File 150743525477.jpg - (1.43MB , 1520x2688 , Zu4e5wX.jpg )

Boy I don't think I'd want to try to teach and be an IT head/director, although depending on the size of admission it could be doable.

> He's seen lots of autist computer geeks who are geniuses at what they do but are pretty much mediocre/shit at nearly everything else in their life (social skills, organisation of themselves, writing CV's).

There's no shame in being a specialist, nor in being a generalist. There's advantages and trade-offs to both approaches, as anyone who works in the field can tell you.
I'd much rather be asocial than spend any more than minimum amount of time worrying about the external appearance of a tool.

File 150880101755.jpg - (257.58KB , 950x951 , images_duckduckgo_com.jpg )

>I'd much rather be asocial than spend any more than minimum amount of time worrying about the external appearance of a tool.

So you're telling me you'd have no qualms dating a girl with a face like this:
<-----

Let's not get into the whole "if you've never dated, that's better than nothing" argument, I haven't got you pegged as quite so sad and lonely.... yet.

>>16567
>So you're telling me you'd have no qualms dating a girl with a face like this
Let's not mince words here. You don't "date" a tool. At most you fuck a tool.
If we start from the premise that women women are tools for fucking, then an argument can be made that physical appearance is a relevant feature of such a tool. If it doesn't give you a boner then the act itself will prove difficult, mechanically speaking.
Psychologically speaking, there's a non-trivial relationship between the subjective attractiveness of a partner and the gratification derived from sex.
(Yes, I had to get a bit clinical here, but we're just discussing tools, so it's all good.)

The same isn't true of computers. The appearance of a computer has no bearing on its capacity to compute. Putting it in a transparent case and filling it with cable-managed RGB LEDs will not make it faster, and smearing it with feces will not make it slower.

>Let's not get into the whole "if you've never dated, that's better than nothing" argument
Well, personally I wouldn't have agreed that fucking someone you're not attracted to just to fuck something is better than not fucking anything, anyway. Someone for whom sex is *that* important would just hire a prostitute, I'd imagine.

>>16568
A modern computer is an adult's toy. It is a gateway to entertainment. If the computer is not pleasing to the eye of the user, then its entertaining value will be diminished. Smear a computer with feces, and most people won't even want to use it because it stinks so badly; in this case, the computer's usefulness has dropped to zero.

>>16569
Your entire argument hinges on the premise that a computer must be within eyesight of the user in order for them to use it, which is an undemonstrated assertion. You can always hide an unpleasant computer under a table, inside a cupboard, or even in a different room.

Additionally, this is a non sequitur:
>If the computer is not pleasing to the eye of the user, then its entertaining value will be diminished.
This is like saying that the quality of a movie is affected by the appearance of the theater's entrance.

personalization of the desktop doesn't sound like a assignment....

if you want to make it personal, you need to take the picture yourself. There is nothing special about a good quality pic from the web.

For offtopic, i second this guy -> >>16570
Offcourse i would choose the ugly powermachine instead of nice looking computer that barely even computes.

Ask for some photos from James Webb

File 168492132479.jpg - (2.92MB , 4096x2641 , 20230528.jpg )

Absolute Zero