erdevs

6 ms·

31.
by erdevs 10y ago
No worries and thanks for the reasonable reply! :-)
32.
by erdevs 10y ago
Thanks for the reply and I agree with you (and Tim Cook!) on not overextrapolating from such stories. A couple points: > The WSJ article, though, attributes the cuts in component orders to weaker iPhone demand: 'because of weaker-t
33.
by erdevs 10y ago
The parent claim was that there is no relationship, but they haven't backed that claim up. Unless someone does, it's an overstatement, especially in light of evidence that these reports (from well-reputed financial news instituti
34.
by erdevs 10y ago
"Apple will trim production of its iPhone family around 10% on the year in the first quarter of 2017... This comes after the company slashed output in January-March 2016." Along with the context that there is absolutely no news
35.
by erdevs 10y ago
Thanks! I'm not sure how much to extract from this article but it seems a leap to state definitively that "the notebooks have been selling extremely well" and that concerns are mostly bullshit. I have no dog in the fight as
36.
by erdevs 10y ago
The article isn't talking about quarter over quarter growth, but year over year. Quarterly sales will likely decline, as they do most every year in the period and as is perfectly natural for this market. The story is that year-over-y
37.
by erdevs 10y ago
Effects don't necessarily show up in the following quarter. Moreover, it's an overstatement to say there is no relationship. iPhone sales growth slowed dramatically following previous periods where supply chain order cuts were
38.
by erdevs 10y ago
I hear what you're saying, but I am not sure you're interpreting the supply chain order implications correctly. You are assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of expected vs actual component supply order volumes and subsequent net sales. That
39.
by erdevs 10y ago
It's well and good to point out that analysis based on supply chain sources may draw inaccurate conclusions and definitely to demonstrate that such analysis has been wrong in the past (it certainly has, for Apple and others). I do not
40.
by erdevs 10y ago
This is not what the article says. It isn't discussing quarter-over-quarter sales. It references year-over-year sales. It is also discussing supply chain order volumes, which can indicate future expectations of sales by the compa
41.
by erdevs 10y ago
Source on MBP sales? Are these launch sales figures or over a longer-term period?
42.
by erdevs 10y ago
It isn't unsourced. They tell you the source in the article. This is from The Nikkei newspaper, as in The Nikkei Index. This is Japan's largest financial newspaper. It is original research performed by seasoned financial journal
43.
by erdevs 10y ago
Title is completely inaccurate (both here and on the source site). Crytek isn't mentioned by name in Turkey's PM's speech, his comments are only speculative and the apparent idea is that Crytek will "invest" in Turk
44.
by erdevs 10y ago
You said "Except..." And then made several points which are worthwhile discussions but in now way controvert what I said. I agree that the questions of voter turnout, third party support, and fatigue of the two major parties, the
45.
by erdevs 10y ago
This is a misleading title (both on Backchannel and here). I have no idea why the author chose to use it (other than as clickbait) when it misrepresents the content of the actual article. The article points out how much verifiably false inf
46.
by erdevs 10y ago
Why? Facts are facts. The definition of a fact is that is an objective, verifiable statement. Trust does not come into play because you don't need to trust anyone judgment to verify a fact. Judgment is not involved. Whether Fox fire
47.
by erdevs 10y ago
> "OMG, Trump has won through lies and deception! We failed to stop him. How on Earth did that happen? We must out-manipulate our opponents next time." This is a ridiculous oversimplification of a complex and important set of
48.
by erdevs 10y ago
Why wouldn't it be on the front-page? Seems there is some newsworthy info here as well as a clear call to action. They announced the shareholder vote date, had a schedule for upcoming combined product announcements over the next ~3 wee
49.
by erdevs 10y ago
To be fair, often one does that to avoid people wondering if the order means something (ie order of importance). It's sometimes meant to signal that they are in no political order, but simply listed alphabetically.
50.
by erdevs 10y ago
Gimmicks make for very poor hiring filters, though they make for great article clicks.
51.
by erdevs 10y ago
This is a shoddy write-up which sensationalizes the more rigorous underlying scientific work. The actual research here appears to find methodological shortcomings in many papers purporting a broader effect on intelligence or problem-solvi
52.
by erdevs 10y ago
Turnarounds are super hard. A year isn't long enough and Dorsey would have been wise to both set expectations clearly that this is a 3+ year trek as well as lock in some protective provisions around that timeline. Given the actual stat
53.
by erdevs 10y ago
The big difference is the Star Trek computer wasn't using its data about Kirk to provide him "enhanced advertising experiences", there wasn't a big corporation controlling the computer and no government was accessing the
54.
by erdevs 10y ago
I've been a long-time Apple and iOS user. However, I can recognize that this is a big move by Google. > For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go... The headlines says Google's first &q
55.
by erdevs 10y ago
Citations?
56.
by erdevs 10y ago
You make great points. To be fair, the effects here could still be reconciled with the parent post about likelihood of car ownership increasing with caring for children if it's also true that younger people are having kids later in lif
57.
by erdevs 10y ago
Total aside and this may be too late into a crowded thread for anyone to notice this. But have physicists ever rigorously examined the idea that quantum "duality" is explained by computational complexity? I know it's more met
58.
by erdevs 10y ago
If your direct competitor told the press your company was worth $5... do you think that would mean it's really worth $5? Do you think they'd really believe that it's worth just $5, or do you think they might have an ulterio
59.
by erdevs 10y ago
I'm saying that if Uber was trying to devalue Lyft, it's far too obvious a ploy. It won't work. They may as well have said Lyft is worthless-- it'd still be for obvious reasons, but at least that wouldn't have est
60.
by erdevs 10y ago
This is such an obvious ploy, it probably has the opposite of the desired effect. Uber would've been better served saying Lyft is worth less than their cash on hand because of burnrate / runway and fierce competition. By establi

More ›