Even with the best intentions and planning, lead times have been expanding faster than orders come in. Orders are being pushed back and cancelled by vendors, and parts are disappearing from distributors very quickly.
Even the huge players shipping millions of units (Apple [0], Toyota [1], Sony [2], Samsung [3]), who are usually able to order the manufacturers around (in what's really a "bank owns you" vs "you own the bank" situation), are having trouble building products. Why would you expect a low-volume manufacturer to be in any way capable of doing better?
"Purism could have avoided these delays by following the same model used by the PINE64 in designing the Pinephone by only using older components that already have good Linux support and launching with an existing mobile interface. If Purism had used the i.MX 6, the hardware would have been antiquated, but it could have avoided most of the problems it has encountered implementing the LCD screen, video out, cameras and power management. If Purism had used the i.MX 6 and Ubuntu Touch, it probably could have shipped in 2019, and avoided most of the delays, which have generated so much public criticism, but those would not have been good choices for the long-term future of the phone."
Note that "these delays" is referring to the time taken to develop the software for their choice of components, not sourcing the hardware of those components. The PinePhone doesn't have this problem not because of its choice of older components, but because Pine64 doesn't do any software and lets the community work it out, which it has.
That said, the problem of components shortage is real, which is why the PP's Beta Edition ships with identical hardware to the previous Community Edition but for needing to use a different, worse, magnetometer. ("Worse" because it has no driver in the mainline kernel yet so it can't be used.)
I was looking for a certain GX-412TC based firewall mainboard a few days ago, so different hardware and different vendor: the delivery time was over 200 days.
It's not their fault, it's like that pretty much everywhere.
Just try to buy a graphics card at 2019 prices; no way.
Here in France, elite STEM schools run a series of highly competitive exams that consist of a series of written tests and oral interviews over several weeks. These are brutal, students basically prepare for them for 2 to 3 years and there is no alternate way to trick your way in. Not if you're a billionaire.
The system is far from perfect: only a teeny tiny fraction of students who make it are from poor/underprivileged backgrounds (some do). Yes it is infinitely easier to prepare for these exams in a middle class family than in a ghetto.
Yet it still seems an order of magnitude MORE FAIR then checking whether daddy is a big donor to the school. Or having SATs that are so ridiculously easy that we're gonna have to fallback on whether you were a member of the theater club.
I think that's half of the system that Colorado is opposing? Test scores (not so easy) reflect income more than aptitude. Not just the 'legacy' checkbox.
Hard test scores reflect some sort of aptitude at least. The fact that higher income students get them is a second order effect with many many causes that need to be addressed separately.
Legacy checkbox reflects absolutely nothing other then nepotism.
But they're dealing with the problem at the stage of the pipeline which they can address, which is a bit late as inequity begins to solidify long before.
Some children will have AP credits and some wont. Some children will have completed calculus and others won't have started. By this time, years of advantage and disadvantage have already accumulated. These differences in student profile will interest both in-state and out-of-state colleges.
zulu314 is pointing out that tests can be meaningfully designed for predictive value, and I would additionally wonder whether universities all around the world will follow suit by diminishing test importance?
You are talking about admissions for highly specialized schools, which exists in America as well. This article is concerning regular public universities.
reasonML / reasonML + bucklescript amount to about 25%, it's been out for 4 years while CAML was out for 30+.
Yet the wording makes it sound like it's disappointing "used by only 25%", "maybe the survey was not advertized enough in the Reason community".
Actually, the fact that someone can show up with a transpiler that makes the language curly braces friendly and get 25% market share just like that is just puzzling.
The majority of the Reason/ReScript community for sure did not fill out this survey. There is a large selection bias for OCaml. One of the obvious indicators: 191 of the respondents work in banking/finance sector.
It was created originally at Bloomberg but I've never heard of that level of adoption internally in BBG. Nowadays from what I've seen the highest adoption is at various web devs in Europe and US.
Ya it's crazy how syntax can impact popularity like that. ReasonML is the same compiler, sample semantics, just a different coat of paint and it's already gaining more popularity than OCaml in the same timespan.
Have to consider the context though, I’d point to it being a front end NPM compatible language from the same FAANG that React is from (vs a language from French academics that’s used in less popular domains) before curly braces.
Elm uses a more traditional ML syntax and AFAIK is more popular than Reason, though that’s complicated by it not using React and both of them being dwarfed by Typescript.
I find it a little weird to mix applications and libraries in the same list. But if libraries are considered, I would definitely nominate Hibernate: the most powerful ORM out there accross all languages, and it's been a must grab for any of my projects for almost 2 decades.
I would stay clear of this company. They might have good intentions but clearly they suck at supply chain.