerhead may want to have a shoe in their collection but never rock (wear) them, another shoe might be a grail that is worn infrequently or for special occasions, and yet another shoe might become a "beater" - a shoe you love to wear and wear it til it's in tatters.
In my collection I have all three types. Some sneakerheads are into collecting only the most valuable shoes in terms of reselling (this is not me).
Even for my utilitarian shoes/boots I obsess over details such as construction, comfort, and craft/style. It's why I'm a fan of some limited Redwing & Nick's Handmade boots and not something you can just pick up at your local big box store.
What I consider a great shoe design, another sneakerhead might think is trash. Some sneakerheads only collect specific types/brands. For me it's usually a combination of style/design, quality of materials, and comfort. If a shoe isn't comfortable I won't wear it and if it's valuable in the aftermarket I'll probably sell it for profit at some point - unless it's a pure work of art in which case I'll keep it indefinitely. Yes there are shoes like that (for me).
But there are trends - shoes that a great many people find "exciting" or good design for various reasons. As I mentioned in my original comment, there are reselling marketplaces such as StockX (stockx.com) that track trends and display the value sneakers - the value can be dictated by a combination of factors such as design/style, materials and rarity with a peppering of comfort & utility.
I totally get that some people just want a shoe to be a shoe and don't care much about style/design. I just happen not to be one of those people.
Sneakerhead here. This is tangental but related. The core of Under Armor's problem is design. The market is simply not excited by UA's offerings. This cascades throughout their ecosystem - this app included.
UA sells shoes, no question. Just not to sneakerheads.
Think of it this way, I remember as web engineer, when engineers were installing Chrome on family members computers to get them off the built-in browser. Chrome was far better (at the time) and the core audience - engineers - helped Chrome ascend to the status as most widely used browser (https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share).
Nike, Adidas, and recently New Balance have just consistently produced more exiting designs beyond the initial hype machine.
A simple look at the StockX resale market reflects that.
I'm not surprised this app failed. UA is a big brand and, no doubt this will not kill them. But they aren't an 'exiting' brand. Focus on the core product - that marketing that the core product design provides effects all their efforts - this app included.