/* huh */

Uh that piece of horror was not in the post. Phew.

> Multiple desktops work well, nice gestures, simple installers and applications.

Multiple desktops on Windows is not a nice experience for me. When you switch the desktop on one display then they ALL change for every display. I need them independent ala macOS or it is just so infuriating to use. Win11 also has big Fisher Price sized title bars now and macOS Tahoe isn't far behind. I think the GUI designers are on magic mushrooms when coming up with these designs.

It's about precedence in cases like this as the dominos fall quickly otherwise. If you stop the roots from growing then other countries won't get ideas. It's why companies should totally ban the Brit geo for all the daft laws they enact.

A CS degree is there to teach you concepts and fundamentals that are the foundation of everything computing related. It doesn't generally chase after the latest fads.

Sure, but we need to update our definitions of concepts/fundamentals. A lot of this stuff has its own established theory and has been a core primitive for software engineering for many years.

For example, the primitives of cloud computing are largely explained by papers published by Amazon, Google, and others in the early '00s (DynamoDB, Bigtable, etc.). If you want to explore massively parallel computation or container orchestration, etc, it would be natural to do that using a public cloud, although of course many of the platform-specific details are incidentals.

Part of the story here is that the scale of computing has expanded enormously. The DB class I took in grad school was missing lots of interesting puzzle pieces around replication, consistency, storage formats, etc. There was a heavy focus on relational algebra and normalization forms, which is just... far from a complete treatment of the necessary topics.

We need to extend our curricula beyond the theory that is require to execute binaries on individual desktops.

This is mostly software engineering not computer science though. That is but a small sub-section of computer science.

I just don't see the distinction. Looking at it from the other direction: most CS degrees will have you spend a lot of time looking at assembly language, computer architecture, and *nix tools. But none of these are mathematical inevitabilities - they're just a core part of the foundations of software engineering.

However, in the decades since this curricula was established, it's clear that the foundation has expanded. Understanding how containerization works, how k8s and friends work, etc is just as important today.

Containerization would be covered in a lecture on OS Concepts. A CS degree isn't to teach you about using containerization. Take a course specific to that.

I do agree that the scale has expanded a lot. But this is true with any other fields. Does that mean that you need to learn everything? Well at some point it becomes unfeasible.

See doctors for example, you learn a bit of everything. But then if you want to specialise, you choose one.

"How was your weekend?" I really don't care.

Seriously.

> How was your weekend?

Fine, just like literally thousands of previous weekends before this one. And now I’m going to ask you the same and then zone out for 5 minutes because I literally couldn’t care less.

Any meeting without an agenda is a waste of time.

Hour long meetings are a red flag. Meetings should be a maximum of 30 mins.

Is this idea viable? Who are these smart consumers and do they really exist in everyday life?

Smart consumers of this flavor are a minority but they exist. People who care can already bypass the "smart" features of mainstream TVs, thereby enjoying low prices and negating the privacy risks. Or they can pair a large computer monitor and separate audio system that never had smart features to begin with. To make the business work you need smart consumers who are privacy-conscious and are willing to pay more for it instead of doing a little more work on their own.

I think if you went in a Framework direction (opensource, high quality hardware, techie oriented, etc.) you would be able to make it work for a small high end market, particularly if you aimed it having a great "pc-connected" experience.

It is a bet on two things:

1. the enshitification of smart devices would continue progressing and, at some point, our product would just be better and enough reason to migrate 2. a single, catastrophic privacy event would change the public perception on the importance of privacy and trusting your own devices, which would change the value perception of dumb appliances

Any one of those two would suffice to make the business viable, in my opinion.