Personal anecdotes and bias. I’ve never met anyone successful who regularly consumes drugs as serious as cocaine. At worst it’s marijuana, with minor experimentation with harder substances in college or on special occasions.
"Regularly" is doing a lot of work here. Plenty of rich and successful people dabble in drugs. People with any level of wealth who can function normally in society while habitually and regularly using any substance are pretty obviously much less likely to develop a habit in the first place.
Not habitual and not anything harder than marijuana no.
I don’t believe that I have little life experience, I live in a wealthy part of the United States and my circle’s median income is in the 300s, so I think I have a pretty solid impression of the type of habits successful people engage in and don’t engage in
> Vercel’s internal OAuth configurations appear to have allowed this action to grant these broad permissions in Vercel’s enterprise Google Workspace.
This was an interesting tidbit too. If true, this means that Vercel’s IT/Infosec maybe didn’t bother enabling the allowlist and request/review features for OAuth apps in their Google Workspace.
On top of that, they almost certainly didn’t enable the scope limits for unchecked OAuth apps (e.g limiting it to sign-on/basic profile scopes).
The universe didn’t offer a manual, but mankind has largely arrived at some orthodoxy for the most efficient and ergonomic ways to fret, bend, pluck, tap, strum, etc. In many cases, these are objectively better techniques to use once mastered, but they’re not the only way.
> In many cases, these are objectively better techniques to use once mastered
Given a certain set of quantifiable measures that is no doubt true, but then that only pushes the question to how are the measures determined to be objectively relevant? If the aforementioned fast/famous guitar players had started with a different technique there is a chance they wouldn't have become fast/famous. In that case, given the criteria of reaching notable speed/fame, it is possible their "bad" methods were actually best of all.
But also, even where everyone agrees there is a better way, that doesn't equate to an alternative being bad. So the original question still stands: How do we determine "shockingly bad" as opposed to "different"?
It's made of metal and is sturdy. I've taken it on 2 trips (including international), it's all good and still feels like new but to be fair I don't abuse it. For traveling I put it into a regular backpack that has a laptop sleeve, I don't use extra packing.
The track pad is of course not as good as Apple's but it's good enough where it's not in the way and feels ok to use.
The brightness and battery life both fall into the same category of they haven't negatively impacted me in my day to day. For example a few hours of dev work in the park with the sun out hasn't been a problem for both battery life or visibility.
You are right in that I don't value battery life as a top tier feature. ~5 hours of "real work" is enough because if you need extended battery life for doing intensive tasks away from human civilization you can always keep a power bank on hand for extended usage. If you're not out in the middle of no where, access to a power outlet is readily available.
reply