I wouldn't hold my breath on that. They've permanently lost several key non-PC markets (tablets, smartphones...) and they're losing the PC market irretrievably portion after portion. They can never hope to break into the tablet market not with the prices functional, usable Android tablets are selling at. The original Nexus 7 can be gotten for as little as %50. Same goes for smartphones. Why should a buyer break compatibility even with one app when Android devices are already selling for the lowest possible prices?
2-in-1 Convertibles have been a dud, as they should be: they're way too gimmicky to replace proper clamshells and way too expensive to replace tablets.
Touch-enabled laptops have also been selling poorly. So what other vector of attack is going to allow Microsoft to break into the mobile market? Not to mention that it's harder to convince the market to switch to a more closed platform even if it didn't have such as massive drought of apps.
The low end / casual "everyday user" they'll probably lose ChromeOS and/or Android. And even if they don't it means margins in that category will be more razor-thin than they have ever been.
On the high-end, there's gaming and creative productivity.
In gaming, Mantle simply shipping means that Microsoft can no longer lock-in half the Gaming/GPU market. If they try any anti-consumer shenanigans with DirectX, AMD users won't be affected and devs will start including the tag "runs best on AMD GPUs" on their games. Nvidia would have to either (1) adopt Mantle (or develop their own equivalent API) or (2) get left behind.
All that's not to mention SteamOS whose victory is all but assured given the unique selling proposition and value it delivers to every component of the gaming industry (developers, store owners, modders, gamers, chip makers...) and simply due to the fact that the whole industry has finally realized that Microsoft has been the worse possible custodian of the PC gaming industry and going forward, it's not going to work anymore and only a shared, open source, industry standard platform such as SteamOS will do.
As for the creative productivity market, there's no top-shelf professional program that Linux doesn't have that Mac also doesn't. The creative pro market is already shared between the 3 OSes.
Wouldn't it be just better to manufacture a metal barrel that can be incorporated in 3D-printed plastic gun design?
That way you just have one barrel, instead of each bullet having its own "barrel" which adds a lot of weight if you're carrying any decent amount of ammunition.
If the leftist propaganda is to be believed, then gays "are born that way" and homosexuality is not a behavior (BS, I know). Therefore, saying someone is proud to be gay is as nonsensical as saying "I'm proud to be white" or at best "I'm proud to have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism". You should be proud of something you have done, not something you allegedly are (as opposed to do), i.e.: accidents of birth.
So please get your BS straight before you sell it to us.
And no, him coming out isn't even close to brave. We live in a country where someone saying marriage should be between a man and a woman will be witch-hunted by these supposedly tolerant people (who are tolerant of everything except people who think different. oh the irony), have his livelihood and career destroyed and fired from his job, even though he invented one of the fundamental [censored]ars of the web. Yet, when this culture-rotting prick comes out he's applauded as if that is some accomplishment, or as if sexual "orientation" or him being gay is.
So let's praise him for something he does instead of is: promoting a bullying and fascist lobby that chills scientific and technological progress and a behavior and lifestyle that accounts for 78% of AIDS cases (even though it's members are only 1% of the population) and has zero or near-zero birth rates.
God knows how many employees he "let go" because they weren't towing the line of being perpetually in awe about gay colleagues and superiors.
I believe the correct and technical term for this is "f*cking ugly".
Quit standing in the way of natural selection.
In other news, Google to modify search results to fight the burgeoning auto industry and support legitimate tranportation by horses.
I don't believe you can't make AI for both large crowds and small NPC groups / individual NPCs that doesn't ~seem~ to be intelligent.
Regarding the example of NPCs attacking the player after they just saw him kill a high-ranking opponent, the logic for this has been solved almost a decade ago in games such as Warlords Battlecry and the original Assassin's Creed. In WBC, if you killed a difficult target, such as a dragon or daemon, nearby enemies had a percentage chance of being afflicted with the psych effect of fear or terror. In AC1, killing someone sent the nearby civilian crowd running away from you. If you want to make it more realistic, add logic to compare the difficulty of the opponent you slew to those of the nearby opponents who were in line of sight. Killing a level 5 opponent only sends NPCs with lower level difficulty running away from you.
As the number of NPCs increases, more and more they start acting as a crowd and less as individuals, and the AI per NPC can be simplified.
In scenarios with fewer NPCs, it's really just a matter of setting switches. It's just that the developer has to have the foresight to put switches for different scenarios such as having previously been attacked or wronged (e.g. you stole something from them) by the player. With many years of gaming now behind us, most scenarios are now known, even turned into memes. So any developer should put a minimum set of switches for their NPCs' AI.
Switches are permanent, or have longer longevity than current AI state. So an enemy guard, in a restricted area, who almost came close to making you out, would have logged these previous events and doesn't go back to the default state of 'unalarmed'. In the future, when he's in the process of making you out, he'll be more insistent, and even investigate more aggressively, even before the "suspicion bar" fills all the to red and he positively detected you.
So really, if there's any limitation it's a RAM limitation, but we have plenty of that in modern PCs.
Granted, putting a large number of NPCs on the screen at one time who act like individuals as opposed to a crowd would still be CPU-bound. Conversely, you can split the crowd into two crowds: a crowd of guards and a crowd of civilians.
My reply is too long so I won't post it in the order of logical progression, but rather in order of importance. It's split into two parts by a "line break" of equals signs (i.e. "="). The 1st part is the most important thing I want to tell you and is less related to your specific points. The 2nd part, the longer one, is related to your points per se.
"Oh, and by the way, these ‘EQ’ qualities also help you get dates."
And sucking up to female fanatics will not get you laid. Don't believe me? Go ahead and try it, and keep trying it. See where being a supplicant kiss-a** gets you with women. Also, don't try to project your own underwhelming or non-existent success with women onto me: it's telling and, quite frankly, repulsive.
It is scary how straight men in their late teens and twenties are idealistic: to such a degree that they are blinded to their own interests, and blinded to the abuse other demographics visit upon them. How they're the only ones concerned with such idealism, while all other demographics are concerned with their own interests. Such idealism borders on, if not outright constitutes, self-betrayal, and enables all the abuse and legal discrimination men get. Feminism is simply women's lobby, their interest group. It is simply female fanaticism hiding behind a thin veil of moral legitimacy simply by putting "rights" in their name.
If only straight men were just 1% as chauvinistic as women and feminists make them out to be.
If you were even remotely in touch with your own interests you would do the opposite of what you're doing and push for companies to have high standards and not give in to artificial market manipulation with quotas that are the result of political lobbying, not genuine qualification.
Women want men with positions higher than themselves no matter how much they protest that they want equals. With women, always watch what they do, and never what they say.
If you haven't been getting the level of success you would like with women, the last thing you should be doing is holding the view opposite me. What you should be doing is lobbying for growth in male-dominated, high-paying industries or at the least for the preservation of what little of those remain.
It's scary the number of pseudo-moral crusades young straight men sign up for without even asking themselves the basic question "will I be screwed by this?", let alone "how does this benefit me?".
And if you insist on being so blind that you hurt yourself and throw your own dignity, self-interest, position, and worth as a sovereign human being (that will not be used as a puppet for other groups' social warfare against him) under the bus, then I have no respect left for you and you are no longer worthy of any further discussion with me.
Emotional quotient is not something separate from emotional intelligence: it is the measure of it. So yeah he was talking about emotional intelligence. Now, if he were talking about "empathy", or "social skills", or "teamwork", or whatever, I would not have a problem with this as those are necessary skills, which are not mutually exclusive but rather positively correlated with IQ. If you think that what I was talking about was asocial people who keep boasting about their IQ score at the water cooler then you have caricatured my position and believed your own caricature of my position.
The required level of social skill is one the average, or at worst slightly above average, individual possesses. But the level of intelligence required by companies such as Microsoft or Google, is one that only the top 1, or 5 or 10% (or what have you) of the population possesses. So it is intelligence and not emotional intelligence that is the limiting factor. So either Satya is saying something trivial like "having a characteristic that the average human has, like average social skills or eyes and ears, will increase your odds of success" and there's no reason to think someone as smart as he is would make such a trivial, useless and insipid comment, or, as I suspect, he's sold on the whole BS put forth by the leftist propaganda machine regarding the existence of such an absurd and self-contradictory notion as emotional intelligence. Intelligence is cool-headed and the exact opposite of emotionalism. And it is not mutually exclusive with empathy: it takes a smart mind to be able to put yourself in the s[censored]s of others mentally. Any objections to what I just said can only come from the tired, old, gynocentric, compensational libel against men that feminists have fabricated: men may be intelligent, but women are ~emotionally~ intelligent; and the corollary: men have all the empathy of a lobotomized chimp. And if Satya had used any of those other words (e.g. "teamwork skills") instead of EQ and its related "emotional intelligence" I would not have called what he said into question or accused him of pandering.
"It is extremely rare for a single someone to hold all of these qualities (high IQ, charisma, good looks, exceptional communication skills, innovative imagination) like the ones I just mentioned."
Like I said, all you need is high IQ and slightly above average communication skills.
"Charisma". Jesus, how motivated do you think these employees need to be? It's not like they're on the front lines of a war charging head first and risking their own lives and need their sergeant and general to be charismatic as f*** or their morale collapses. Also, you do know that successful companies look for self-motivation when hiring, right?
One CEO is enough to motivate an entire company and revoke destructive policies such as Microsoft's employee ranking system. You don't need more motivation or communication skills than the average person with an IQ of 100 has. People with high IQ are pretty self-motivated individuals: just let them experiment with their own projects such as Google does (or did) with Google Labs and they'll produce plenty of innovations.
"Good looks". What? Hahahaha.
"~Exceptional~ communication skills". No, you just need effective communication skills which is found in abundance in any half-way decent workforce. Unless what you're saying is that white and asian males are so brain damaged they can't even speak clearly to their team members.
"Innovative imagination". 99% of inventions were invented by men. Same as every major piece of platform software or paradigm shift in the tech industry. VR? Oculus, men. Depression Quest, GamerGate? Zoe Quinn, women. Besides, high IQ is correlated with most other criteria you spoke about.
Oh and there's been zero evidence that diversity increases social cohesion or economic output.
"So roughly half the planet is female"
Yeah and you only need 10 to 20 thousand employees. The best 20000 you can afford. And these will be predominantly, though not necessarily exclusively, white and asian males. This is a fact, get over it. As for that half of the planet's population they certainly do not lack motivation as, in previous centuries, men were not handed their intelligence, or their success, or their inventions, or the civilizations they built on a silver platter, but we took them against mountains of adversity, snatched them from the jaws of nature and hostile humans. It sure as hell wasn't some artificial restriction or absence of motivating person that stopped us, because we weren't stopped. So let the population of the mediocre wallow in their mediocrity and cry me a river. In past ages the mediocre had the wisdom to shut up about their mediocrity not parade it in public as some badge of honor. But this is what you get in a culture that confuses victimhood for morality: everybody wants to play the victim.
"Maybe an exclusionist (IQ/sexist)…"
Ah, the "exclusionist" charge, we meet again! Once again assigning fault by those who don't make the cut not on their own shortcomings but on mythical discriminatory hiring policies by companies concerned with maximum outcome. Or, to put it with all the eloquence of the average mouth-breathing liberal moron: "Hurr durr, men's fault."
BTW, there hasn't been even the slightest shred of hard proof that the racial and gender composition of the workforces at companies like Google or Apple or Microsoft is due to widespread or management-sanctioned discrimination policies. But that doesn't stop the non-theistic dogmatists (read: liberals) from endlessly regurgitating their libelous myths.
But the gall of this accusation is that it's made under the legal climate of anti-white, anti-male "affirmative action" with legally-mandated quotas for and skewed playing field in favor of non-straight males, and non-whites.
So one can be certain every single white or asian man in such companies have earned, and more than earned, their position there. But the same cannot be said for females and non-white non-asian males who may have been hired to fulfill politically-forced quotas.
"those million dollar ideas wherever they come from."
Yeah, all those poor women with million dollar ideas being turned down at the doors of major tech companies just because they're women. Oh the poor dears, they're going to have to not be employees and be entrepreneurial and, *gasp*, start their own companies.
You know what's a million dollar idea? Google's crowd-sourced ranking algorithm and search. Microsoft's commoditized and universally compatible OS platform for both IBM and IBM-based PCs. The original Mac's GUI. The iPhone is a million dollar idea.
They may (falsely) claim discrimination in employment but there's nothing keeping them from founding their own companies and bringing their million dollar ideas to the market. So I might take your diatribe seriously if half of the startups that became multi-billion dollar companies were founded by women with million dollar ideas, but they have done no such thing. Jesus Christ, all women have to do to make a multi-billion dollar startup nowadays is make something as non-humanity-changing as Minecraft, and they can't even manage to do that!
And it is specifically because they don't have million dollar ideas that these unqualified deadbeat freeloaders are trying to tack themselves on to men's million dollar idea companies like leeches.
Also, Google, Microsoft and Apple are by their own admission not "diverse", or not as much as the political left brainwashed them to think they should aspire to be. Yet they look pretty successful to me despite their alleged lack of diversity.
“Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't."
And if he says anything different from the liberal herdthink please place a bucket on your head and bang it with a metal spoon while screaming "LALALALA!" repeatedly. Funny how liberals value all the diversities (color, gender, nationality…) except the only one that matters: diversity of opinion. "Look as different from me as possible but think exactly like me or you're a bigot."
“Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't."? Take your own advice then.
Except that the numbers don't bear that out, and instead have time and again shown that IQ is the one of the best predictors of success.
"Emotional intelligence", an oxymoron by the way, is a fictional criterion fabricated by feminists who couldn't get over the fact that women have a lower average IQ than men.
The question is why is he pandering to ideologues and women when he wants his company to re-become competitive? Shouldn't he be pandering to high IQ individuals which invariably are predominantly White and Asian males?
It's not like Microsoft can afford to pad its workforce with useless or low-productivity workers to bend over backwards to the SOCJUS quotas imposed by the [censored]cartel. They just downsized their workforce by several thousand employees.
Looks like Microsoft has finally pulled its head out of its a**.