No, I think they’re arguing that showing seconds in the system tray shouldn’t be so inefficient that turning it off gives back double-digit percentage energy savings.

I think we all agree there needs to be some additional power draw for the seconds feature, but it’s unclear how much power is truly necessary vs this just being a poor implementation.

there's a dramatic increase in how frequently you interrupt the CPU to update the display. That is true at the OS level no matter how efficient you make the second display code.

How about web views throughout the OS? The new start menu written in React?

There's an ungodly amount of CPU and GPU spikes throughout the OS which make the "omg seconds" invisible in comparison

You can arbitrarily enforce something with laws too. Via overly broad laws and selective enforcement.

I don’t have examples, just explaining that your question is a bit too limiting.

I think comment I replied describes that?

You’re both in agreement that most meetings are unnecessary and that it would be better if meetings had a set agenda.

But the other poster was saying it’s prima donna behavior to skip a meeting without asking the organizer if they can add an agenda first.

Is it not assumed that they were defending the tobacco companies?

Yes, thanks for the clarification. One of this law firm’s main clients was one of the big tobacco companies. Also this was in the mid 90s before the big tobacco settlements.

ohhh, yea I terribly misread that

Fwiw I read it the same way as you!

My favorite in this genre is by the Gawker legend Caity Weaver.

My 14-hour search for the end of TGI Friday’s endless appetizers: https://www.gawkerarchives.com/my-14-hour-search-for-the-end...

I miss Caity's writing so much. She brought so much joy to me back in those days, and even a lot of her work at NYT was great as well. Thanks for the inspiration to try to find what she's up to now.

I'm trying to decide if that would be worth 5 days off or not. The "not read a book" criteria is especially cruel.

that was an absolute joy of a read, thanks for sharing!

I see two possible readings of your comment:

1) (less generous) a veiled suggestion that the OP should only have such strong opinions if they match your bar for expertise

2) (more generous) an off-topic question about OPs work

Both are worth a downvote imo.

My interpretation is that they are interested in looking at a real world application of the technology in question, which seems on-topic to me. But I agree that it's worded unfortunately.

Can both things be true?

I have no doubt that a nationalized healthcare system would be bureaucratic and inefficient. But I also know our current system is worse by almost every metric and stays that way due to lobbying and, yes, propaganda against alternatives like Medicare for all.

Caring about what other people think of you doesn’t actually result in other people thinking more highly of you.

I have fallen into this trap (and still do from time to time) of trying to control the way other people perceive me. The thing is, it only works like half the time and often actually backfires.

There are two reasons this doesn’t work: 1) you’re spending energy trying to control others’ perception of you and 2) you don’t actually know what’s going on in someone else’s head, so a lot of the time that energy isn’t well spent

The op meant someone can make their own component that’s fake. Not that they’d send fake data to your service.

And there’s no way to distinguish a component that uses your real social proof from someone else’s fake social proof.

Gotcha, We added a verified by ProofyBubble text there but Do you think there’s a better way to distinguish?