Loved my OnePlus One and ran nightlies of Cyanogenmod on it for quite a while. I had that bamboo wood backing on the phone that was really nice to the touch. Premium feel and a hacker phone.
It was quality and lasted for many years. I got it after I left the Apple ecosystem and my HTC One (M7) had become pretty banged-up.
I shifted away from OnePlus as it became more pricey and went with Samsung models over the last many years. I also no longer have as much time to play with LineageOS and nightlies anymore.
I did go back to OnePlus around the 10 series but wasn't impressed enough to keep it very long. I still use the red USB-C cables though.
I feel this is just a case where innovation eventually gives way and the Opportunity acquisition along with the data breach just made it less risk-adverse to innovate on features and pricing which has led to the pull-back.
OnePlus was fun when Cyanogenmod was edgy, etc. and you had the fight against the overwhelming crapware telcos forced on Android users. Still happening, sure, but unlocked phones and cleaner flavors of Android have mitigated a lot of that now.
WINE via Crossover Linux has become very good. Also webapp versions of Office apps are mostly there and respectable if used in mixed environments.
WSL is okay but you are better going full Linux as host. Linux Mint is a good platform for most. Stable, keeping modern kernels updated, but not crazy bleeding-edge wastes of time.
You don't have to quit Windows but you can quit being hostage to Windows.
Great thread that illustrates the mess. Some AI generated steps that are nonsense (there are no settings as mentioned) then everyone mentioning contacting the carrier.
This article is a great example of the Strawman Fallacy. I suppose it's a method to generate traffic but I would argue a key aspect of servant leadership is being transparent that you are in a role that should collectively support and lead to enable and expand the team.
I feel attributing any sort of parental concepts belittles the meaning here.
"is there a big amount of companies in a specific sector that are valued far above their returns". If that answer is yes, that means we are in a speculative bubble."
Okay - that is too extreme of a "bubble" definition for me. False dilemma.
So, then, I guess, nothing is a bubble for you. For me, a more reasonable definition is a large build-up of capital that, at some point, snaps or pops, then sits at a level much lower than the original.
If you take something like that approach of the "bubble" then you can have a more charitable discussion. The AI bubble discussion then is about if the current levels of investment and capital being dumped into AI will stay at the same levels or have a more dramatic dip to be more of the future run-rate, then you can see how people see the parallels of other "bubbles" and actually have more of a discussion I think.
My sense is most view this concept of the "bubble" as the assumption.
I appreciate the author trying to address this. The only issue is the author didn't define what 'pops' in the bubble.
The 'what' that pops, probably, IMHO, is the investment and resources ecosystem dumped, poured, thrown, redirected, etc. to AI.
Just like the .com boom, the costs and money thrown at AI are outsized and will 'pop" as it matures. A 'pop" and leveling down to something perhaps not so outrageous is coming.
As the author states, .com popped but left the Internet still around and expanding. AI is exactly that kind of bubble.
I like and appreciate the authors points but just wish they would have done more with the connection of the two.
You might be valued because you are many things. You might not be valued because of many things. If you are able to be useful and valued, while also being fulfilled and happy personally and professionally -- that's great.
But, there is normally not a direct and clear situation like this in organizations. If there is, enjoy it while you have it. Normally, it's not as direct and clear to assess and understand. You are also part of this equation. The dynamics in an organization are normally not consistent.
Dynamics in organizations can shift quickly. Culture can also mean you could be doing all you can but the situation is no longer good for you for a variety of reasons or good for the organization.
Informed re-evaluation of your own value in your situation, at reasonable points, is vital. You may be not as great as you think you are, you might not be able to feel valued or useful in a changed or toxic environment. You may not care about that stuff. The organization may be incapable of providing any of that validation but, ultimately, it's up to you to decide what you are able to live with and why. How the organization provides whatever for you to contemplate is part of the calculation that must rest on your shoulders -- and that effort is ongoing and important.
They are awful often for me. Examples - recommending installation of packages and software that doesn't exist, or settings changes that don't exist I
In applications, etc. They fill the page but it's sadly noise so it cheapens the whole experience when I would have just preferred a link to a page from a person that knows what the hell they are talking about.
Switching to Linux is not easy. You almost have to hit a wall when you are just done with the bargaining to keep something like Apple or Windows. It kind of takes a major jump.
You also need to be persistent after that jump and not retrench when you can't pull from the familiar.
You'll get there at some point just don't think or care about the awful people - think about how and in what way you want to operate directionally going forward and it will click.
http://mergy.org http://mer.gy