HN user

evanextreme

193 karma
Posts0
Comments49
View on HN
No posts found.

I disagree, because the television was never talking back to you. By the medium directly engaging with the person, the responsibility / enablement of this issue is more on the company than previous non interactive mediums. It would be like if a movie caused psychosis in people, and the sequel doubled down / enabled that. Even though there's no person (besides the consumer) in the loop, there is responsibility to train these systems to reduce the amount of these cases.

As a visionOS user (somewhat) what is so funny about all of this is that the translucency effects in visionOS are significantly toned down compared to liquid glass for this specific reason. The glass is heavily diffused, you can maybe get an idea of what is behind (a person moving, a television thats turned on) but nothing even close to the level that I have experienced in the iPadOS beta

To add some validity here, I think to an extent we already see distributions aimed at converting Windows users moving in this direction. Zorin OS has Wine support for .exe's almost out of the box, and there's Steam OS / Proton, where (if I recall correctly) the official guidelines for the Steam Deck state that developers should NOT create native Linux ports for new games, but rather optimize around Proton itself.

I highly recommend taking a look at some tech starter packs, as i've found them to be very helpful in moving away from that feed. I agree that the political discussion is definitely still in that stage though

I am just a software engineer that wants to organize my tabs (documentation, repositories, pull requests, on call incidents) in a way that my brain can comprehend. I don't see how that makes me "management class"

Bard has certainly become better over the past few months, and while as a product it is worse in some ways (seems to have a purposefully low understanding of the previous context in a chat) it is up to date with somewhat current information, unlike GPT where you need to pay money to access its web browsing capabilities.

I'd argue Twitter is just as complex, because Twitter's product is its users and the content they create, where the others are governed by the laws of physics and making a good car (i have one, they're good!). What you have is a bunch of engineers on twitter going "ah yes, its just a social network feed! I wrote that in CS244 as my class project. how hard could it be", forgetting that twitter is an international network with tens of thousands of hyper targeted communities that feed off each other, diplomats that negotiate with governments and communities, etc. Not to say that this is impossible for anyone else to make, but it's a lot harder than just launching a site with your hundred engineers. i'd recommend reading platformer.news for a good

If the former president of the United States with a distortion field around his politics and the largest cable news network backing his every word couldn't succeed in launching a platform, I doubt Elon can. Unlike Elon, Trump has constantly blasted news networks and tech companies in the U.S. as being fake and run by lefties, to the point where his entire base believes it, and even that wasn't enough to migrate them off of twitter, because again, network effects. Twitter benefits by having everyone on it, and with no one to yell at Trump's audience is left to talk to themselves, which is boring.

Additionally, with all due respect to Paul, his logic here is absurd. "I'd be interested so that means everyone must be" is the wrong line of thinking for a product launch like this. Everyone is _interested_ in something the first day, but whether or not that's enough to build on is another matter. So many social networks had massive first day signups. I was "interested" in Byte on the first day. I signed up, posted a few bytes, and stopped using the app after a week. Parler, Gab, Truth, had "interest" too. The problem is that critical mass of users he describes are all just talking to themselves in their insular group (elon fans) just as the right-wing networks had their conspiracy theorists etc. It's enough to have users, but its not enough to promote long term growth. I know it's not something _i'd_ be interested in, which refutes his point because its purely anecdotal.

So, the only demographics that'd actually stick with an elon twitter competitor are: People who love elon musk and everything he creates, and people who are banned from twitter. If it shakes out to be anything like Gab and Parler, the later means the site is going to swarm with Nazis like every other free speech competitor to twitter, which as a jew is something i'm deeply uncomfortable with. There's not enough free speech in the world for me to put up with being harassed by people who share the views as the ones who murdered my great grandparents. And as much as people here enjoy grandstanding about free speech, its likely something you're uncomfortable with too, otherwise you'd be on those sites.

Basically, the product elon wants to make already exists and it has no users. If Trump (who had a significantly bigger following on twitter than Elon) wasnt enough, if big right wing stars like Milo werent enough, what's gonna be enough? Because copy pasting Truth and slapping Elon on the front... wont be.

The guy has launched more than 2 companies. Last I checked there aren't any super tunnel sleds under LA fixing traffic there yet, and my car was supposed to be able to autonomously drive itself a solid 4 years before I got it. It's very easy to be in the mindset that elon never fails if you think all his failures are just very long delays

the problem is that said "new platform" is doomed to fail, just as every free speech twitter competitor before it (gab, parler, truth, etc). this is an idea thats been attempted numerous times but doesnt succeed because no one wants a platform where they can be harassed. so im not inclined to believe that the share price of twitter will fall once he makes a competitor, because if free speech was truly a differentiator (versus decentralization / federation e.g. mastodon), then these other networks would have actually seen continuous use, but at the end of the day everyone still uses twitter

i think the other problem with crypto, is that all of those things sound like great solutions that either involve significantly more hoops for a user to jump through or are problems the modern banking system have already solved for most people. the point was to have a bankless future, which turned out to be something absolutely no one wanted, so now it's just banks but the money has no consumer safeguards whatsoever. I don't see how this becomes a product someone like my parents would use with any regularity, even if indirectly

I wouldnt say thats a correct analogy though, a traditional bank / cryptocurrency provide similar user experiences these days with how their mobile apps work. At the end of the day even in crypto an overwhelming majority of users interact with blockchains from centralized bank like platforms that function in an incredibly similar way, especially with the advent of neo banks like Chime. Downloading a song was a completely different experience from driving to a store to get a CD.

comparing the switch to the deck is akin to comparing a ps5 to a top of the line pc, in terms of both UX, time / effort required to run games, price, etc. consoles are _always_ underpowered and restricted in terms of graphical capabilities compared to computers, but the minimal amount of effort required, exclusive game library, and significantly lower price point (all of which the switch have over the deck) keep the market incredibly successful at least in north america. keep in mind, a lot of people like to play their switch connected to a television using the dock, a feature which will generally cost you an additional 150 bucks to play on the deck ($100 deck dock, $60 wireless bluetooth controller). not to say the deck isnt a fantastic product, i am absolutely getting one, but there's a reason the console market is still booming and hasnt eradicated the console market despite being the "superior platform". they fill separate needs

Notes on Web3 5 years ago

alright, then in the suburb of new york i lived in (which was, mind you, in the middle of a forest), i could call up the local taxi company and get a cab to me in like... 30 minutes or so. really the only convenience is that it saves me a phone call and from carrying cash.

Notes on Web3 5 years ago

Uber is literally life-changing

I might be only 26 years old, but even I have memories of my parents easily flagging down taxis in Manhattan. More convenient? Absolutely. "Literally life changing" seems a bit much, though.

from an operational security standpoint i find it hard to argue that workers in the healthcare industry should be able to refuse something which significantly reduces their risk of being a vector for a harmful disease and transmitting it to those who have a higher likelihood of having pre existing conditions

_you_ might have food, yet over 10% of american citizens do not (https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/the-united-...). the later two categories you mentioned are classified as public utilities by the federal government (water and electricity).

the vibrancy of the health care in the United States is not the issue. by all economic measures, the health care market is incredibly vibrant and profitable. there are numerous companies that exist in each state, and dozens of options to choose from nationally. the problem is that there is a market for medical supplies which the government does not strictly limit and control, and multiple perverse profit layers which should not exist. your health care provider is not incentivized to help you, only exploit as much cash out of healthy people as possible while ensuring their "losses" (paying for those who are ill) are minimized. under a free market health care system where the goal is profit, this will always be the case

the problem is that something as critical as people's health is allowed to exist as a commodity on the free market. when your life is at stake, there's no price that remains in the way. so these companies gouge out the consumer, pray on their fears. the last thing we need is to allow the free market to control health care even more than it already has.

No one is saying this should be the case, just that the feature is not what the company advertises (the ability for the car to fully drive itself) and that said feature is further away from completion than many might lead you to believe. as someone who drives a tesla with autopilot, I agree with this. Autopilot is the best lane assistance system ive used, but thats all it is.