Ironically, in Linux, if I ever see a Terminal, it’s because I opened it. If I’m doing stuff in GUI, terminals never pop up.
In Windows, doing stuff in GUI a blank terminal opens up and goes away during GUI interaction, or while executing background tasks occasionally.
Like I get and appreciate the CLI and for networking, that’s pretty much all I’m using anyway, but I am shocked that enterprise networking doesn’t even bother to do any GUI. Once upon a time Mellanox Onyx bothered to do a GUI and I could see some people light up, finally an enterprise switch that would let them do some stuff from a GUI. Then nVidia bought them and Cumulus and ditched their GUI.
There’s this kind of weird “turn in your geek card” culture about rejecting GUIs, but there’s a good amount of the market that want at least the option, even if they frankly are a bit ashamed to admit it. You definitely have to move beyond GUI if you want your tasks to scale, but not every engagement witih the technology needs to scale.
While you don’t need to memorize button locations and menus, the frustration is that it takes longer, and memorizing those details slightly mitigates. It’s torture helping someone do something while they hunt for the UI element they need to get to the next level of hierarchy. They will do it, in time, but it just feels like an eternity.
The main issue in GUI versus CLI is that GUI narrows the available options at a time. This is great, for special purpose usage. But if you have complex stuff to do, a CLI can provide more instant access to a huge chunk of capabilities, and provide a framework for connecting capabilities together as well as a starting point for making repeatable content, or for communicating in a forum how to fix something. Just run command “X” instead of a series of screenshots navigating to the bowels of a GUI to do some obscure thing.
Of course UI people have generally recognized the power and usefulness of text based input to drive actions and any vaguely powerful GUI has to have some “CLI-ness” to it.
I suppose the point is that the way people interact with GUIs actually resembles how they interact with CLIs. They type from memory instead of hunting through a nested hierarchy to get where they were going. There was a time when Desktop UIs considered text input to be almost a sin against ease of use, an overcorrection for trying to be “better” than CLI. So you were made to try to remember which category was deignated to hold an application that you were looking for, or else click through a search dialog that only found filenames, and did so slowly.
Now a lot of GUIs incorporate more textual considerations. The ‘enter text to launch’ is one example, and a lot of advanced applications now have a “What do you want to do?” text prompt. The only UI for LLMs is CLI, really. One difference is GUI text entry tends to be a bit “fuzzier” compared to a traditional CLI interface which is pretty specific and unforgiving.
In a pretty high end high tech company, there’s still lots of people who see a terminal and think “ha hah, they are still stuck in old mainframe stuff like you used to see in the movies”.
My team determined long ago that we have to have two user experiences for our team to be taken seriously.
A GUI to mostly convince our own managers that it’s serious stuff. Also to convince clients who have execs make the purchasing decisions without consulting the people that will actually use it.
An API, mostly to appease people who say they want API, occasionally used.
A CLI to wrap that API, which is what 99% of the customers use 95% of the time (this target demographic is niche.
Admittedly, there’s a couple of GUI elements we created that are handy compared to what we can do from CLI, from visualizations to a quicker UI to iterate on some domain specific data. But most of the “get stuff done” is just so much more straightforward to do in CLI.
He says “assuming”, perhaps he could have further clarified for sake of argument. He’s saying even without debunking the claim, you can just wave your hand around and point the simple reality of relatively few people with autism despite majority of people vaccinated.
That’s not to say the claim is true, just that even if it were, it’s still stupid
Could keep all of them that don’t have annual fees, and spread out your purchasing. I have three cards, one that’s 2% off everything, and one that’s more off food, and another that’s more off online purchases. My aggregate credit limit is pretty high even if each one were a bit modest (they aren’t as modest as they used to be though)
You can always pay off your balance more often than monthly. When I first opened my first card, I paid it off every Friday, to make sure the small limits were available if I needed them (I had a credit limit of $1,000 back then). Now I pay them off every payday, still multiple times a month. If you need to carry a large balance across payment cycles, you’ll get stuck on a high interest rate treadmill you don’t want to be on anyway.
The credit limits increase with time. The $1,000 card I started with now has a $10,000 limit. Mostly the limits came automatically, but I did request an increase to be able to pay for a home repair in a single transaction. Now between the three cards I have a lot of limit.
A fair number of places where you might want to spend a lot of money in a single transaction won’t accept credit cards anyway over a threshold. Last time I bought a car after establishing the price I asked about just charging it to a credit card. They were willing to do it only for $2,000, so I had to cut a check for most of the car anyway.
Not only interest, but the transaction fees. The financial institutions make big money on the transaction fees, and generally the rewards are less than the transaction fees, so they can’t even possibly lose money on the deal.
While that’s true, even Trump will throw a few hollow words in support of other Republicans and declare himself a Republican and knows the result is his life is easier with Republicans victories.
In a hypothetical cheating scenario, it’s not like Trump directly did the cheating, some broad conspiracy across multiple states would require a number of players, coordinated since the “evidence” is similar dropoff across many states. Any such conspiracy would doubtless recognize the strategic value of allies also winning, even if they didn’t care about the allies directly. Such a conspiracy would be keyed into the same sentiment that wants to do everything they can to install conservative loyalists across the executive and judicial branches as quickly as they can. There’s no way such a conspiracy would neglect legislators and state governments if they had given themselves that opportunity.
The drop offs could be explained much more simply that MAGA is only about Trump and not about Republicans. If Trump only cares about Trump, the same can be said if his followers. Most of them will vote R as long as they are filling out a ballot anyway, but they barely even show up for Trump loyalists in the midterms. So it’s quite reasonable to expect a bunch of Trump people to just go in for the one thing they care about and ignore the rest.
The governor is easy to explain, the Republican candidate was never well liked, and then it came out that he specifically called himself a black Nazi and the Republican party threw him under the bus.
The lieutenant governor and attorney general remain odd, but that’s NC for you. They sometimes just vote Democrat for statewide State races and then vote republican federal.
I suppose the counter question would be if they were manipulating the votes directly, why not also rig the down ballot election?
Every LiDAR system must use at least both. LiDAR can’t tell you about lane markings, what’s on signs, and state of traffic lights.
But absolutely, you could have multiple sensing technologies and have access to the best of all worlds.
They ditched radar at a time when radar only added probably about $50 a car according to some estimates.
It may technically get a smidge more profitable, but it almost seems like it’s more about hubris around tech shouldn’t need more than a human to do as well. Which even if it were true, is a stupid stance to take when in that scenario you could have better than human senses.
Hell, they don’t even have radar anymore, despite even a lot of low end cars having that.
Technically cost savings, but it seems mostly about stubborn insistence on cameras being enough.
Fortunately, no respect is due
Definitely a component of these safety systems needs to be actually effective driver monitoring. You have cars now doing gaze tracking, and tracking things like whether the person seems drowsy. Even while driving unassisted they will nag you if it can’t confirm your attention (I would get dinged sometimes on steep ramps because my arms would block the cameras while turning the wheel, it frankly trained me to reposition hands earlier just to not get the nag).
I used the lane centering to help my kid get used to the sense of correct positioning in the lane. Of course turning it off to make them do it manually, but kind of like training wheels when the kid was tending to push it almost over the passenger line.
It can be a huge help, depending on the human factor.
If it’s a ‘oh, take your hands off, it’s fine, take your eyes away, it’s fine’, then I could see that the systems replace human weakness but add their own, failing to reach a good “best of both worlds”.
If it’s one of the systems that watches the driver’s eyes and nags if they take their eyes or hands off the task of driving while also encouraging good lane positioning and sufficient, yet perhaps uncomfortable braking in an emergency situation. Enough assistance to aid safety, still annoying enough to make people not rely solely upon them.
Challenge is that’s not a very appealing promise of value. “Our system improves safety by using all this ADAS, but is annoying enough to keep you engaged!”.
While true, it’s still nice that super-human senses are looking out for the driver on their behalf. Also it’s nice if super-human senses allow for braking earlier and closer to graceful rather than standing hard on the brakes because of late notice.
Fog is one example, but sudden blinding glare could be another situation that could be mitigated by things like radar and lidar. Human driver may unexpectedly be blinded and operating at unsafe speed without any way of knowing that glare was coming in advance.
As far as I’ve seen, any system would be additive. If it has lidar, it would also have cameras and radar. So that you get the best of all the technologies (e.g cameras are the only only of the three that can follow lane markings)
Did he have lidar removed? I thought it was radar. I didn’t think any Tesla vehicle ever took on the cost of lidar.
Of course my terminals outnumber my browser tabs by about 3:1 right now. Commenting on an internet site needs neither scale nor complexity and a WebUI is fine for that.