The numbers I can find of Master System is that it sold between 10 to 13 million units worldwide, so not that much better compared to the short lifespan of Dreamcast.
Mega Drive’s sales numbers isn’t too far off from SNES.
The numbers I can find of Master System is that it sold between 10 to 13 million units worldwide, so not that much better compared to the short lifespan of Dreamcast.
Mega Drive’s sales numbers isn’t too far off from SNES.
Sega’s only console success was Mega Drive/Genesis. Probably because “Sega does what Nintendon’t”. Sega managed to sell themselves as the alternative for the kids who were too cool for the SNES.
They couldn’t compete with Sony on that front. Sony was the new cool guy. Dreamcast failed because everybody was waiting for PS2.
So I’d say failed marketing killed Dreamcast.
I’m bad at being a good person, so that would make me a bad person?
It’s not that funny.
Docker is like a virtual machine, but you only run one specific program in it. About exactly what the meme describes.
That’s fair enough. The common misconception is that waterfall is great for space missions, when in reality NASA is doing agile.
I agree that not everybody is NASA, so what works for them doesn’t necessarily work for everyone.
NASA also successfully flew a helicopter on Mars first try.
It’s barely waterfall planning either. Often there’s no planning, at least no coordinated one.
Currently at my current workplace we lack coordinated planning between teams. It seems like everybody is working in their own directions and it can take months until we get feedback from other teams. Mostly a product management problem.
The author is also hyping up waterfall too much. Agile was created because waterfall has its shortcomings (e.g. the team realizes too late that what they’re building isn’t what the customer wants).
But I also think it also represents how poorly implemented these ideas are. People say they do agile/kanban/scrum, but in reality they do some freak version of these.
I think this is a bit disingenuous. There’s no customer interaction in these panels.
So waterfall would be:
Customer says they want to go to Mars.
You spend years building a rocket capable of going to Mars, draining all the company budget in the process.
Customer then clarifies they actually meant they wanted to go to Mars, Pennsylvania, USA - not the planet!
Whether they intend it or not, these engines are built to funnel you back into the lowest common denominator, most broadly appealing stuff, because that’s what the algorithm sees gets the most clicks from the average person.
That’s not my general experience. Spotify for example is good at recommending me songs with less than 10k plays which I vibe on. I’ve discovered many smaller artists thanks to Spotify recommendations.
Recommendation is part of the service. If they know I like something, then it’s reasonable they recommend me something that’s similar. It’s like going to a restaurant and asking for recommendations.
Advertising is when things are promoted outside the service. It’s like going to a restaurant and they tell me about Raid Shadow Legends. I don’t want that.
I think recommendation should be linked to usage data like watch history on that particular service. Location and other external information shouldn’t be used. I don’t want my recommendations depend on which friends I have or recent activity on a different service.
One grain of rice in A1
Only thing I can find is that it has 128-bit graphics-oriented floating-point unit delivering 1.4 GFLOPS.
Probably only for marketing reasons. Everyone was desperate not to be worse than N64.
It’s a poorly worded article. YouTube premium “limits ads” as in being completely ad free (besides in-video sponsorships). YouTube hasn’t gone down that route yet.
I don’t think it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m not sure how YouTube can deal with it best. There’s sponsor block, but it’s relying on crowdsourced data.
Probably not in consumer grade products in any foreseeable future.
More complexity with barely any (practical) benefits for consumers.
Where are you getting that from? YouTube premium is ad free (so far).
It’s a marketing trick. First suggest an insanely high price. Customer rejects. Then suggest a lower price, but still expensive. The customer will be more inclined to buy, because the new lower price feels like a good deal in relation to the incredibly expensive old price.
If they went with the lower price right away, the customer wouldn’t be as inclined to buy because they don’t have the incredibly insane price as a reference point.