Last month, I bought two pairs of sneakers: one was a full leather design made in Spain, the other was a leather/cloth combination (Italian design, I'm not sure where they are made). Both are comfortable, seem to be of very good quality and look premium. The price of these two pairs together was less then one Nike pair made of synthetic materials.
This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
>Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
I always go to buy Nike first after decades of conditioning. These past years I always return.
Outer soles are of a recycled material that slips and feels like packaging material, the upper part is badly stitched and I've had two times where left and right shoes where slightly different size or shape.
I swear Nike knockoffs are significantly better quality than Nike itself now somehow.
Not sure if I’ve always been too rough with my should, but last year I needed to get more shoes as I was particularly active hiking and fishing that summer.
I ended up going with an expensive pair that was supposed to have all sorts features including some nest waterproof material that I was excited for.
A year later the waterproofing has nearly all rubbed off and a hole has grown next to the toe. These shoes were like $200.
I always assumed 30%+ of the price of a Nike product is to pay for marketing, and shoes and clothing are not some top secret tech, so removing Nike from the list of brands to buy was easy.
I think he might be talking about Camper Shoes. I have two pairs that are at least 6 years old, but they are not made for running, and, they are also not as comfortable for walking as many of the famous brands. One was made in Cambodia (Peu) and the other one in Vietnam (Drift).
This sounds like it might have something to do with taxes? In Bulgaria all sports stores carry Nikes and the lower end ones are like 60 euros. Offbrand design replicas are like 40 or 50, no way you get such a deal f, especially for natural materials
+1 for poor quality. New Nikes seem to be blatantly made to wear out in a short few years. I got a pair of Air Max 270 in mid 2021. By 2025, the outer sole was so worn off that the air-sole was exposed to the ground while walking. That happened with very light use: COVID + WfH + not used when away + not used at sports + not my only pair of shoes.
I still buy Nike, but I go for classic models like Air Force, or Air 180, which are a bit more rugged.
I had the same experience with a pair of Nike Zoomfly Air. Bought in 2020, and they'd fallen apart by 2024 with extremely light use thanks to COVID and WfH. It was quite disappointing given the cost, and they had been quite comfortable shoes. Lately, I wear Brooks.
I think people underestimate the fact that Nvidia's GPUs are really good. Modular/Qualcomm's stack will provide a lot more optionality, but from what I saw in the Modcon conference on Tuesday, most of the target audience is towards other hardware vendors. At the moment, after designing a new hardware, you'd have to also build the entire software stack already existing on Cuda, ROCm, etc - this can double or triple your hardware bring up time. If you plug into Max (not Mojo), you get most of the software stack for free, so your software bring up time can go from months of engineering hours to probably weeks.
For AI? GPUs actually kinda suck. NVIDIA’s GPUs are best, and their software stack is great, but they aren’t really adapted to AI (training or inference).
I wouldn't say they suck, but they're general-purpose. Anyway, you've gotten into the core of what makes Modular's stack useful. GPUs are great, but it has become obvious that they leave performance on the table, so dedicated AI accelerators get built; however, these don't have software infrastructure and kernels that have been tuned and optimised for years, like CUDA. The bet here is that you can build great hardware, and with a little bit of effort you can unlock all the necessary software for your hardware.
Even general purpose matrix multipliers built for large linear systems instead of 3D graphics would get you orders of magnitude improvement. That’s essential what the current generation of AI accelerators are. Dedicated hardware could improve that further. I think that counts as “kinda sucks” in the absolute sense. It’s just far faster and more efficient than any other thing you can buy off the shelf today.
I feel this could be solved by crowdsourcing, assuming the support from the major phone manufacturers and possibly governments.
- After a call from an unknown number concludes, the phone could offer an option to the user to mark it as "spam" (blocking the number in the history would have the same effect).
- The spam mark would then go into the central database. If a phone number was marked as "spam" too many times, it would no longer be able to ring the phone (maybe it gets diverted into the "spam folder", like e-mails).
Or am I being too naive here? What are the obstacles for something like this actually happening?
You cannot trust which number which is signalled to the end user.
Most spam calls I get is shown as legit numbers. If I call them back they will go to an innocent and unsuspecting user.
Google is already collecting this information and shows numbers as "probably spam". It is hard to enforce this harder even with collateral damage as you cannot trust the number which is signalled.
Legislation is in this case a good thing which might get the telcos to take this more seriously. This needs to be handled on an operator level. Nothing will happen without legislative incentives.
The world is run on SS7 which has a lot of problems which inertia and lacking incentives makes hard to overcome.
My google android phone already does this. I get basically no spam calls at all except very rarely. But I go to the spam tab in the phone app and I see there are dozens that got blocked
On a related note: Visual Studio still has dialogs that cannot be resized, even after years of people begging Microsoft to make them resizable. Shouldn't this be a trivial fix for AI?
I'll believe in AI when I get to resize my Configuration Manager!
In OLTP, it's very difficult to guarantee correctness with triggers (very easy to have a race condition in concurrent environment). On a flip side, materialized views tend to lock more than you'd expect, especially when aggregates are involved.
The sweet spot is if you have a read-mostly database and use SNAPSHOT transaction isolation for the readers (which is SQL Server's implementation of MVCC). That way, writers may still block writers, but writers can never block readers, even when indexed views are being maintained.
Another neat trick is to "abuse" indexed views as multi-table CHECKs. The idea is to make a JOIN that would produce duplicated rows (and fail the indexed view's key) if some multi-table condition is not met.
You can have it in one place without using background sync.
Our application uses classical "foreground update" paradigm, but each API call automatically shows an error to the user and returns him/her to the same place where error originated to fix the input and/or retry. As a bonus, we also automatically show progress indicator for any HTTP request that takes more than 1s (which is rare).
- If that request succeeds, you know that the new name has been durably committed to the database.
- If it fails because the new name is not unique, the user sees the error, and can then enter a different name before retrying. The key is that the UI context is preserved during API failure, so everything the user had entered is still on the screen.
- If it takes more than 1s, the user sees a progress indicator which he/she can click to cancel the operation. This also returns him/her to the original UI.
The magic is in the `rename` itself - it was auto-generated from our back-end API such that it wires into our error reporting and progress UI.
I think a lot of it is down to Windows, not Prism itself.
For decades, Windows made it too easy for games and even some application to install drivers. Windows games use drivers for anti-cheat (and historically for copy protection too). Neither Apple Rosetta nor Microsoft Prism can translate/emulate drivers, but since drivers have been much more prevalent on Windows, now Windows has a much biggest compatibility problem.
Itanium was arguably not superior. The assumption behind it (that the compiler can bring order to the chaos) was wrong, making it slower, more expensive, and less efficient than x86 in real-world scenarios.
This was in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know what's going on around the world, but if this anecdote is of any indication, Nike is simply too expensive for the (lack of) quality they have.
reply