Because for at least half of the 72-hour workweek, most employee will mentally checkout
Management seeing this and doing the calculation: “if they’re gonna be checked out half the time, we’re really only getting 36 hours of the 40 we’ve been promised.”
That’s sadly the reality of the push to 996. When Google added early breakfast and late dinner, it was the same reasoning: if people stay “in the zone” longer, you end up squeezing out a bit more.
I get the feeling the push to 996 is in part due to the social media epidemic - everyone spends so much time doomscrolling, might as well keep people in the office much longer to account for that extra wasted time too.
I'm not on Facebook, but, from what I can tell, this has arguably already happened for still images on it. (If defining "better" as "more appealing to/likely to be re-shared by frequent users of Facebook.")
On both counts, I think it's actually IBM who didn't get the importance. Both of the 386 to OS/2 and how important quick-to-market hardware was (even if just for brand prestige) versus Compaq.
Microsoft always got it, and I feel certain the first release of NT (3.1) sold many times as many copies for x86 as it did for other architectures; and it was targeted for it as much as for any other arch.
It was actually Microsoft that saw early that OS/2 needed to exploit the 386 but IBM dragged their feet on it. A strategy similar to Windows/286 vs. Windows/386 would've made a lot of sense IMO. And probably helped IBM sell more 32-bit Micro Channel hardware early on!
Here's the PDF of the product line[1] with the price list from 1987.... 300 Megabytes was $789. I was the entire tech staff for Management Support Systems, and had written an inspection reporting system for fossil fuel generating systems in Turbo Pascal under MS-DOS that talked to Norand corporation portable computers with Symbol Technologies barcode scanners. The portables were rated for a 3 foot drop to concrete, and you could use them outdoors in winter, with gloves on... amazing stuff.
I’m no expert on these things, but since Apple Containerization uses OCI images, I’d think you’d be able to sub in Docker (or Podman, etc) as the runtime pretty trivially. Like Podman, it uses a very similar command line interface to Docker’s.
Edit: Oh, I see now that Coderunner is Apple Containerization-specific.
>Obviously you'll still review every line before merging, but that takes an order of magnitude less time than wrestling with it in the first place.
Just speculating here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the truth of both parts of this sentence vary quite a bit amongst users of AI coding tools and their various applications; and, if so, if that explains a lot of the discrepancy amongst reports of success/enthusiasm levels.
