> So the only thing distinguishing one top brand from another was the name printed on the dial
Respectfully disagree.
Since the 60's (and one could argue, even long before that), watches are 1) fashion, and 2) male wealth-signaling fashion. That's it. Nothing more. And for males who subscribe to this wealth-signaling cult, they know from a long way away what watch brand is on that guy's wrist.
Okay, today's brands signal maybe a little differently than just wealth. Casio G-Shock watches aren't substantially different than their non-G-Shock counterparts in any significant way, but they cost way more. The G-Shock brand signals... I dunno, sportsy-ness? Maybe it is closer to a pure fashion brand here.
I think we've been in "The Brand Age" since the advent of advertising. There are plenty of products that have virtually no differentiation besides brand, and there (almost) always has been.
> they know from a long way away what watch brand is on that guy's wrist
No, they didn’t. The makers of movements and makers of cases were separate. From far away you only know the case on the wrist. Not the movement. (I think Rolex was the first mass-market Swiss watch brand to vertically integrate. Patek may have been the first boutique.)
The movement isn't part of the brand. It's not part of the signal. The case/dial/sometimes band are the brand. And if you couldn't tell them apart, they wouldn't be any good at signaling, the entire point of wearing them.
> movement isn't part of the brand. It's not part of the signal. The case/dial/sometimes band are the brand
The movement was the expensive part. Audemars, Vacheron and Patek only made movements. The retailer would then put it in a case. That’s the entire point of PG’s essay.
> if you couldn't tell them apart, they wouldn't be any good at signaling, the entire point of wearing them
Which might lead you to revise your hypothesis around why these watches were bought and made in the “golden age of watches.” Then as now there is such a thing as quiet luxury.
I don't think thats really true, Audemars & Patek deffo made entire watches in the 50s.
Don't get me wrong they also designed movements, but by the time of the quartz crisis, Patek bought in movements from outside.
It doesn't really help that omega and tissolt were merged with Certina, ETA, hamilton when then turned into swatch, which basically dominates the entire swiss watch industry along with rolex and richemont(who own Vacheron)
It’s sort of hard to unravel what’s part of the brand, it’s all imagination anyway.
The watch manufacturer, as part of their reputation, buys “premium” internal components. And then the hardcore watch-heads get to know that this model has that premium movement. Everybody in the club gets to signal to each other by knowing internal details that outsiders don’t notice (or even details that can’t be noticed, I mean, I assume by nowadays non-premium-brand movements are functionally identical to the premium ones).
They were. The Acquired podcast on Rolex really opened my eyes to this whole world. They defined the playbook in the 1930s that Apple repeated in the 80s and especially 2000s.
I entered this cult last year. It’s been super fun to spot and infer from a distance, as you say, these hidden signals that men have chosen to spend $20,000 to $120,000 on.
G-Shock says “I do things that are so dangerous and so off the grid your Rolex or Apple Ultra would shatter and die”. And it’s true, out of my whole collection, that’s the one that will still be within a ms of true time 25 years after the power goes out after the nukes go off.
my g-shock frogman is 10+ years old, still sits by the window, charging itself everyday (solar powered), and it's the watch I would grab if the proverbial hit the fan. I'd grab my self-winding analog jlc watch too, just in case I needed it as a bribe (not sure which would be better as a bribe if that happens, maybe the g-shock!)
>The G-Shock brand signals... I dunno, sportsy-ness? Maybe it is closer to a pure fashion brand here.
I own (among other, nicer time pieces) a G-Shock. I bought it when I was in the military and frankly it's a great watch that has withstood some serious abuse. Maybe a cheaper watch would have also survived? I'd happily buy another but mine's still literally and figuratively ticking.
I think you simply can't predict any number without really measuring it.
Ryzen + GPU + 1h of gaming, but 3 screens attached.
still a "desktop computer" - stuff in the browser can spike GPU wattage, but I don't think it will be meaningfully different over several hours of true idle..
My problem is more like: I could measure that, but I'd have to recable everything to have the power meter behind the power strip with just PC + screens... which I will probably do at some point, but it involves redoing 50% of the cables in this room.
Which reminds me of another "there, problem solved!" pet peeve of mine. I call it the Default Trap.
In many cases (Norman Doors are an example), there are two or more equally valid ways to do something. By "equally valid", I mean there is no clear standard for whether it should operate one way or the other, and if you ask 100 people which way it should work (which no one ever does), you get something approaching 50%.
So the product manager or perhaps developer simply says "make it a setting", and everyone agrees and declares the problem solved.
But the problem is, you have to choose a default. And 90% of the time, no one is going to change that default, or even discover how to. So you have to be very correct about assuming which value is the best default - and at that point, it probably doesn't matter that you make it an option.
The alternative I've seen to this is to ask the user which way they want it during the setup process. Light vs Dark mode is an example of this. The net result of this user choice is a longer, more complex, and burdensome onboarding process that is rife with decision fatigue. Once the user has chosen, if they don't like their choice, they may not know how to change it, since that initial action was outside of any standard interface.
The other issue with settings for everything is that the settings become bloated. In OS X, and to some extent iOS, I knew where all the settings were for the most part. Browsing them all to see what was available was a consumable thing, and I could largely remember where to go without much trouble. As macOS and iOS have added more settings to try and please everyone, and now redesigned the Settings apps... I've given up. I have no idea where most things are, what is in there, and have to search for everything and hope I use the right words.
There is an old video of Steve Jobs[0] talking about how every product is a series of decisions and trade offs. People pay companies to make all these decisions, and ideally, there is a company that makes decisions to similar enough sensibilities as yourself so that you can buy a product and use it without much fuss. It seems more and more that these decisions are all being pushed to the consumer, which in some ways makes a worse product. If I wanted infinite chose at the expense of complexity, I'd be running Gentoo or Arch. People choose macOS because it's supposed to be easy.
Almost all of the reports from people I know who have done ayahuasca have reported seeing "elves". It's not only common, they say it's not a "valid" trip unless you do, and even converse with them.
Though I don't know any reports of profound conversations.
The idea that there is one “valid” trip is essentially gatekeeping and should be pushed back on whenever it comes up. It leads to one of the more unhealthy sides of the psychedelic experience - nobody should feel that they have to continually chase something that’s not happening for them.
Like, I know at least two people who’ve done it in group settings with people who saw “elves” and they themselves didn’t see any.
“Valid” as a descriptor is probably best replaced with “average”.
Fwiw having drank ayahuasca hundreds of times, I've never seen elves (have seen plenty of other weird stuff though). Only times have been with breakthrough doses of smoked dmt. I guarantee it doesn't make it any less/more valid. There are so many more profound things to see, I don't know why people get so hung up on elves lol (if you ever experience meeting the medicine of a master plant/tree spirt during a traditional dieta you'd be flabbergasted).
I have some earnest questions, and please take it in that spirit, though I realize these might easily be interpreted as being negative.
To disclose, I've done LSD probably 15 times and 4-ACO-DMT three or four times. I haven't done it in years and I'm OK if I never do them again. LSD no longer hits the same way it used to such that the unpleasant parts now far outweigh the good parts.
Getting back to my questions, I've been under the understanding that ayahuasca can be punishing (vomiting, scary trips) but people often find it was worth it due to the insights they gain in the process. After the first handful of trips, are you still finding out new things? Are you so familiar with the terrifying aspects that they are no longer terrifying? Or are you lucky that the good aspects are still worth the price of admission? Is the driver for you insights or just the novel experiences which arise?
My wife's therapist went on an ayahuasca retreat and said it was like going through a wringer emotionally but it was really worth it. It had me wondering if maybe I should try it. A year later the therapist did it again and said it was like going through a ringer every night for four nights and she got nothing from it. :-(
I'm a bit of a different case, have been volunteering/working at retreat centers in Peru and Mexico for the last 6 years (and am somewhat of an apprentice in a particular tradition).
There are tough parts physically sure, you mostly get used to those parts, sometimes I'll have long stretches of not vomiting and sometimes it'll be every (or multiple times per) ceremony.
As far as "finding out new things", we often use this analogy of layers of an onion (of which you tend to cry more with each layer coming off :)). Breaks between sessions to integrate are needed- after a retreat you might find that some of your baselines have shifted, and you need to find your new normal (or make changes in your life to break out of the old patterns you didn't realize you were stuck in because it was just normal/programmed and not a choice previously). After you've adjusted/integrated other things may begin to surface that were just overshadowed by the energies you've cleaned up before. (A good shaman has cleaned themself to the point that their own energies no longer dominate their vision, and they can "see" outside themselves to diagnose/heal others). Anyways sometimes the physical side effects are just too much for some people and it's understandably not the modality for them...if you spend your ceremonies being entirely consumed by those effects, you can still make progress drinking with a good shaman (though it might be a few ceremonies before you get your head above water).
I still get surprised (especially with master plant diets). Ayahuasca isn't addictive but I think for some of us there is an intellectual addiction to it. The scary ones are the ones I look forward to now :).
I'm very biased but I'd only recommend doing retreats that offer master plant diets in a traditional Shipibo context if you're looking to make lasting changes. The master plants (adjunct plants taken alongside ayahuasca) offer a whole other dimension that ayahuasca alone doesn't even scratch the surface of. A weekend retreat in someone's garage might be ok for a "tuneup" or to see where you're at once in a while, but it's not the place for deep work or for someone new imo (and you risk opening a box that you won't have time to wrap your head around).
I have done ayahuasca and many people report seeing something like this: http://pbmo.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/machine-elf-2.jpg I can say from my personal experience, that this is only one possible "hallucination" although quite common.
> it's not a "valid" trip unless you do
You can definitely have a life-changing experience without encountering machine elves.
It's funny. one of the most significant UI axioms I ever learned came from Bill Atkinson: "Always make the 'click zone' a little larger than the visual indication of the affordance." This becomes tricky or impossible for some things like touch-keypads, but for most things it makes the difference between frustrating and magical.
Apple seems to have forgotten its own innovations.
You can definitely beat that for $30. Hit the thrift stores and you can find vintage machines that will greatly outperform this. You may need to replace a belt on some, but many are working just fine.
If I understand them correctly, Ebers-Moll equations are based on the exponential relationship between voltage and current in a BJT.
But tubes aren't current amplifiers, they're voltage amplifiers, like FETs.
You can look at the "characteristics curves" of tubes (plate curves and transconductance curves), which tell the story of current against plate-to-cathode voltages for fixed grid voltages.
Respectfully disagree.
Since the 60's (and one could argue, even long before that), watches are 1) fashion, and 2) male wealth-signaling fashion. That's it. Nothing more. And for males who subscribe to this wealth-signaling cult, they know from a long way away what watch brand is on that guy's wrist.
Okay, today's brands signal maybe a little differently than just wealth. Casio G-Shock watches aren't substantially different than their non-G-Shock counterparts in any significant way, but they cost way more. The G-Shock brand signals... I dunno, sportsy-ness? Maybe it is closer to a pure fashion brand here.
I think we've been in "The Brand Age" since the advent of advertising. There are plenty of products that have virtually no differentiation besides brand, and there (almost) always has been.