Yeah I seen if you post a specific corporation name, your topic will be bombarded by some companies astroturfing.
You bet every fortune 500 company has a reputation management company willing to "guide the conversation" with a few positive comments and a barrage of upvotes/downvoted.
Why bother? Computing is blazing fast already. Anything that is slow should use multi threading.
There's a reason most computers compromise on the processor performance, we don't need it. Take that extra few hundred and give me more ram and a better video card.
It’s obvious that those are related, isn’t it? I want to have a powerful laptop which I can carry around all day. Yet latest Intel ultrabooks either throttle or get hot and loud. So much energy just get wasted on generating heat, that’s why passively cooled m1 looks like a wonder.
It’s the subtext isn’t it. Apple went on and on about performance PER WATT. They could crank up the power and shorten the battery life any time they like.
I see Apple following the path of Nintendo. They don't need to compete on performance, their users aren't buying for performance. Vertical integration puts you at tremendous risk of falling behind.
The future is keeping Apple "fresh", "cool", etc... While keeping product costs low to compensate for a falling market share.
Really says something that Apple is willing to compromise on long term hardware performance.
How are they following the Nintendo path? These machines are clearly faster than the market segment, and apple is the leader in ARM CPU technology at this point, and they’ve been the mobile CPU leader for about 7 years, whereas Nintendo’s latest offering integrated mostly commodity technology from Nvidia Tegra. I don’t see how you can draw this parallel.
Nintendo has, since the Wii, shied away from bleeding-edge or custom components, preferring to use cheaper, proven tech that they can more easily maintain but is still strong enough for their needs. Just look at the Switch -- it uses the Tegra X1 in a device that launched in March of 2017, despite the X2 having been available for more than a year.
Apple, on the other hand, has been running rings around Qualcomm and other ARM vendors for a while now, and sharing tech makes it all the more important that they continue to be competitive.
I think only really the SNES/N64 years embodied the cutting-edge solutions associated with novel games. Their whole ethos to entertainment (especially the handheld line becoming the core product in a way) still feels embodied in Yokoi's "lateral thinking with seasoned technology" philosophy.
Apple has been beating “the big dogs” in performance for years with this processor and OS architecture in mobile & tablet segments. They’re switching laptop and desktop segments to this architecture because the mobile architecture already overtook the big dogs and has been growing the lead for a couple of generations. The A14 phone chip is already faster than most laptop CPUs, just like the A12 phone CPU was faster than most laptop CPUs when it was released.
They've been sustaining it for many years already, that's how they've gotten to the point of being able to passing up the incumbents. They didn't just start on this path this year, its the culmination of a long play strategy.
How do you reach this conclusion? Their individual cores and memory architecture still beat almost everyone else on general purpose loads without any of the specialized engines.
Basically every laptop from here on out is going to be benchmarked against these devices.
And battery life seems to be the sleeper performance metric here. Every review is going to be "you could get 6+ more hours if you just bought the macbook"
Wow this really explains why it seemed like people who were at a company for ~7 years seemed like such trash.
The 30 year seniors were pretty good despite their ignorance of the world outside their company.
The newbies have something to prove.
And it takes about 10 years to have a recession... To cut the fat.
Is there any disadvantage to being a "forever newbie" at companies? I learn sooo much when I change jobs. I can't imagine 7 years in 1 position is good for your career outside a chance at management.
> Is there any disadvantage to being a "forever newbie" at companies? I learn sooo much when I change jobs.
Always being in situations where you're learning is a great idea. You should be able to find learning situations as you move up in your career.
Always being in situations where you're a total newbie/beginner is not so great. You should ideally be able to build upon previous experience in some way with each new job. The problem is that your performance will be evaluated relative to some baseline, and constantly being too far on the "total noob" side of that baseline will start to send the wrong impression as you get older.
That's not to say you shouldn't avoid opportunities where you'll need to learn a lot to begin, but you should be evaluating new opportunities with an eye toward career progression at each step. It's easy to hit the reset button multiple times when you're young, but people will have different expectations about baseline competency when you've had a decade of career experience under your belt.
Companies that promote from within will look within (first) for the senior engineers. To get to the really high pay you need experience in something in depth. Knowing a little about a lot of the same things everyone else knows gets you the mid grade positions, but if you really want to move up you need to grok the details that matter to your company. Very few get to (or want!) these high level positions where you know the complex details of something useful nly to your company, but they go to those who have been around long enough to have experience.
Of course you risk tying yourself to a dead horse that will never go anywhere and now you need to start over from the below the rest: you have experience that nobody needs and none of the general experience everyone else wants for an okay position. Good luck recognizing when/where you need to be to get the good position in 10 years vs a dead end that they don't care about...
Your question about "forever newbie" is really interesting to me, and I'd love input from people with more experience in software development (15+ years).
Personally, I love the idea of jumping around every 18 months or so to experience new domains, new technologies and learn from new people, but I also worry a lot that this will severely limit my career potential after I've done it for 10-15 years.
Basically it boils down to responsibility. You can’t see the effects of your code if you jump around every year. Everyone thinks that they are good at writing code, until they have to maintain their own mess after a couple of years (not a month in production). Cowboy slinging is something we do for fun but as an adult we need to eat our veggies (writing documentation, choosing the language with a stable tooling, proper time estimation and everything else that seem unglamorous and easily dismissed).
>Your question about "forever newbie" is really interesting to me, and I'd love input from people with more experience in software development (15+ years).
I'm 20+ years in and HATE changing jobs. The initial period where I'm Jon Snow (I know nothing) is always annoying and makes me feel like I'm not contributing at a level that supports my role and compensation. I find that it takes 3 months to start to understand conversations, 6 months to contribute to them, and 9-12 months to really be a consistent and effective leader of things.
I didn't change jobs but I changed from integrating graphics on the backend to the web team (using Rust).
And the difference is stark. While I could coast and still outperform everyone I now have so much to learn and the progress seems so slow. I'm slowly getting my hunger back and as someone who loves to learn I wonder when did I lose it?
You bet every fortune 500 company has a reputation management company willing to "guide the conversation" with a few positive comments and a barrage of upvotes/downvoted.