ch4s3

38 ms·

871.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I personally expect them to sell me a product that does what it says on the box, and Apple does that for me.
872.
by ch4s3 2y ago
It isn't anti-competitive to not open up your hardware and software security stack to any other OEMs who wander by. You can simply just buy a competitor's product, for less money even.
873.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I'm happy for them to hold my hand on commodity electronics. I don't ever want to have to think about how my phone and headphones work. I like to fiddle with computers, but not the stuff I need to run my day to day life.
874.
by ch4s3 2y ago
Do people expect a computer company to love them individually? > Apple uses its robust security infrastructure to prioritize media company DRM over users' interests You mean they follow the law so that they don't get sued into
875.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I totally understand that perspective, but I think in terms of opportunity cost I just don't think it would ever be worth the effort.
876.
by ch4s3 2y ago
Hobbling is a weird way to say that they aren't privileging unknown hardware. Yes, they make their own peripherals work better together. This seems like the only way to do some of what they do, airpods are so good because they use a pr
877.
by ch4s3 2y ago
Note that I said seamless AND secure. Having preferential treatment for a limited set of well known hardware makes the experience seamless. I like the secure and easy hand-off between apple devices. I wouldn't want to give up the sec
878.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I'm not sure I follow? Every company does what is in their own financial interest. Even b-corps and non-profits have to keep an eye on their balance sheets.
879.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I am aware that apple blocks certain functionality to maintain a cohesive and secure experience. It is THE reason I buy their products, I want the curation. Otherwise I'd buy an android device.
880.
by ch4s3 2y ago
If your value prop to customers is seamless and secure default behavior, then of course blocking insecure peripherals aligns with your financial interests. This doesn't seem nefarious at all to me.
881.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I’m highly skeptical about voice for most interactions. It’s inherently inappropriate in most public settings.
882.
by ch4s3 2y ago
A sun-compact with a 58 mile range that was only available for lease in 3 states is not exactly what I’d call viable, and I doubt it was popular.
883.
by ch4s3 2y ago
What does the June 3rd issue look like?
884.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I am certainly NOT expressing racial animus and take offense at the suggestion. My point is that a near peer competitive nation that has party political officers embedded into tech companies is the largest rival to domestic companies. I for
885.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remunera
886.
by ch4s3 2y ago
Based on my 7 years in Baltimore I have to say West was pretty spot on. An old 70s vice cop I knew sounded just like that.
887.
by ch4s3 2y ago
They seem pretty good with human language learning. I used ChatGPT to practice reading and writing responses in French. After a few weeks I felt pretty comfortable reading a lot of common written French. My grammar is awful but that was nev
888.
by ch4s3 2y ago
Right, but that obviously isn't how it should be translated in context.
889.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I think “let’s gooooooo!” Is probably closer? Ish
890.
by ch4s3 2y ago
> We've already established that you were wrong about that as these machines are in commercial deployment. No there are literally no companies using that sewing robot, you can't buy that shirt. > No, you're wrong. You c
891.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I’m sorry, any talk about self replicating machines is just science fiction at this point. It’s not a serious thing to discuss as a near future possibility.
892.
by ch4s3 2y ago
If you were physically active enough and careful about your diet you likely wouldn't be on a GPL-1 drug. That's the point. People end up in bad shape for a lot of reasons, including injury. The search for a mechanism to burn fat w
893.
by ch4s3 2y ago
The problem is that fat, sick people lose a lot of weight and muscle mass and then become skinny and frail. It just puts you at risk of other medical issues. In older individuals this can cause decreased mobility and raise the risk of falls
894.
by ch4s3 2y ago
It should be obvious. There are plenty of thing we can build robots to do, but we don't because its wildly more expensive than we can sell the resulting product for. We can mostly automate construction but it turns out the land acquisi
895.
by ch4s3 2y ago
> You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics gen
896.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I think the downside is that you don't just lose muscle in your legs and core, but rather you lose muscle mass all over. Yes, this is the expected result of calorie restriction but the issue is that when people lose a lot of weight wit
897.
by ch4s3 2y ago
oh god, can you even imagine?
898.
by ch4s3 2y ago
> letting an ecosystem manage itself What would that entail? The whole of the UK has been a human managed ecosystem for centuries. Deforestation was completed about 400 years ago and the larges stand of contiguous trees is under 300 sq.
899.
by ch4s3 2y ago
I clearly was aware of them. Do you think I just rattled of the bit about needing special glue to hold the fabric and only certain seam types being possible? There was a whole thing about these in the Economist last year and it was discusse
900.
by ch4s3 2y ago
No my argument is that trying at a broad systemic level to make specific outcomes happen is susceptible to the information problem. Trying like the op suggested to automate away work is utopian and improbable at best. If you squeeze labor o

More ›