haswell

12 ms·

121.
by haswell 1y ago
Exactly
122.
by haswell 1y ago
This statement is self-refuting in multiple ways. It is itself an assumption. It is assuming that it’s possible to have no external assumptions, that being wrong requires external assumptions, and that this principle is true. You’ve alrea
123.
by haswell 1y ago
> Forget about all that. On what basis? The metaphysical substrate matters and can’t be simply hand waved away. Your position here closely resembles religious faith, and that’s a bit of a problem if your goal is to convince other peopl
124.
by haswell 1y ago
The scale of the protests means the protests are already working. They’re as much about spreading awareness and mobilizing the voting public as they are about current events. I don’t see a connection between their efficacy and what happene
125.
by haswell 1y ago
Many people have made philosophical claims. That does not make them categorically true, and Hegel certainly has his critics.
126.
by haswell 1y ago
I'm not sure upon what basis you think such a claim can be definitively made. Nor does declaring "Kant got this wrong" help the argument. For sake of argument, let's say the simulation hypothesis is true. Would you ackno
127.
by haswell 1y ago
"Ego death" is really not the death of ego, but the death of the belief that ego is is at the center of all things, and is somehow a thing that actually exists in the way we tend to believe it exists before examining it more clo
128.
by haswell 1y ago
> What's the difference between ego death and physical death? When the body dies, the lights go out (as far as we know). When the ego "dies" (I agree with your sibling comment that maybe the word "death" is not
129.
by haswell 1y ago
The goal is not death. The comment mentioned ego death which is something else entirely. At the risk of trivializing something that must be experienced not explained, the realization of no-self (ego death) is one of the most liberating thin
130.
by haswell 1y ago
> if you reason without presuppositions This cannot be accomplished, and the conclusion that such a feat leads to absolute truth is philosophically untenable.
131.
by haswell 1y ago
> The truth is fully reasonable Doesn’t this effectively hand wave away the hard problem of consciousness? i.e. even a purely reason-based understanding of truth must acknowledge that the only thing we can be certain actually exists is
132.
by haswell 1y ago
I'm curious to know how many successfully targeted individuals were using features like Apple's Lockdown Mode.
133.
by haswell 1y ago
I'm old enough to have lived through the era of standalone authenticators. The downsides of that approach are also numerous. I understand where you're coming from though, and I think this is where OS features like Focus Modes come
134.
by haswell 1y ago
This is an apples/oranges comparison for a number of reasons: 1. The Bigscreen Beyond 2 is still a tethered device and can't do anything without a beefy computer. It wouldn't be so small if it contained a computer capable of
135.
by haswell 1y ago
> Why is that step necessary? How does it help on the path to glasses? Almost every modern device has such a history. It’s necessary for the same reason room sized punch card computers were necessary, or 3-inch thick laptops were neces
136.
by haswell 1y ago
I think it’s fairly widely understood at this point that the product Apple wants to ship is more like glasses than a helmet. But the tech to achieve this isn’t there yet, and the current product is a necessary iteration to get to that fut
137.
by haswell 1y ago
I don’t think the issue is a lack of skeuomorphism. It’s more that the devices we use can’t replicate the feeling of something tangible that exists in the same space we do. And that these devices are bottomless portals to any number of othe
138.
by haswell 1y ago
In practice, atheists are people who think they know there is no god. Agnostics are people who realize they don’t know much at all about anything related to the origins of things and realize they don’t want to hold unprovable dogmatic bel
139.
by haswell 1y ago
I’m familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question. It was not obvious to me that this was the author’s intent.
140.
by haswell 1y ago
> What problem? I think you answered this with the rest of your comment.
141.
by haswell 1y ago
Yes, I’m aware. I should have said “referred to” instead of “replied to”.
142.
by haswell 1y ago
Many of us are well aware of what’s happening in the US, and also deeply concerned by what we see abroad. The comment that started this subthread gave no indication that they were unaware of the state of things in the US…you’re arguing agai
143.
by haswell 1y ago
> …while pretending the US doesn't have any. As far as I can tell, the comment you replied to did not do any such thing.
144.
by haswell 1y ago
> I did not make a statement about the rest because it's too complex of a topic to which I do not have enough data to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. > There is probably a lot of truth in the tail risks of all of
145.
by haswell 1y ago
> DoorDashers on mopeds on sidewalks are annoying No, they’re dangerous. > but drivers in NYC kill hundreds, maim thousands, and hit tens of thousands every year. This strikes me as an argument from whataboutism. I don’t have the
146.
by haswell 1y ago
> It depends on one's moral philosophy. To make sure I understand your comment, are you saying that a company that sells a product with a $50K minimum buy-in — a number determined to be the threshold at which the company can recou
147.
by haswell 1y ago
> While they may or may not, they often ignore low-volume customers who could easily buy the product if it was on an online store. Your skepticism is warranted. Setting aside any qualms about how the pricing is published, if a business
148.
by haswell 1y ago
> maybe i just appreciate the difference between the product and support for the product. for support, i understand a more-bespoke pricing model I'm trying to frame this sentence so it doesn't sound like a jab because that&#x27
149.
by haswell 1y ago
I think you overestimate the degree to which some software can be standardized and sold in a set of well-defined SKUs, and the degree to which some buyers want to be intimately familiar with extremely granular pricing (e.g. something like A
150.
by haswell 1y ago
This is a key point. A customer that buys $100K+ worth of software is automatically a future debook risk if they can't/don't implement it successfully and start seeing value right away. The high touch approach ensures they&#x

More ›