I don’t have spare money to spend on a Vision Pro that I couldn’t spend somewhere better but I have this thought when I was taking a hot shower. I’m here just living normally while there are millions running for their lives from war zones like literally.
I’m more worried about the multibillionaires than anyone else, glass hole or not.
> I’m here just living normally while there are millions running for their lives from war zones like literally.
capitalism and consumption is all about escapism. escaping from the mundane (and horrific) realities of life. seek fulfilment in material pleasures and distract from real world issues and concerns.
this device literally commodifies our personal experiences. its a branded and status-driven consumerist invasion of our inner space. even further cutting us off from reality.
> Why should all the other C-levels avoid jailtime
I don't care if the C-levels (other than the CEO and President of the board) go to prison.
I want to see the CEO and ALL board members in prison for life with no possibility of parole.
Oh of course if the CLO runs out of statistical life another would be appointed by the board only from the existing C-suite, even if the board is part court-appointed…
> What I have noticed is that the more menial, low paid and generally low desirable a job is, the higher that initial barrier is. I suspect it is to at least some extend intentional, though I struggle to understand why that is.
One suspicion I have is perhaps the people in hiring whether consciously or not believe making the process more difficult improves the signal to noise ratio of applicants. Makes sense when there are 10+ applicants for each open position I think. They don't care about the people they are turning away.
Optimising for desperation is great if you're building a criminal gang
in which most of the day-to-day activities go against a normal
person's good moral judgement.
To some extent a State is a gang, but at a larger and more sophisticated scale. So is any sufficiently large company. The 'criminal' aspect is always a relative measure.
One should generally prefer criminal gangs elected according to social
contract, since they are basically "our* criminal gang.
As for moral relativism - not so much. There's enough consensus for
judiciaries and criminologists to define objective criminal
behaviours. I think you mean that we exercise more or less tolerance
of the criminal behaviour of certain groups.
It's a bit of both. We discriminate with regards to groups, but the measure of crime shifts quickly. Drugs or sexual orientations become legal or illegal. Killing is legal or illegal depending on whether it is performed in an approved way. Certain types of non-consensual genital mutilation are legal, others illegal. States tend to clash when their conception of justice differ too much. There are foundational concepts that most legal systems seem to share to provide stability, but for anything more complex there are always exceptions. The right to pollute, employment relationships, defamation etc. as soon as you move away from basic disorder removal it becomes more and more relative.
> The next great search engine will emerge from a niche and conquer one segment after another from there. It won't be a massive general search engine that shows up one day (which is what the Google watchers have been waiting for forever - that new behemoth comprehensive competitor is never going to arrive fully formed). There's a decent possibility consumer Web search will be a later stage addition to said new niche competitor, consumer Web won't be its primary or initial target. They'll add on general consumer Web search as a "we might as well" offering once they conquer enough niches.
I love this because I want it to be true. However, iirc Google wanted to sell itself to Yahoo! for a million dollars and about five years later again for a billion dollars.
I know there are quite a few millionaires here but for me, five million dollars would change my life. I can’t imagine being able to turn it down.
I find it interesting that you mention the word benchmark because reviewers used to rely on benchmarks for new phones and such but then iirc at least OnePlus and Samsung devices have been caught and banned from multiple benchmarks.
Banning them is silly. The benchmark programs reported unthrottled speeds, but when the phone has per app throttling (to save battery) you may not get the speed you measured in each app.
I seem to recall that some manufacturer's have been found to programmatically alter behaviour of hardware & background programs/services when a benchmark is running, creating results that are not achievable otherwise in other programs.
> There are a lot of professional workers that are on cocaine, business owners, successful artists, etc. Does that mean cocaine should be legalized? Absolutely not.
I think you are very wrong. I think there should be safeguards such as improper commercial storage should be unlawful. Similarly, distribution (sale) to minors and without proper packaging should remain against the law. However, I find no logic in trying to ban any substance from an informed consumer in a world where alcohol and tobacco are legal.
> In contrast, the majority of anti-vaxxers (not the crazy ones talking about microchips) ended up being more or less right with their decision.
I think they are idiots. As far as I know we don’t have any deaths because of the vaccine. It is safe. Maybe it could be more effective and I’m sure we will have better vaccines with time but there is no reason to not take the vaccine now and a better vaccine when it is available later.
> Similarly, distribution (sale) to minors and without proper packaging should remain against the law.
That will only worsen the situation in the US public schools, which is already a massive problem. If a substance is allowed to your dad, why can't you buy a bit from your classmate Joe?
> However, I find no logic in trying to ban any substance from an informed consumer in a world where alcohol and tobacco are legal.
That is a separate problem. Let's not put them all in the same bucket. There is no need to minimize the importance of what I said by bringing up other problems. Let's focus on marijuana.
> I think they are idiots. As far as I know we don’t have any deaths because of the vaccine.
Older people - yes. Younger people - no. Check the stats, as well as the side effects probabilities. They are so low that there is no reason to compare. That is EXACTLY why CDC wants to go the natural immunity route now.
> I see no reason people will be more reluctant to put on a pair of sunglasses than carry an iPhone in their pocket or purse.
I agree. I disagree however that VR is already here. It isn’t, not even close. And it will keep getting further away as we push for higher resolution and higher frame rate displays.
I think there needs to be some way to power this thing all day long. Maybe Apple was onto something with its Apple Watch strategy. Create a minimally viable product and only introduce new features very slowly so you can still claim all day battery life in a happy path. Tl;dr I don’t think the limiting factor is VR itself but rather how do we power it. I don’t want something on my head that I have to charge every fifteen minutes.
Counterpoint, this is what bad people use div soup for:
» Facebook adds 5 divs, 9 spans and 30 css classes to every single post in the timeline to make it more difficult to identify and block 'Sponsored' posts, oh my.
A long term fix for that sort of nonsense is a process that runs separate from the rendering engine, whether in the browser or host OS, and uses computer vision and ML to identify blocks of advertising.
A true win for the opposition would be to study the literature for ad jamming techniques that would turn people against the advertised content, and alter the ads to be long term subconsciously unappealing / damaging. (eg. "McDonalds McRoach Sandwich")
Bonus points if it could unravel dark patterns, gamification, and engagement optimizations.
Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate
Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.
Thanks. I hadn't really looked at it from that perspective. But still that's not mandating that people _get_ the vaccine. That's mandating that a _business_ requires customers/employees to have it (and there are always ways to get accommodations).
Overall, it's confusing to me because I see people arguing "no one should be forced to get a jab who doesn't want one!" But so far I'm not seeing instances of that occurring, so it's unclear why they're arguing that (unless it's mostly a pre-emptive, which is fine and understandable).
I'm a big fan of permanent vaccine mandate and permanent mask mandate and permanent social distancing mandate and maybe even additional permanent protective gear mandate like gloves or hair nets.
I’m more worried about the multibillionaires than anyone else, glass hole or not.