HN user
Sure you could live your life with the perception that you're not participating in those features of modern society, but that won't stop those same "features" from acting on you. Or do you think Google will stop prying and respect your "Right to be Forgotten" when you recede into the jungle?
Fix in the context of perfect facial recognition surveillance means being able to locate and arrest all people that commit a crime. People who are not driven to crime because they can afford a financially comfortable and privileged lifestyle will not feel the effects of poverty and homelessness in this scenario. It's like putting a band aid on a festering wound.
On the other hand, if we are not able to locate and arrest whoever defecated on the sidewalk, maybe we'll resort to building more toilets.
edit: I have faith that San Francisco is progressive enough to not allow widespread harsh and cruel punishment for the less fortunate based on group association.
Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco.
I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.
Maybe you're right, "fake" football will never be able to replace the real thing. But if the computer generated version is visually indistinguishable from the real thing, I don't see any reason why it can't be in a similar market as WWE. The events are scripted before hand, but fans still won't know what will happen. I think people are more ready to suspend their disbelief for entertainment than you realize.
I have a hard time putting psychedelics in the same category as cannabis. And saying they are far less destructive than alcohol might serve the purpose of decriminalization/legalization (because you are right: they are safer), but it doesn't serve the purpose of whoever winds up taking them.
You can have a couple of beers for the first time, and that will give you an idea of what alcohol feels like. You can microdose, and that will give you an idea of what psychedelics are like. But as you scale the amount you take of each, each drink of alcohol will feel like another layer of alcohol, and each increase in dosage of psychedelics is going to feel significantly different than the last. Setting also has more impact on psychedelics than it does on alcohol. Six beers at an office party is going to feel the same as six beers at home. A full dose of psychedelics at an office party is not going to feel the same as a full dose at home.
If legalization were to happen, cultural shamanism would need to exist in some form. In South America ayahuasca doesn't drive those who take it to madness because there are experienced people not only guiding you through the process, but also preparing your diet and expectations before hand. In the late 60s if you were seeking out LSD for the first time, you likely already existed on the side of the cultural fence that advocated for open mindedness and acceptance, and some of your peers would probably already have tried it and would be able to guide you. Illegality today almost forces that same network to exist, as in you need to know people who have done it in order to find it in the first place.
The idea of Joe employee of the month hearing about legalized mushrooms in the news and how they're safer than alcohol, going to a dispensary and buying some with his hard earned USD and then going home to have his ego ripped out of him doesn't sit well with me.
That left me with a peaceful sense of my own mortality. I was not expecting that this afternoon, thank you for sharing.
Extensions. I agree with Santosh83, no extensions except ublock.
I'm interested! How did the proof of concept turn out? Any chance you could make to order...
I agree "Let's just switch off the light" is the opposite direction in which we should be going.
How do we get from having men avoid these urges and situations at work (which is what is sort of the standard sexual harassment education) to having men want to better themselves and create a work space free of sexual context.
A lot of men I know already do this, but not all of them. And for the ones that somehow missed the "don't give in to your sexual urges because it will make you less than what you can be" part of becoming an adult, looking back at my own education there was very little to actually teach that other than life itself.
It makes me wonder how the men who have the focus and discipline to get in to those positions of power have not learned the discipline of controlling their sexual urges.
Those that are doing the harassing are at fault of course, but something is also wrong if men are acting on potentially career destroying impulses. Is the education system failing at teaching discipline? or philosophy? I've gone through the public education system in the U.S. and neither were taught to me, I had to seek them out myself. Maybe sexual harassment seminars should be less about defining and identifying sexual harassment and more about the type of person you can become when you stop letting pleasure and impulse define your life.
If I was one of the ones waiting watching someone do that would make me resent the business and find an alternative if possible.
No networked computers on my ship.
One of the points they made was that people who go to the hospital reporting symptoms are not necessarily experiencing those symptoms during the visit, and collecting ECG data when people are going about their daily lives allows doctors to better diagnose heart conditions (Apple Watch ECG data is stored in PDF format in Health app).
An incredible novelty, one that I'm sure many concerned family members will pay $399 for.
What tools are you using now? Also looking to move away from evernote.
At the moment, no. VR is still in its infancy, and the experiences are distinguishable from reality in a way that they are closer to video games than real life.
However if VR and haptics are able to perfectly recreate war in the next few decades, let's hope that psychology develops in pace. A generation of teenagers who have been exposed to perfect recreations of trench warfare and 9/11 is a generation that will have more PTSD than any other generation before it.
In my experience drivers tend to keep the speed limit in mind regardless. If the drive is a 45 mph road, straight line, low traffic, and high visibility most drivers will still cap out around 70 mph. This is because depending on how fast you are going, in the small chance you do get pulled over the difference between going 70 and going 90 could be the difference between a warning and winding up with a high fine and multiple points on your license [1].
Even if it is a lottery, if you lose your penalty is determined by the sliding scale of how reckless you were. That is a major factor in how fast drivers feel is reasonable.
With facial recognition, the farther along we go the frequency of its use will increase. However having the equivalent of a sliding scale of punishment could be useful.
Did the police department use facial recognition to try and identify who broke into a store? O.K.
Did the police department use facial recognition to preemptively surveil a high crime rate area and identify and keep track of everyone that goes to that area? Warning.
Did the police department use facial recognition to identify minorities and keep track of their activity across the city? The police department is banned from using facial recognition in the future and if caught again will face punishment on a case by case basis.
High Sierra has had some bad bugs, some that made my stomach churn even more than root access. One's that directly impacted my work flow make me the most angry: regular screen flickering, occasional computer falling asleep, and two times a complete logout. This is on the current model 13" Macbook Pro touchbar. I bought it in december to upgrade from my 2012 model.
I keep up to date on the software, but I sincerely hope after High Sierra Apple poured the necessary resources into making Mojave different. The thing about OS X is when it's working in my opinion it blows every other operating system out of the water. Clean. At least for my own workflow.
I don't buy a macbook for it's hardware. It could be two pounds heavier, have half the RAM for twice the price and look like a shoebox for all I care. OS X is what I'm paying thousands of dollars for.
Before scrambling to gather a handful of news articles (though no proof) which confirm 'option C' to avoid down votes, are you certain that you are not regurgitating the propaganda of a different government or corporation?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_U...
That's why it's not going to happen with Apple's two faced position on privacy.
As for what I want Apple to be as a company, if their devices become the theoretical vault where I am the only one with the key, it wouldn't matter if they remain on my side or not. They fulfill the role of design and engineering, not data hoarder, and wouldn't be able to change that even if they wanted to. At least that is the image that they have been pushing recently.
This is why I am deeply skeptical of Apple's supposed security. As long as the company forfeits data to the Chinese government then there is no real data protection on their devices.
I need that to change, or where I see Apple's products heading is not going to be what I'm hoping. What I'm hoping: Apple devices become the computer. Totally secure. The only one that can access the information on it is myself with no exceptions. This device (watch, phone, glasses whatever) would carry every possible detail about myself and my life on it, making it the perfect form of digital identification. Accepted at hospitals, accepted as a drivers license, accepted at banks, accepted as a log in for websites. It doesn't need to provide identification if I don't want it to. But if I do, then there is a mathematical certainty that I am who I am claiming to be, and no one can claim otherwise.