morsmodr

This person gets it! This is an old trope of promoting complexity under the guise of doing each and every feature someone from marketing or legal or some other dept asks for. Instead if companies focus on minimalism and creative thinking to solve some interesting needs, it becomes clear that a CMS is bloatware and unnecessary

Remix 2 is beautiful in its abstractions. The thing with NextJS Roadmap is that it is tightly coupled with Vercel's financial incentives. A more complex & more server code runs ensure more $$$ for them. I don't see community being able to do much change just like how useContextSelector was deprioritized by the React Core team.

Align early on wrt values of a framework and take a closer look at the funder's incentives.

That . after the smiley is making me go bonkers, lol.

Iceland is trying to reduce its dependence on oil exports, which is a good thing, by directing efforts towards Tourism. But looks like this is also affecting nature in its own way. It is like we can't really interact with nature without destroying it in some way or the other.

Instagram does affect people a lot and the same people deny it. I am not on Instagram, never got onto it as I realized the impact FB was having in my life when it was the most popular medium. Uninstalled the FB app as well, I do access it through the browser occasionally, necessary evil and all that. But of course, instagramers (don't know if this is even a word) think they are inspiring people. What do I know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I hope Instagram goes through their new change of not showing the number of likes to viewers. Would be interesting to see whether that has any modification of societal behavior of people hooked onto it.

I am sure Tesla has already put in an order to first buy one of these cars. See whether there is any significant leg up that their own car making team can get by buying lightyear or not. Reason being, Tesla themselves could already be working on a car design with solar panels, not as primary source of power, but just to help squeeze out a little more mileage

Until tech firms start taking responsibility of ensuring that their platforms are robust and cannot be misused, I am not convinced of Libra. Putting the blame on people using the technology is incredibly naive on their part, frankly because it is human nature to exploit something. They need to start operating from a position of 'how can this be misused' not from a position of 'let's make this cool thing and expect some ideal world out there to embrace it and then think about problems as they arise'.

And this is just 1 part of it, the other part is assurances that this data will not be used to further interests of all the validators. I am curious on what is the value proposition pitched by FB to attract validators, besides what is given on the public facing websites. The fact that you have government institutions is to have a body that is removed from profit making goals, and thinks about the society in the long term. Sure, there are corrupt politicians, but not all of them are. Europe seems to have the right mind with regards to tech firms. What is it that fb and other investors look to get out of this thing?

This! If you look at all the life on Earth, humans are the only ones to have maximized brain functionality and evolved to change their surroundings on a global scale. We should continue focusing on superhuman intelligence and AGI which will solve problems that we cannot simply right now due to our evolutionary limit at this point in time.

Because we are limited by our perceptions of time (and causality as well) doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder what could have been before the start of the universe. Maybe time started when universe started, or maybe time always existed and was super slow or literally paused at singularity - the gravity is so high (way more than the gravity of a super massive black hole) that time had paused. So maybe there was something before the big bang and I don't think 'talking about that makes no sense' should stop us from talking about it :)

I am also confused a tad about the point I wanted to make though, lol. Maybe causality and time is perceived differently in higher or other dimensions that we do not perceive as of now in our human level of evolution. So the assumption of causality exists only due to time being present could be something relative to our perceptions and not true

Time is another dimension that we 'perceive'. Hence for our frame of reference, which is bound by time, asking what is outside this frame of reference makes no sense. But frames of references are relative and meant to be broken.

Similarly it is hard to imagine any object that can be purely 2D in nature, because we are biased to perceive the world in 3D. So we think that every object has to be 3D, even the smallest organism, or even atoms. But a 'fake' example of 2D is a tv screen. It gives us an example to imagine 2D. The point I am trying to make is that time is just our perception. To say causality is always tied to time is a bias created by viewing the universe through a 'time' tinted/colored glass.

The point of singularity where gravity is so high that time comes to stand still, but is still present - this is a possibility.

So maybe time just pauses between big bangs and flows at lower density and lower gravitational fields

The only time I prefer watching TV is when I want to have breaks in between while doing my chores. So I would watch 'The Office' and go about doing by work by mentally disconnecting myself when ads are running. New stuff is always Prime or Netflix. Though I get how annoying it can be for kids shows, with toy ads and disney ads (each spring time I swear it is annoying), not that I wouldn't take my kids to disney

I would like to make 2 points

Firstly, In the past there were certain ways of being social - clubs, churches etc. But just because humans engage in a different form of being social doesn't immediately mean all is gone. It depends on whether the individual goes to meaningful meetup groups or whether he/she uses tinder and calls it social. There are way too many options and being distracted between many of these is true

Secondly, Humans have had a social need, yes. That is how we evolved, yes. But evolution never stops, it is like walking on a slow gradient curve, each step is probably 1 or 2 generations. Why is human evolution viewed as static? Why is the declining need to be social today viewed as bad? Are we sure that people being alone are really feeling lonely?

When change happens in the environment, side effects do show until the mind and body adapt to the new environment. We could well see a future (100-200 years from now) where a human isn't necessarily social because of the underlying need, that need could get quite minimized in future generations. That human could be social when he/she needs to and chooses to do so people of similar thinking / mind and could be by themselves for long periods of time. Why is this viewed as bad?

Such humans could be extremely well suited for space travels because they can easily handle being by themselves rather than people who constantly need to be in groups to affirm their existence

It was a joke. Take a chill pill. As far as I am concerned, all religion is nothing but a brain management technique to allow us to elevate ourselves over our basest of instincts. Beyond that the difference is primarily influenced by when the religion evolved, where it evolved and is a matter of specifics. That said, Hinduism is interesting when it comes to the concept of moksha because no other known religion (there could be other ones that state this idea, but I don't know) talks about it - the world is an illusion wrapped around your eyes, wake up from it! But that's me, my subjective view. Someone else might find something else as more interesting. Someone who dislikes this comment will downvote it.

A good article, well rounded in nature by giving the pros and cons to Microsoft's rebirth. How it impacts Microsoft internally and externally to the market in general. We need more articles like this on the internet.

Damn, did not think of that #facePalmToMyself. Yeah, such things shouldn't be outsourced

Not to stoke a fire, but I just wondered how the same failure would be viewed if it was done by a Chinese or Indian Manufacturer. Immediately it would have reinforced a stereotype of outsourcing being cheap and that being the issue. When in reality the truth is that there are frauds, lazy and useless people everywhere on the planet.

If country A gets a technological power by being first to it and while doing so being completely irresponsible for it - not one bats an eyelid. Why? Because it makes that country the big bully in the room.

US is country A here and has done this with Nuclear Strikes on Japan, worse debris through ASAT testing and a bunch of other such technological advancements. Why would a big bully in the room play the holier-than-though card later on? It is a mix of making the mistake and regretting it, but also serves as a way to ensure no more countries get that power. As this could result in lesser opposition power in global politics. For there to be balance in global politics, it is not right for just the first 1 or 2 countries to have vast technological advantage.

The new thing people from big bully countries have come up with is the term 'whataboutism' which is nothing but another ruse of moral high-ground. Just by telling others that they indulge in 'whataboutism', they intend to shut them down. Reality is that no country is good, not a single one when it comes to the game of power. Because you have to be equal to your enemy to deter them from attacking. This is the unfortunate truth no one likes to hear.

If Country A shares its knowledge with other countries, then there would be no need for others to do their own testing. But will they do that? Despite all this, testing done by India results in shortest amount of time the debris lives in space. By my oh my, the superior moral ground card played by everyone is extremely cringe-worthy. India had to do it to toughen itself up against its neighbor China. Do you know China also occupies a part of Kashmir and made it their own (mostly for the sake of aerial advantage with the Himalayas is my thinking)

Agree totally with this. It also encourages people to not think for themselves, further increasing the herd mentality. The lame defense sometimes given for this is - Well people do not have time so the numbers help them decide. That is another load of crap, the illusion that people don't have time. People should consistently question what they read and 'like' things they truly love.

That said, I am trying to think how this feature of 'hiding likes' can also be tampered with because that is human nature

The problem starts when your friends doing 'cool' things as defined by them, then start subtly judging people who are not part of that gang. People hangout only with people who do the exact same thing otherwise there is just no point of hanging out. Instead, the truth is that our brains are quite capable of making friends with different people who do different activities and have a round robin going on. This is how we grow as a person. Human pettiness is universal and it is easy for the brain to keep noticing who is different than them, and completely missing the point.

By 'not have' I meant 'shortage' of people. Like literal shortage because there aren't enough graduates. I am wrong though on expecting an H1 role to have a STEM requirement. But the consultancies I talk about pay employees under H1 visa below market value. Same goes for the WITCH companies.

The challenge with finding out whether the process was working before is inherently difficult is what I think. Whom is it working for? And for whom it isn't? Again I could be wrong

By 'not have' I meant 'shortage' of people. Like literal shortage because there aren't enough graduates. The market might demand say 10,000 people per year but only 3k-4k are present. This situation is what I was trying to explain. I am not saying any other immigrant skill besides mine is easy to train. A person working in Big 3 consulting firm and providing strategy consulting to clients also has skills which are in demand but the existing populace just doesn't have enough MBAs or people with post-grad (that is the requirement for strategy consulting for the most part)

I am a front-end developer on an H1 visa. There is a reason for the slowdown. A lot of companies, Indian IT or consultancy firms in the US are abusing the H1 visa process. They use lawyers and high sounding words to make roles such as functional/manual tester or other non-critical non-STEM roles to sound as technical STEM based roles. IMHO these roles can be easily done by American locals without STEM or technical background, if they have an opportunity. A bit of process and business training is enough. Whether they do get into such roles or not is a different ball game altogether. But the premise of H1 is to provide visa for people with skills that the American market doesn't have. This process is easy to abuse because people in the administration are not tech savvy. Until people from tech in the US decide to take part in governance, there is not much that can be done besides slowing the process a bit so that current people who work at USCIS have the time to gauge applications in a fair way.

This!

Factors external to the product that could impact Stadia

- Adoption will depend based on Internet speeds

- Cable companies and their data caps could result in a demand for high speed and unlimited data but not sure whether the tyranny of Comcast can be broken. Maybe a new lease of life to Google fiber? Just own everything from network to server to platform

Good things about Stadia besides no console, multiple devices

- Sharing state, youtube shortcut to get you a walkthrough video from youtube is god sent, lobby feature is also epic

Some really amazing things about this

- People working on the engine or 'hidden' console do not need to care about packaging it in a sleek way or ensure it weighs less. E.g. the hidden console could be ugly, and occupy a lot for space

- Google can build it in a way that is scale-able from a hardware perspective without worrying for form - just pure focus on function and performance

- For consoles, the constraints are form, power consumed, heat management and yet they are required to deliver high performance

- Add a VR device and unleash power of version 2 or 3 of the hidden console on it and you swallow the VR market as well -> Streaming VR games is the future

Speculation of the future landscape of gaming (2030) if everything goes well for streaming based gaming

- Microsoft and Google leverage their cloud infrastructure to capture significant chunk of the market

- NVIDIA also enters the market but either exits or ends up having a very small % of the market, because existing server and cloud infrastructure will play a big role in determining the winner and no one can beat Google and Microsoft in this regard. Doubt whether that gap can be closed by newcomers

- Sony is a little late to the market and grapple, they realize that their strengths lie in good narrative games and yet delivering great graphics, good gameplay and go back to that.

- There are a lot of multiplayer games ranging from high graphics to small games developed by Indies (making this industry literally the youtube of games), and most of the people gravitate to streaming games slowly

- There is still a set of console loyal gamers who buy the PS4 and they join Nintendo in a niche category

- Microsoft dabbles in both console and stream, doesn't capture the people's imagination with its work but still comes out with solid content in both places. They hold the 2nd place in market for both styles of gaming.

Stadia is not just targeting consoles, it is also looking at freeing up some developers from being forced to tie up with massive publishers. It will also result in smaller dev shops working on simple games where Google compete with Steam

This is an issue with text conversation exchange. We do not have information on the tone of voice. And it is unfair to imagine a tone based on what we read

Why would you think that the question immediately implies an insinuation? It is a perfectly normal question to ask based on data. Article gives info. First comment (now no longer the top comment) asks question on info, response from person who read the article - did you read the article? It is logical to me, I don't think there was any insinuation here, just asking for verification. Simple as that :)

A better question in the first place would be - I read the article but am unable to figure out which are the drugs actually used as I do not have much background in Bio/Pharma science

The value of the systems built by Google and Facebook and the quality/legitimacy of news from these systems is pretty much dependent on the users. The feeds are built by what users share. A platform is only as good as the people contributing to it.

When it is known that insanity in individuals is rare but in groups, nations, epochs (and also internet) it is the rule - do not look at google/facebook news feeds to be sources of valid information. If we all are smart and intelligent enough to use these systems wisely, the benefits are enormous. But it also allows trolls and people who want to create confusion to operate with freedom.

For no or 0 money you will obviously get poor quality news. You need editors to verify sources and then put them in print or online. Go and pay an online newspaper so their editors will have jobs to do what you expect and they do not need to publish click-bait articles just for ad money so that their firm can make money.

The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties

source - Their own original series

This is exactly what technology platforms bring out, the public decides what is of importance. But the issue isn't the platform itself. It just shows us on a large scale what drives the mentality of 80% of the population. Group mentality always lowers the IQ of individuals who are part of it. Ever heard of herd mentality?

A friend in one of my whatsapp groups shared an image with the meaning of covfefe yesterday, and I had no clue what it was about. I am on twitter but do not follow public personalities with the exception of 1 or 2 of them from my country. The beauty of twitter is in following people who aren't public personalities but are doing some cool/unique work in their walk of life.

Now this decision making is up-to the individual, to elevate one's own thoughts, ideas by focusing on good posts or to drown in mediocrity. The point as an individual for me is that exactly, strive to stay away from the noise-makers and focus on what is truly important. I would not be surprised if my comment gets a troll or a pissed off response that says 'I love stupidity, revel in it, keep your elitism to yourself' The best would be no comment or probably a comment which builds the conversation. But this isn't my choice, is it? Controlling what types of comments are allowed.

- The idea of freedom is that even stupidity can be practiced (my own quote)

Freakonomics in a way!

Kudos for using Kill Bill analogy!