No. If it's everyone, then it's everyone and at worst it's not the most efficient way to communicate.
I would say, if you single out a group of people based on physical characteristics, then it gets weird.
But if it's "The internet won't start" vs "Every packet on port 433 is dropped even though no firewall rule is set", then I think it's reasonable to make some asumptions and adjust communication accordingly.
I work in IT and sometimes I have to explain something to a user who is somewhat tech-illiterate. Even developers may have significant blind spots when it comes to their OS or networking, for example.
So, if I notice it, I'll change some terminology and I may explain instructions differently or use metaphors so every user understands what I'm saying.
And most coworkers do the same thing.
Here's why I bring this up:
For whatever reason, some colleagues give female coworkers the same treatment.
And that's weird.
If someone is constantly treated like this, they should be allowed to rant about it on their blog. I'm fine with snark if it geht's a point across.
Hab einen Vorschlag:Wir nehmen ein existentes Konzept für ein gelöstes Problem.Dass benennen wir dann um, sodass es futuristisch und neu klingt.Anschließend ent-lösen wir es, indem wir super geringe Energiedichte mit maximaler Ineffizienz kombinieren.Und wir nutzen unsere Lösung in einem Bereich, wo sich die bisherige Lösung nicht durchsetzen konnte, weil sie für diesen Use-Case die schlechtest-denkbare Lösung ist.Wissing (FDP) gibt uns 150 Mio.
This image is so old I had it on my mp3 player, when I was a kid. (Don't ask why, we'll both just cringe) He just has very thick legs, so he can do all the cool parkouring, I imagined him doing, while sitting in the backseat of my parents car, listening to Nightwish and Subway To Sally.
I've been using Linux for more than a decade now as my daily driver.
Count me as 'basic' and 'just starting', because I quite like the colorful, clicky and nicely animated version, where I don't have to remember anything and that works just as well.
And now out of my way, while I happily point, click and scroll to adjust my displays brightness, which is entirely possible through the terminal, but I'm not ridiculous or insecure enough for that.
I don't get why you get so much downvotes, because it's not as obvious as people make it out to be and there are plenty of adapters. So it's a good question.
But yes. The 3.5mm jack had the thing companies say they are striving for: simplicity.
DACs are nice and everything but the phone can just decide to not connect properly. The DAC can decide it had enough of your phone. In either case you'd need to reconnect them. And that means unlocking your phone, because a secure phone will block streaming to 'unknown' USB-C devices, unless it's unlocked during the negotiation phase. And if your connectors have become wonky for whatever reason: Well, no music for you.
And then there's the issue where you have to have them at hand when you need them. In your car, on your person, while at work.
3.5mm is great because it actually "just works".
One of the few things that can claim such thing.
No. If it's everyone, then it's everyone and at worst it's not the most efficient way to communicate.
I would say, if you single out a group of people based on physical characteristics, then it gets weird.
But if it's "The internet won't start" vs "Every packet on port 433 is dropped even though no firewall rule is set", then I think it's reasonable to make some asumptions and adjust communication accordingly.