1_2__3

It's sad reading people cheering their own exploitation. But I'd expect nothing less from HN.

You sure packed a lot of liberal slurs in a really small and useless comment.

I know you couldn't resist injecting an anti-car barb in there but it makes no sense - the problem in the US isn't our "abusive relationship" with cars, it's insufficient infrastructure. Your magical public-transportation future will be ever bit as bad or worse than cars today if the government similarly underfunds it. Which they will.

Of course you can. It just isn't legal for most people.

In addition to what someone else who replied to you said about number of games, I also was listening to something recently talking about how much energy had to go into building one device that could beat humans at one task. Today and for the near future it's not a sustainable model at-scale.

I'm developing a theory that America's thoughts on what technology is capable of swings wildly between two poles (possibly with every generation?): A strong luddite streak that pooh-pooh's technology, followed by a ridiculous fantasy that technology can do everything. We're firmly entrenched in cycle "B" right now; their Martian colonies is our true AI.

We think everything is just around the corner because so much has changed over the last few decades, without realizing that those changes have only come in certain areas, while the rest of the technical world is proceeding along at a much slower, more methodical pace.

I saw an ELI5 post the other day from someone on Reddit asking what air traffic controllers did, that software couldn't do better. I actually had to sit for a moment and ponder the person (almost certainly a youth, admittedly) who thinks we're already at the point on the futurism curve where the task of safely coordinating air (or any!) traffic is better done by a computer than a person. They just couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that a group of trained people, in 2017, with advanced software and visualization tools at their disposal, might be better at that than a computer acting on its own.

The example fits elegantly because I do think AR is in our future (and our present) and I'm absolutely thrilled about what it's going to bring to the world. But the idea that we're going to replace (waste) the meat computer in our heads - let alone that we can - within the next few... What, years? Decades?

Anything in that timeline seems ridiculous to me, and not because I can't imagine such an incredible and future, but because I know how the technology works, I know how far away it is from replacing (not augmenting, which again is today and I think has a rich future ahead of it) human brains and senses. Yes, automation is going to replace all our jobs, and also the sun is going to burn up someday. We need to prepare for both - arguably the former more adroitly than the latter - at a pace that makes sense both for humanity today and humanity in the future.

I think you might misunderstand the statistic. He's saying one out of every 70 deaths. If there were only 70 deaths a year, one would be from a car accident. Far more would be from suicide, cancer, and heart disease.

I'm your age and to draw comparisons between the fear of Japan and the real threat of globalization is laughable.

I love suburbs. They get lots of hate here but I'd take one over a city in a heartbeat. I like doing things that require garages and back yards and sheds.

Okay replace slavery with indentured servitude. Does that sound any better?

I did and think the reply's tone was perfectly reasonable given the parent comment's dismissiveness.

Yeah I do like interacting with people. Even "minimum wage workers" who last time I checked were still people.

But one is venture-funded, the other warchest-funded. That is not equal footing; the pools of money are not infinite and Uber's is both shallower and far less ensured.

So should we start hunting bears in Yellowstone?

With apologies to Mister Sinclair: It is very difficult to make a developer finish a game when his salary depends on not finishing it.

You make punching other people in the face for screaming crowds sound so noble. It's not.

I think about how recently and spectacularly housing has gone off the rails and I get so sad. What a complete disaster this is turning into.

Most of the POTS system is fiber and has been for some time. The "sorry copper POTS network" enabled the future through any number of amazing technologies up to and including SS7 and lots of modern tech. If you're saying NN gets us something as long-lasting, ubiquitous and powerful as the POTS system, sign me up.

One is forward-looking, predicting the outcome (winning) by looking at current data (objective comparison). The article tries to twist this around to be backwards-looking: if it won,it must be better.

Which is a sickening and illegitimate argument.

Sure that's fine. Economics still isn't science, even by the relaxed definition.

Just what we all begged for: More whitespace, less content. Thanks Google, we can always count on you.

Because Apple is about as done as it can be with general purpose computing. I think it's safe to say they will make no more significant investments in it. Closed ecosystem computing is their golden goose now, they have zero interest in anything else. The margins for what they're doing now are too high for them to give that up.

Or as the article points out you can just not go to college at all.

What bearing does a private company's privacy policy have on warrants? I think I see what you're getting at but what a private company consider warrant-worthy or not is irrelevant when discussing the governments position.

I promise you - promise you - that anyone who would read that letter knows everything you're saying in it anyway.

Never have to look far in a thread like this to find the kid who thinks economies work like Econ 101. Here's a piece of advice: anytime you find yourself concluding with "it's that simple" you're probably not thinking critically about the issue.

Apparently observing objective reality is incendiary?

There is zero chance of this becoming popular. Zero.

This is nonsense. It was nonsense back a few years ago when everyone though social networks were the entire internet and it's even more nonsense now. Flickr always occupied a different space than FB and could have leveraged that. They chose not to.

I've been in the bay area for a few decades. I've gone from my salary paying for my family to have a nice rental house in Cupertino to renting rooms from friends so we have a place to live. And I make double what I did back then. It's fucking awful.

SE:L was good but veeeeeery slow.