becausechemistry

I understand the sentiment, and I’m definitely not a Boeing apologist. But the first version of the Apollo command module killed three astronauts. They had growing pains, too.

At work, my work PC laptop drives two 1080p monitors. I don’t keep it open to use the onboard one because Windows is so terrible at handling displays of different sizes, and the fans run so much when driving three displays that I think it could take off my desk. So I know what you’re talking about.

But. Have you ever used a Mac with two displays? A current-gen MacBook Air will drive a 6K@60Hz and a 5K@60Hz display when closed, and it’ll do it silently. Or both displays at “only” 4K if you want to crank the refrsh rate to over 100Hz. You think that’s not enough for the least expensive laptop they sell?

I’m really tired of people who don’t know what they’re capable of telling me why I shouldn’t enjoy using my computer.

What percentage of people who buy the least expensive MacBook do you think are going to hook it up to more than two displays? Or should they add more display controllers that won’t ever be used and charge more for them? I feel like either way people who would never buy one will complain on behalf of people who are fine with them.

limit it

There isn’t some software limitation here. It’s more that they only put two display controllers in the base level M-series chips. The vast, vast majority of users will have at most two displays. Putting more display controllers would add (minimal, but real) cost and complexity that most people won’t benefit from at all.

On the current gen base level chips, you can have one external display plus the onboard one, or close the laptop and have two externals. Seems like plenty to me for the cheapest option.

I have a Mac with multiple monitors. It handles them a hell of a lot better than my PC at work.

Schism incoming in 3… 2…

I’m a person who liked Disco for about a season and a half until it was clear they didn’t have a clue what they were doing. I was pumped for Picard until it turned out to be a dud in reality.

SNW brings back what Trek has been good at: thought-provoking narratives, true ensemble casts, mostly episodic stories. LD takes what I love about Star Trek and makes fun of it in the most loving way possible – and in the process makes some really good “true” Trek episodes.

I can say as someone who shares your opinions of Disco / Picard that SNW and LD (if animated humor would work for you) are worth trying out.

And just… be careful conflating how those old episodes made you feel (and make you feel remembering them) versus how good they were. You want to talk about bad TV? S1 of TNG was a dumpster fire. But we all feel good about it because of where it led to. If bad new stuff can make you feel differently about the old stuff, your feelings about the old stuff might not be rooted in what you think it is.

Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks would like to have a word

The axe forgets, the stump remembers

I had to stare out a window for a little bit after this one.

Alternate take: this is the same sort of mark self-sorting that scam artists use.

A reasonable person isn’t gonna reply to a typo-ridden email from a Nigerian prince. But those few who do are going to be easy to get everything from.

Imagine you’re an executive at the company your dad founded. You’re an idiot. Everyone knows you’re an idiot. But you think you’re smart. This guy is willing to consult with you about how your company will use AI (for a modest fee, of course). You don’t understand AI, but you think you do, and you just need someone to help with the details. And everyone has to nod their heads and agree to pay him because they’re afraid of getting fired.

You don’t have to fool everyone.

You should ask, like, any woman in your life.