ngangaga

I had no idea that piece of shit was associated with Ford at all.

https://www.mining.com/web/factbox-greenlands-rich-but-large...

Nah, I've broken like three of those things and I just resent having another thing to carry around. I've just given up on using wired headphones for the most part with my phone. I just don't know why they thought it was desired to remove in the first place; I've had other waterproof headphones with a jack.

But, I also don't generally expect apple to make consumer-friendly decisions. The headphone jack invokes about 1/100th the rage that using the app store does.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever tried to use this.

Do you think that audio (or bluetooth) doesn't work reliably on ios? Why?

For everyday use, wireless headphones offer a superior experience simply due to the lack of a cable

Surely this is offset by a) having to charge it and b) not being able to replace the battery when it dies

Not to mention a cable can be debugged easily; i don't even know which device my bluetooth headphones is connected to let alone why it's not working as expected.

I would characterize "hard" sci fi as "consistent" or "coherent", not necessarily "plausible".

Reality is always more nuanced. That's kind of reality's deal.

Well sure, if you're looking to be angry you can tie anything into your interests. But actual criticism of the moon landing is soberly connected to reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

I'm just saying there's a reason why moon landing is such a funny topic to discuss—if you do deeply care about it enough to deviate from the accepted narrative, that's very odd.

If point 2 is something so subjective as "deal plainly", point 0 should probably be "be honest with yourself". More to the point—why would anyone want to do otherwise? The hard part is satisfying your own evaluation.

4) There exists uncanny congruity between thought and experience.

Charitably, there must be a more effective way to articulate this sentiment.

I could go on, but that seems sufficient to address the overall tone of the writing.

EDIT: I apologize for being so critical. These are clearly well-thought-out points and I'm not trying to detract from that. I'm just not sure how to process someone else's internal understanding of themselves in a generally useful manner.

I don't disagree that the engineering can be justified. But you don't need custom hardware to achieve radiation hardening, much less hiring fucking IBM.

And to be clear, I love power chips. I remain very bullish about the architecture. But as a taxpayer reading this shit just pisses me off. Pork-fat designed to look pro-humanity.

I disagree—opinions on the moon landing don't matter because for the most part our lives are divorced from whether or not it happened.

It's much easier to get people to believe stuff that they already want to believe. In conspiracy terms, this looks like qanon's "liberals are pedophiles" and a belief that russia somehow has more influence over our politicians than israel does.

"Innovative new products would get much rarer without super cheap and scalable compute, of course".

Interesting conclusion—I'd argue we haven't seen much innovation since the smartphone (18 years ago now), and it's entirely because capital is relying on the advances of hardware to sell what is to consumers essentially the same product that they already have.

Of course, I can't read anything past the first tweet.

I think it'd be pretty funny if to book travel in 2035 you need to use a travel agent that's objectively dumber than a human. We'd be stuck in the eighties again, but this time without each other to rely on.

Of course, that would be suicide for the industry. But I'm not sure investors see that.

We aren't talking numbers, though. Who cares about embedded? I mean that literally. This is computation invisible by design. If that were sufficient we wouldn't have smartphones.

I'm not sure what artemis or orion are, but you can blame defense contractors for this. Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM or Lockheed, even if they deliver unimpressive results at massive cost.

Sure, if you think the world consists of cash transactions and whatever a car needs to think about.

I don't think it's that deep. We are just stuck with browsers now, for better and worse. Everything else trails.

This doesn't distract that you built a business around chatbots. Who gives a damn about the writing style you use to pimp them on us

Do people not have the work ethic to commit a small amount of fraud anymore? Smh, kids these days.

"Degrowth" is not an option.

This is not helpful. There are many reasons degrowth won't generally help humanity, but the benefits are particularly aplicable to western nations and their diplomatic relations. Certainly many western nations can bear degrowth without significant loss in quality of life. The wealthy just gotta take a significant cut to their waistlines.

We can't just "social solution" our way out this problem anymore.

This certainly seems to be the liberal solution. Short of evicting them from our society what better choices do we have?

the difference means getting funded or not.

This speaks more to the incompetence of VC than anything. How can you justify deploying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on the basis of "stars"?

I have a very hard time blaming the people who pull off this scam. Money is money and taking from VCs is morally (nearly) free.

I wish we would use terms like "verifiable" or "reproducible" rather than "secure", which is quite difficult to evaluate out of context of usage.

Well yes, nationalism will be the dagger in the heart of humanity. But AI won't do anything to address this; in fact, leaning into the concept of competing rather than cooperating economies will accelerate pushing the dagger in.

they still shape hiring decisions, VC term sheets, and dependency choices

This is nuts to me. A star is a "like". It has carries no signal of quality and even its popularity proxy is quite weak. I can't remember the last time I looked at stars and considered them meaningful.

but a huge part of why Trump was able to rise to power was because there was by far not enough protest against him.

There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this claim. For one thing, it's not clear that trump voters respect protestors in the first place. For another thing, we're an extremely geographically distributed population, and most of our cities already swing strongly blue. This means protesting is generally a high-effort, low-return activity.

Whatever will provide friction I do not know, but I don't think protests are going to play a major role outside of maybe providing a narrative about how angry people are. But it's important to note that a significant number of people vote for Trump because he makes certain people angry.... If the right people "protest" in a ridiculous enough manner, you're going to likely strengthen the resolve of his base. Granted, I suspect this isn't much of an issue with science funding, but it's something to keep in mind.

My attitude is: if this country doesn't want science research, let it, follow the research overseas, and let your absence speak for itself.

It's worth noting that companies that are too big to fail (as I assume credit bureaus are considered) are great places to park money.

100% fair; I was referring to Spain and Portugal FYI, but I've heard very good things about Italy as well in this regard.

TBH, Uber wouldn't be so much of a problem with decent competition. But the critical mass required for a transit app is quite difficult to establish, and Lyft offers essentially the same deal with a slightly better margin for drivers. It's a de-facto duopoly here in the US where the two companies are incentivized to drive prices as high as the market will sustain, and the local apps (for instance we have one here in DC that is a co-op) are often legislated out of existence.

Taxis in Shanghai have been largely replaced by app-related taxis.

The APP itself isn't the issue, it's the pricing. But it sounds like China has a much healthier market than we have.

1. It's now possible to get a taxi when it's raining.

Why would this make so much of a difference? I'm very curious.

Hm, fair enough. Oddly Dulles is my local airport and I wasn't able to find any taxis the last time I flew in. Clearly I'm looking in the wrong place.