I feel like the sales data would back you up, if it wasn’t for the fact that the 12 and 13 mini were larger than the iPhone 6 and 6S which for many people was too large.
It’s a bit like selling increasingly carbonated water and then selling slightly less carbonated water and pretending that it was still water that you were selling- and using the data (of nobody buying it) to tell everyone that “nobody likes the still water; so we will continue only selling carbonated and carbonated+.”
> if it wasn’t for the fact that the 12 and 13 mini were larger than the iPhone 6 and 6S which for many people was too large.
I don't get why people make statements like this.
6: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .27 (D)
6s: 2.64 (W) x 5.44 (H) x .28 (D)
13 mini: 2.53 (W) x 5.14 (H) x 0.30 (D)
The only dimension in which the mini was larger than the 6 or 6s was in depth, and that was just barely. It was smaller otherwise.
It did have a larger display, but it fit it into a smaller device.
----
All iPhones before the iPhone 6 were smaller than the 12 and 13 minis. The 1st gen SE was smaller. Everything from 6 on, including the 2nd and 3rd gen SEs, have been larger, though barely for the SEs. The downside to the SEs compared to the minis was that they have smaller displays than the minis.
I literally laid them on top of each other and the 6 was marginally larger.
Betrays the point anyway: the ideal size was the 5 and it was nowhere near that, even by your official numbers (which I would guess are excluding the rounded edges maybe? - regardless, not the point)
I haven’t touched a lot of these cyber security parts of industry: especially policies for awhile…
… but I do recall that auditing was a stronger motivator than preventing. There were policies around checking the audit logs, not being able to alter audit logs and ensuring that nobody really knew exactly what was audited. (Except for a handful of individuals of course.)
I could be wrong, but “observe and report” felt like it was the strongest possible security guarantee available inside the policies we followed (PCI-DSS Tier 1). and that prevention was a nice to have on top.
As a customer I'm angry that businesses get to use "hope and pray" as their primary data protection measure without being forced to disclose it. "Motivators" only work on people who value their job more than the data they can access and I don't believe there's any organization on this planet where this is true for 100% of the employees, 100% of the time.
That strategy doesn't help a victim who's being stalked by an employee, who can use your system to find their new home address. They often don't care if they get fired (or worse), so the motivator doesn't work because they aren't behaving rationally to begin with.
This really isn’t fair. It is not simply hope and pray: it is a clearly stated/enforced deterrent that anyone who violates the policy will be terminated. You lose your income and seriously harm your future career prospects. This is more or less the same policy that governments hold to bad actors (crime happens but perpetrators will be punished).
I get that it is best to avoid the possibility of such incidents but it is not always practical and a strong punishment mechanism is a reasonable policy in these cases.
You don't think it's fair to expect a trillion-dollar business to implement effective technical measures to stop rogue (or hacked!) employees from accessing personal information about their users?
I'm not talking about small businesses here, but large corporations that have more than enough resources to do better than just auditing.
> crime happens but perpetrators will be punished
Societies can't prevent crime without draconian measures that stifle all of our freedoms to an extreme degree. Corporations can easily put barriers in place that make it much more difficult (or impossible) to gain unauthorized access to customer information. The entire system is under their control.
Facebook/Meta has shown time and time again that it can't be trusted with data privacy, full stop.
No amount of internal auditing, externally verified and stamped with approval for following ISO standards theater will change the fact that as a company it has firebombed each and every bridge that was ever available to it, in my book.
If the data has the potential to be misused, that is enough for me to equate it as not secure for use.
> This has cost me a relationship. (it was long distance to be fair).
Tbh, (imho, having tried it) in normal circumstances it would be a miracle to make anything really work like that, but at present you're just fighting a losing, nearly irreconcilable battle, unless you're both wholly on the same page about infrequent synchronous communication.
If a relationship relies on immediate responses to async, unpredictable, text-based communication, and what you want is a sane lifestyle, it's going to be a tough situation.
I just tell people that need my attention how to get it. Call me if it's important and/or time sensitive, otherwise I'll just check when I check based on the implied nature of the platform. Instagram is super casual unimportant brainrot usually, Messenger for coordinating plans with older millennials and Gen X family, Whatsapp for younger millennials sometimes, SMS or RCS is slightly more important and I'll get visual but not physical or audible notifications. I make it clear that if it's a group chat, I'll turn notifications off unless I'm specifically tagged, or maybe check in once a week if it's for a specific purpose, but otherwise I hate them. Signal for some things that aren't time sensitive, no notifications, no read receipts on any platform.
Don’t they also have ways of sending messages wirelessly in real time, just bounded by speed of light? That’s a down-sight lot better than what we have now as we basically just blast radio signals in all directions at roughly the speed of light- which degrades very rapidly over distance.
I’m coloured largely by Voyager, but I don’t see any technology that we have now that they don’t have, not at the distances it would need to work at and without the infrastructure to make it work.
Star Trek has messages faster than the speed of light. And TNG and later have universal P2P communication with or without a reliable computer time-delaying it.
Honestly, I don't know what the conversation is about either.
Sorry, my musings were more general, not restricted to Star-Trek/... content. I mean more generally any movie in a setting within the last ~5-10 years~ to any time in the future. The fact that half the main characters / background extras / don't have their heads buried in mobile phones is by itself noticeable to me :)
So, in the spirit of intellectual curiousity, and I will avoid making any judgements in any of my responses, I have 5 questions:
1) Have you ever been exposed to alternative communicators?
2) What features do you enjoy about teams
3) What platform are you using it from (Windows Desktop / Laptop? What spec)
4) Have you ever written a bot or integration?
5) Can you take me through a very brief working day for you, with a focus on collaborating with others.. (file sharing, online chats, IRL chats, meetings?)
I'll give my own interpretation. Not that I love Teams, but the alternative in a dinosaur corporation is basically email.
1) WebEx and the open source chat that Oracle appropriated. Fortunately Zoom came and went too quickly.
2) Searching the Exchange corporate directory. BASIC features: status, embedding pictures, attaching files that Outlook would block. Sharing links that aren't obfuscated.
3) Can you even run Teams from Apple / Linux?
4) Ha! Imagine the nightmares for the person linking Atlassian and Teams.
5) Group texts, file shares, voice calls, recorded meetings. Meetings with groups from other companies is almost painless.
I've used both Teams and Zoom (and others). Honestly, I'd rather use Zoom instead of Teams.
> BASIC features: status, embedding pictures, attaching files that Outlook would block. Sharing links that aren't obfuscated.
Status is settable by just about any competitor to Teams. Slack and Zoom both can set your current status.
Embedding pictures and files is also not unique to Teams.
Obfuscated links? Just a matter of time before Microsoft changes that to some microsoft link for a "vulnerability scanner" and then charges the company for the privilege to block random things it doesn't understand how to scan.
> Can you even run Teams from Apple / Linux?
Yes / technically yes (not supported any more)
> Group texts, file shares, voice calls, recorded meetings. Meetings with groups from other companies is almost painless.
I wouldn’t say Zoom is better to be honest with you, for just meetings the UX of Teams is pretty bad but the UX of Zoom is almost as bad; there’s not much in it.
Last time I checked Zoom was a pig on resources and required a weird background worker- and you couldn't even send files.
Teams is a React App. Teams classic uses Electron - so perf was identical. The New Teams uses native platform web-view, so mileage may slightly vary. Still a React App, though. sighs.
> 1) WebEx and the open source chat that Oracle appropriated. Fortunately Zoom came and went too quickly.
Ok, then I can see why Teams ranks among them. I would invite you to try something like Zulip or Mattermost but I think ignorance is bliss and you should avoid knowing about anything that could be better. Your mind might do this for you (rejection) but best not to tempt fate.
> 2) Searching the Exchange corporate directory. BASIC features: status, embedding pictures, attaching files that Outlook would block. Sharing links that aren't obfuscated.
Appreciate the list, the only one of these that's Teams specific is searching a corp directory. Do you use the "Teams" functionality, or do you use the chat exclusively?
> 3) Can you even run Teams from Apple / Linux?
Yes, it's very slow. It's also very slow from laptops, the best "Teams experience" I've ever seen has been in GameDev where we all ran Windows 7 on dodecacore CPUs with 128-256G of DDR4.
It was still slower than Slack on my macbook air though.
> 4) Ha! Imagine the nightmares for the person linking Atlassian and Teams.
Yeah, people do. People also use Excel from within Teams.
Writing bots for Teams is a special nightmare, but webhooks can work.
> 5) Group texts, file shares, voice calls, recorded meetings. Meetings with groups from other companies is almost painless.
Do you spend a lot of your day face-to-face or more of your day in Teams?
Do you find yourself arranging meetings to sync rather than using the chat functionality?
Do you find that people have to ask around a lot to get an answer and then ask again later when it's forgotten, or can they find their answer in history?
Someone patiently explained and introduced the "Teams" feature of "Teams" to me. It's easy to ignore. Here's a tough one: ever used a Microsoft Loop component?
My preference is text chat but we do a lot of unscheduled voice chats when screen-sharing is involved. In-person meetings are nice when possible, it's been easy enough to connect a Teams meeting from a conference room phone.
Before Teams I set up a Mattermost instance, and I think RocketChat integrated to GitLab? Nobody used those. As we all know the value in these things comes from network effects; with Teams corporate IT can set Teams as a startup app by Domain policy, now everyone in your company has to be online. That's the real killer feature.
I find that MS Teams works pretty well if you don't put too many channels in a team, or at least don't use the extra features in the sub-channels. Nothing like having wiki/files spread across multiple channels under a team as opposed to a directory structure.
To me, what I really don't like is that you can present the files and wiki via network file share, but the format of the wiki is read-only in that mode... it would be significantly better as user editable markdown with front-matter. It's some strange quasi-html extensions that you aren't going to be able to really even use.
I don't like that they separated the chat channels out... you now have unread, channels, chats, meeting chats... going between them is now a mess as I'm usually in a combination of meeting chats and 1:1 chats mostly.
While I do appreciate the integration of outlook's calendar, I really don't want meeting notifications for anything more than a couple days out... it can wait until I check my mail.
The real time video chat is okay... I think Zoom and Slack both have lightly better video quality and features though. I don't like Zoom's chat/discussion features nearly as much... I like Slack overall slightly better, but don't think some of the externalized integrations are as good as Teams.
Overall, it's "okay"... I don't love it as I think it's gotten worse over time while Slack is getting better, slowly. I'm not vocal enough to raise hell one way or another for/against it. I've used it on Linux without much issue... so it works well enough.
There is a native Teams package in the AUR which worked well when I had to use it. I assume it will get outdated eventually from lack of MS support. Web works of course.
There is a PWA you can install, with it's own icon and everything. Yes, it's a not-even-glorified-web-browser, but meh, it works (for some definition of works).
I thought it was “intellectual curiosity” but it turns out it was a segway into insisting with your own preferences and eventually when being contradicted by others with their own needs and preferences, becoming plain insulting. Will leave your words here for reference:
> I think ignorance is bliss and you should avoid knowing about anything that could be better. Your mind might do this for you (rejection) but best not to tempt fate.
There’s nothing intellectual about fake curiosity, passive aggressive remarks, or insistently pushing your opinion just for the sake of sounding smarter than the next guy.
I was curious about why someone would have a preference, what does Teams serve that alternatives do not.
But you blanket claimed its fine, its not fine.
I won’t work in a company that forces me to use Teams- its a good proxy for how they think about internal communications and how they feel about staff.
You can claim what you want, I was curious, but don’t come in here telling people its ok to use teams- we’ve established that his options were fucking WebEx- which is also not fine.
My word doesn’t have to be law, however anyone who has touched any system outside of Teams is universally stating that Teams is bad.
That is an important consideration to have if you’re going to be telling people that its fine to inflict it on your workforce. You used cost as a reason but:
1) Teams is a seperate paid license now (since it was anti-competitive- the only way they could have grown such a market share with such a terrible product).
2) There are superior free alternatives.
Don’t come up in here, (in a thread where I am asking, genuinely, about what makes Teams a viable and active preference for people) saying its fine without any fucking follow up on why and then get bent out of shape when challenged.
Teams is not fine, if you’re working on the product or you have inflicted it on your workforce you should be better- I won’t pretend its ok so that you feel better.
I’d much rather go with distroless, if its a choice.
But I think you can tweak musl to perform well, and musl is closer to the spec than glibc so I would rather use it; even if its slower in the default case for multithreaded programmes.
Swapping out jemalloc for the system allocator will net you huge performance wins if you link against musl, but you’ll still have issues with multithreading performance due to the slower implementations of necessary helpers.
externalising developer cost onto runtime performance only makes sense if humans will spend more time writing than running (in aggregate).
Essentially you’re telling me that the software being made is not useful to many people; because the cost of writing the software (a handful of developers) will spend more time writing the software than their userbase will in executing their software.
Otherwise you’re inflicting something on humanity.
Dumping toxic waste in a river is much cheaper than properly disposing of it too; yet we understand that we are causing harm to the environment and litigate people who do that.
Slow software is fine in low volumes (think: shitting in the woods) but dumping it on huge numbers of users by default is honestly ridiculous (Teams, I’m looking at you: with your expectation to run always and on everyones machine!)
It’s a bit like selling increasingly carbonated water and then selling slightly less carbonated water and pretending that it was still water that you were selling- and using the data (of nobody buying it) to tell everyone that “nobody likes the still water; so we will continue only selling carbonated and carbonated+.”
reply