Yeah one of the Nordic nRF chips would be nice. But I guess the advantage of ESP is the hobby developer community. It's not going to be as good on battery power but the barrier to entry for people wanting to tinker is really low.
I would second this. For SBCs the software support is the biggest deal breaker for me these days. Being cheaper or more powerful isn't as much of a benefit without the software ecosystem and community to back it up.
And then the construction quality/tolerance too. I've had Pis last for years and then cheap alternatives burn out after a few months of moderate use.
I don't know if this is a toxic thing to say or not... But I enjoy my tech friends and I value our discussions. But I most value my science nerd friends outside of tech. Like.. I kinda don't want my friends to be peers. Not because of competition or anything like that. But I want them to nerd out to me about things I'm not steeped in. And I want to get to nerd out to them about computer science and the boundaries of philosophy and math and logic. But having a friend group is central.
I agree. I don't know which segment you fall into... But for applications and interviews I would recommend to radiate... Find your best work. Open source or otherwise. And sell yourself.
That doesn't mesh with normal human behavior. It feels weird. But the corporate world and the private social worlds are disconnected. For me at least. So it's weird. Actually ... That's a weird concept.
I guess I recommend having two minds... One with friends and one with the corporate world. And they don't play by the same rules.
I don't know how to filters those people. But I'd say in general if people have positive things to show... It doesn't mean they don't have negatives. They can be hiding all kinds of negatives... That's hard to test. But if you have several good examples you probably have some experience. I assume you pick the best. Maybe that's problematic. Maybe some hyper-honest people try to pick a mixture that better represents their skills. But I don't know how you balance for that. I want them to represent themselves and sell themselves.
But job applications aren't the same as normal life so this is probably a tangent. In normal life, though, I kinda assume I'm seeing what people want me to see. But if it looks really good it probably means they have good sample of experiences to cherry pick from.
But in the context of job interviews.. It applies. But also that applies in trading, if you have a bunch of experience winning or losing, that's useful experience and I want your input on my team. The fact that you cherry picked is built into the evaluation. You have experience. Whether or not you have some innate talent for it is aside. I care about your experience.
If they have thousands of examples to cherry pick from... That's a signal of experience. So it's not entirely manipulation. If you can pick from your experience and find the best examples and you have several... You have experience.
But the application of law should be explicitly defined in order to be applied equally by law enforcement and courts. If you define the law to be "all people have the right to live as decided by local law enforcement and courts" then by not having explicit definitions of legality you're introducing the potential for abuse. Or even confusion as to what is actually allowed (and thus litigation as to whether certain behavior was within the spirit of the enforced law).
It sounds as though what you want is the The Constitution / Bill of Right. A basic set of simply worded principles that influence the definition of law, but aren't themselves "the law".
They make it hard to correct those things too. You have to re-upload the entire thing as a new video instead of being able to edit or replace existing videos to deal with copyright claims. But then their algorithms also seem to demote content creators from deleting or unpublishing videos so correcting those things actually hurts your channel in the long run.
One of my more popular videos could never be monetized because I added a song (via the old YouTube editor interface) that turned out to have a copyright claim but the interface doesn't allow me to remove or change the background music in post. So I'm given the option to delete something with 911k views and annoy my viewers with a duplicate upload or just cut my losses.
I'm not saying that there aren't content producers who want that or would benefit from it. I'm saying that they probably won't make as much money that way. And if the only way to do it is to use pervasive tracking and digital surveillance (which users are increasingly blocking and lawmakers are becoming skeptical about) then it's a business model on unstable ground to begin with.
My experience, especially with media content producers, is that those ad platforms are never sufficient and it's always advisable to rely on partnerships or Patreon. Because, yeah, it's more work to create those relationships, but the alternative is relying on a low-revenue platform where a small update from the whims of Google might destroy you without warning.
> Right now you can make a new site, sign up with an ad network, and start showing ads.
With the tiny payout you get from Adsense, unless your site is really popular to begin with, you're not going to make much of anything. Pennies maybe (which you won't receive until hitting a threshold anyway). So I don't see how it helps with entry.
By the time your service is popular enough to make real money you could approach smaller brands and advertisers to get better deals than Adsense.
Adsense exists to make ads cheaper for the advertisers and there's no way around the fact that that means content producers will be making less money as a whole. You can't have it both ways. It's lowering the amount that advertisers are willing to pay content creators by giving them the perception that their money stretches further, aided by online tracking and targeting. Meanwhile Google caches in on their cut of the deal and all of the piles of data they collect with their monopoly while content producers get shafted.
You can make the same argument about podcasts, television, radio, magazines, billboards, etc. At some point you rely on statistics that someone is giving you in all of those mediums but they still made money.
I've personally made much more money producing content (YouTube and podcasts) by directly working with brands than I ever have from Adsense anyway so I'm not convinced that the advertisers "paying more" is helping content creators much to begin with. Patreon seems to be a symptom of that.
Edit: Also, on the subject of advertisers paying less. Isn't part of the problem the fact that adtech giants like Google are saying "look, we have this awesome tracking and targeting tech so you can pay less for ads to reach your target audience". Thus reducing the potential ad money that those people would pay into potential revenue for content creators to reach their audience?
That's a completely different discussion though. Personally I'm not offended by seeing a brand placement if it helps the content creator and is transparent (meaning I know it's an ad, and it's not collecting data about me).
Bringing it to a physical example, if I walk into a store and see a product placement or physical sign advertisement, I'm not that offended by it. But if they started fingerprinting me and taking my picture under the premise of selling me more stuff... I'm offended by that.
Podcasts are a great example. They've had to do advertising the old fashion way, by market research and trying to figure out which ad campaigns are more effective without mass surveillance.
Often they use the strategy of widespread name recognition, which is why you can probably think of a mattress brand, and a recruiting platform off the top of your head. That's effective advertisement without tracking.
I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash.
But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I make on every website I visit, etc.
That's crossing a line of what "advertisement" means. So the more these "advertisers" work to blur those lines the more their "ads" will be blocked under the umbrella of those who don't want this level of pervasive tracking and surveillance.