Erlich_Bachman

Yeah because it worked so well for piracy. /s

All phones in most countries, amazon, steam, microsoft acount, spotify etc etc.

Look up Lightning Network.

To realize that gain you actually need to sell the Apple stock. It would be perfectly possible (as I am proposing) and viable to make that transaction be forced to go through US. You could still sell the "Shell" to someone without US knowing about it, but once you actually would want to do something with that gained money - you would need to sell the underlying stock and deal with IRS.

The government takes tax from the same amount of money twice. How is that not well described by the term "double taxation"?

Why not just tax any sale of a stock or a divident payout in the country of the company, - not the country of owner of said stock? These operations have to go through country of company anyway...

That is just a very terrible idea.

Well it is tax money that is sent to the government and that is taken from the total amount of money that the company receives for the products it provides. If we are talking about some moral side of the issue (as the articles tries to, if I'm not mistaken), then why wouldn't we count it?

I'm not saying that the company shouldn't pay a direct tax on their profit, but that I want to know the real number counting everything. Focusing on some fraction of that number can be misleading, especially when the editors try to distill it into a short title, with possible agendas no less.

long time

4 decades is not a long time. It is a minuscule amount of time in the grand scheme of things.

Is that calculation really correct? Does it count tax for all the employees? Does it count all specialized tax for things like gas or VAT, for all the things Netflix buys in their operation? What about all the media that Netflix buys and produces? What about all the taxes levied there on salaries and other activities? The article also talks about "income" and not "revenue"...

plenty of great niche hardware keyboard phones

Plenty? In what way? There seems to be one company that makes a keyboard phone with outdated CPUs and other hardware, to make ends meet and be able to produce such a phone economically.

Does it look like they have some good avenues of fixing that?

Well look at something that might change your mind: there is this device called Muse headband that actually uses your brain signals to help you meditate. Meditation is a tool of mindfulness, and with some progress it helps exactly that: control and know your own thoughts.

So already at this (primitive) iteration of tech there is a device that connects to your brain and helps you do something, something that you would find very useful no less, if your goal is to learn to operate your brain in the best way possible. Now this is even possible with this (primitive) iteration of this tech. The effectiveness is reported by a lot of people, and it is also calibrated on tibetan monks who meditate for a living. There is also a similar institutional device with more thorough processes called "40 years of zen" (but you have to go to a laboratory).

Now imagine what the next iteration would make possible, and for example how good would a device like this be if it could actually read direct signals from the brain instead of having to read them through the skin?

Being careful is always good, but the dangers are overestimated and the benefits underestimated, by most people.

In terms of security, you could solve 80% of problems you mention by a hardware onoff switch, which would cost next to nothing. A large part of rest of the problems could be solved by limiting the information flow into a certain format/context: imagine just a 4K screen inside your mind that you can look at if you wish, but you always know that information comes from that screen and not from somewhere else. Even just such a dumb usage would be tremendous upgrade to humans everywhere. How do we know it won't give you any "thoughts"? Just limit the information flow to pixels. The interface won't even know what information you look at your internal screen, the most mischievous thing it will be able to do is to maybe make things black-and-white, or make something flicker in an annoying manner.

"50 years where instead of computers and computing being a tool to be mastered and controlled by humans, we've seen computers switch the power dynamic and render us humans the tools."?

What?? Where exactly in the current world do you see this? It doesn't reflect reality at all...

In the sun your skin (even under some clothes) can be much higher temperature than 36C.

No, the risk according to this topic is increased compared to standard rate of blood clots. (The parent comment wording was basically "wrong", meaning- giving off a false impression.)

What is your alternative approach? To not tell people the truth? Because the truth is that almost any cure or vaccine or medicine in general has side effects. The thing is that the incidence is very low, which gives better overall probability of health given the chances of deaths from COVID, and that's why we think vaccines are a good idea, for example.

Should I tell him about statistics? I’d be heartless if I did.

What?? That's the only actually truthful and objective information you can give to him. How is that "heartless"? You don't need to tell him that in a cold voice and never acknowledge his fears and feelings, you can discuss all that and make him feel better somehow.

But telling someone truthful information - is not heartless, it's one of the best things you can do for them.

The argument is that the numbers should be reported properly - with their context and baseline. For COVID cases in general, it can, it should and it is being applied in many statistics. It is an important number for understanding the disease.

born and raised touching the screen

What does this have to do with the market? People don't want physical keyboards because they are "used to" them. They want because the experience of typing is different.

Surely it's "35C" only when powered on? Which is still a weird figure which is probably wrong because how are those products going to work close to a human body which has a default temperature of 36C (when not excercising, when not in the sun, etc.etc.)?

there doesn't seem to be any talk of using "AI" (ie Neural Net stuff) for planning and strategy

AlphaStar: excuse me??

People write that these games have predefined rules, as opposed to real-life scenarios.

Such people have probably never actually played Starcraft or any other similar games. Sure, the rules of how much damage each unit does, etc. - are fixed. (Actually not even they are fixed throughout the months, and a good player needs to be able to adapt to changes). But what the actual games end up being rarely depends on these rules directly.

What happens instead is a meta-game that is created between you and your opponent where you have to read their strategy and come up with creative ways to deal with it.

In fact in real life the situation is similar: the laws of physics are also always the same, the stats of airplanes are also the same for most of a given year, how much damage can it do, which angles of attack it can support, its speed etc. But it's the combination of these rules in real life situation that makes for the real meta-game.

AlphaStar is absolutely an example of an AI that deals with this exact problem.

PS. Sometimes I see how in the future when we create human-capable AI, these people will still say "but it's just statistics, it's not real intelligence, it's just advanced SVMs". Who cares about what the underlying primitives are? 2+2 does not equal 4 in complex systems like this, it's the emergent endogenous effects that produce all the bang. I don't care if it's all 1s and 0s, or some other small statistical primitive that you could reduce everything to: what's importan is the high-level computation and what it can achieve.

Meditation is a word that is used to describe some very different activities. Thus the lot of confusion that seems to perspire in the comments.

A trailer can spends days to weeks and even a month in a yard waiting for a tractor

Imagine what a similar investment in a stationary solar panel in that same yard would yield, a panel that will charge 100% of time.

Yes, this is such a disingenuous argument when people say PoW incentivises to use more electricity. It doesn't care about electricity, at best. Also the specific Bitcoin model even incentivises to use less electricity, because for each additional miner that is connected simulateneously, you actually get less paid per GH/(and thus kW), so at a certain point you would just not get paid anything for your electricity.

I was there, and I am still wondering - who thought iPhone was a gimimck? Certainly not people in tech? The tablet phones and phones with keyboards already exist, the palm, the windows phones. iPhone was just a better more slick implementation. Maybe some people had doubts that iPhones would to better than Windows phones, but since those already existed, and there was a market for them, why would anyone consider iPhone a gimmick?

you at least have the option to wait a day or two to charge

This argument gets thrown around sometimes, but if you really consider it:

Who has time to wait a day or two at a random place, with no infrastructure? People who have no valueable job (where time is very valueable), and at the same time are outdoors enthusiasts who can sleep in a random spot? But who at the same time are in the market for a futuristic EV? Even for those, how many times out of each trip would that be a viable solution? If you consider this in practices, it just makes much more sense to call the tow truck.

And if you know that you are going on a really long trip where there is really no possibility to even call a tow truck (but like, where is that? Where is the place where you have a close proximity to an EV charger, otherwise you wouldn't be going there, and no possibility for a tow truck to access?), even in that unlikely circumstance - you can just already buy a 1000$ 10kg diesel generator and bring with you for emergencies.

In a fantasy world unrestricted by physics and market and costs and raw materials, - yes, they could.

There's really no reason not to do it

Cost is the reason. You have to consider cost.

Those are all very real and legit advantages, but they are also very tiny, and for a very small subset of usecases of the car - where it is parked for most of a month, and only used for a couple of days here and there, and only for short trips, in a very sunny country, that also has bad infrastructure in terms of garages and charging (otherwise you just plug it in and forget about it), and yet where you actually have a space in the sun to park it.

Yes, those are all useful things but you have to (as a manufacturer, at least) weigh them against all the costs of building this feature, making production more complex, deal with the returns/breakages, etc. etc. So like the parent comment said, the consensus seems to be "just not worth it".