ISO defines standards for much more than bolts and plugs. A few examples include: the C++ ISO standard, IT security standards and workplace safety standards, and that’s a small subset of what they do.
They develop a well defined standard, not the technologies mentioned in the standard. So yes, they’re qualified.
It is certainly an example of why SC22 is a bad idea
The "C++ Standards Committee" is Working Group #21 of Sub Committee #22, of the Joint Technical Committee #1 between ISO and the IEC.
It is completely the wrong shape of organization for this work, a large unwieldy bureaucracy created so that sovereign entities could somehow agree things, this works pretty well for ISO 216 (the A-series paper sizes) and while it isn't very productive for something like ISO 26262 (safety) it can't do much harm. For the deeply technical work of a programming language it's hopeless.
The IETF shows a much better way to develop standards for technology.
The fact that the C++ committee is technically a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup is among the least of the issues of ISO for standardization.
The main problem is that ISO is a net negative value-add for standardization. At one point, the ISO editor came back and said "you need to change the standard because you used periods instead of commas for the decimal point, a violation of ISO rules." Small wonder there's muttering about taking C and C++ out of ISO.
I would argue that the structural problem is an underlying cause. So it won't be the proximate cause, but when you dig deeper, when you keep asking like a five year old, "But why?" the answer is ultimately ISO's structure and nothing to do with Bjarne's language in particular.
Hence the concern for the non-language but still deeply technical RISC-V standardization.
Titanic is not an example of why building ships has to be avoided. C++ is a great example, yes, of the damage ambitious and egotistical personas can inflict when cooperation is necessary.
Apple for some reason hasn’t implemented that feature, and it boggles the mind. Say I’m playing music on my iPhone and I try playing a track on my mac, it doesn’t ask me on which device to play, hell, it doesn’t even stop playing on my iPhone to start on my mac, it just puts an ugly warning in the middle of the screen saying something like “stop playing on your iPhone to listen to the song on this device”.
They have this feature, it is called Hand-off I think. It works between iPhones and HomePods. Additionally there’s “control other devices”, which allows controlling the music played on other devices. That is between most Apple device categories, although I’m unsure about Mac support for it.
I have used AM since launch and don’t understand what you’re complaining about exactly. I have never, not once, seen a message telling me to stop playing on one device to play on another with AM. Spotify otoh is super strict with licensing and does that. Why wouldn’t you want to be able to play 2 different streams in 2 different places?
I have my AM on my Sonos, my phone, my ATV, and my dad’s Sonos and have never seen a message that it’s playing elsewhere. With Spotify my setup absolutely would be impossible using the same account.
I personally don’t want the Spotify style playback features; keep them out of my AM please.
Edit: I forgot you can also now share a queue via Apple Music using airplay, even if others at the party don’t have an account.
I find the built-in one pretty great: has light and dark modes, good annotations, performs well. The only thing missing is this fullscreen behavior, which should exist by default IMO.
sure i am being dramatic but my point stands. if my company can’t be fluid and can’t react fast to market due to bs unions and backward laws of some land, that place is what i avoid.
This is a genuine question: do you make these views clear during hiring? Because if you believe in them and think that they make sense, there shouldn't be any harm in sharing them with the candidates upfront, right? Especially since these views directly affect their livelihood. And if you don't, why not?
> Also, surely if they were excellent candidates then you'd be doing your absolute best to keep them around?
Well to be fair excellent candidates are excellent on paper. It sometimes happens (not often, but not once in a blue moon either) that the candidate turns out to be completely unsuitable for the job.
This doesn't make sense. If you hire them to work in local offices in those countries, they often have even more employee protections than Europe does. And if you bring them over to US, then it's the same law regardless of where they are originally from.
people are getting quite snippy about this comment, but hating this mindset means you lock yourself away from so much actual wealth. It means you confine and condemn people to significantly worse economic conditions by limiting people's ability to freely associate and disassociate.
just to hammer this point home: Every mandatory employee benefit has a huge cost, and adding enough of them kills your economy. It makes it more expensive to have an employee than X many jobs can justify. That X grows every year, and that's X people who cant do that job and get paid money for it.
Meanwhile, Big tech (pre-2022) went to pretty extreme lengths to keep tenured employees around because of all the knowledge they'd built up which made them valuable to the company.
But whatevs, you do you. I'd advise you to only hire contractors if you want people to stay less than a year.
And it's worth noting that you appear to be responding to people who are in German speaking countries, where 3 months notice is standard. Other parts of Europe are not like this, and in Ireland you can fire as per the US for the first 6 months/year, and only need to pay redundancy if they've been there 2+ years.
I take it that this was posted in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"?
Yeah. I understand that this site doesn’t want to become Reddit, but it really has an allergy to comedy, it’s sad. God forbid you use sarcasm, half the people here won’t understand it and the other half will say it’s not appropriate for healthy discussion…
At ultra settings? Even if, 30 fps at 1080p is not nearly “without breaking a sweat”. Also, the air will have trouble keeping that performance after a few minutes without a fan.
I love my MBP M4 Pro, but its gaming performance doesn’t reflect well what it’s capable of.
This is at High settings! And I haven’t even mentioned that the game is running via Crossover through multiple translation systems. That’s translating both Intel Windows to ARM Mac as well as translating the graphics APIs (DirectX or Vulkan to Metal).
The cyberpunk native Mac release comes out this year and will almost certainly improve performance further.
Why would anyone care about ultra settings on a laptop? I don’t even set my PC desktop to ultra settings in the game and I have a current generation mid-high end GPU. Setting demanding games to Ultra just giving up FPS to not tell the difference.
30fps 1080p is basically console-level standards for a AAA graphically intense game (not esports or online shooter). And that isn’t bad at all for the processor with integrated graphics that Apple sticks in its cheapest computer and its tablets.
Your MacBook Pro M4 Pro is one of the best gaming laptops on the market in terms of hardware! Especially if you want something that’s thin, light, and quiet with good battery life and not just a thick tank of a system or a loud but thin and light gaming laptop that struggles to power and cool its dGPU.
Depending on your configuration, you can actually play Cyberpunk at high settings at or above 60FPS on your laptop. You’re vastly underestimating it!
Your laptop just needs the software to get ported, and the Mac gaming space is rapidly evolving now that Apple is paying attention to it.
They develop a well defined standard, not the technologies mentioned in the standard. So yes, they’re qualified.