greendude29

I'd go out and say the marketing is not subtle. The hype and fanboys/girls are so in line with the marketing that any level of skepticism is seen a an act of defection, but if you look at the words, hyperbole and volume that is used, there is nothing subtle about it.

It's almost Trump-esque - "this model will change everything forever; we are doomed; we are saved; we will all be fired; we will all be rich", etc

Cool idea. I'm guessing most of the value to your users is in the content in your app since the hardware can be replaced by bookmarks for those have >10 or so plants.

For me, I'd more excited about well organized plant content than the NFC hardware. Is there a preview of the content itself? That's where I imagine most of the "features" will be.

A TV will likely have multiple inputs like HDMI, USB, Cable, etc and hence presumably more parts, more complex board and higher power needs.

I might be wrong, but that's an assumption.

A 'feature' of the Samsung TV that copes with this is that it has a motion sensor and turns off when no one is around. Would love an open hardware version of this.

Thanks for posting, this is a fun space to see more software in.

Indirectly related, but I'm in the market for a 32inch+ screen which can be used for a photo frame. With the exception of Samsung's Frame, I haven't been able to find other products which is surprising to me because it seems like such a simple use case. Here's what I've found so far:

- TVs and monitors: downside is keeping these on 24-hours isn't great for energy consumption

- color e-ink: these are of course usually a maximum of 13 or so inches

- Samsung the frame - alas, has good features and a good look, but downsides are expensive(!) and Samsung(!!)

Do you have any recommendations?

I really can't figure out what relation the doodle has to what's generated. I draw a dot, I get a cat as per the prompt. I add another dot, or a line; the newly generated image changes, but there's no predictability. We can call this 'AI', but is there really any intelligence here?

Seems like a call to stable diffusion's API without any real intent.

This...is news?

> First it was Jordan Peterson, then it i was Eric Weinstein, then Chamath, the list goes on. Most recently, it’s been Peter Zeihan.

These are not intellectuals, let alone public ones. They are all American and follow a 'clickbait' model to public discourse. Seems like you repeatedly fall for it and enjoy doing so. Nothing here reflects any form of intellect.

It's not a controversial opinion as much as it is incongruent.

> IMO It's better to adopt Chromium-based browsers and put pressure on Google to avoid letting it become the sole decision-maker about the web.

But by using chromium/blink-based browsers, you have already taken the pressure off Google. You have already given them what they want, so you've forfeited your hand.

For anyone out there who values the swiftly fading open-ness of the Internet, Firefox or other smaller FLOSS browsers are the right tools of choice.

I saw the headline on your post and felt horrified.

I then read the details and I'm no longer horrified.

There is a difference between advertising your own services vs injecting ads from other parties. Injecting ads from other parties could imply sharing of personal data which would be worrying.

There is no breach of the DDG implicit user contract here which is low tracking and privacy.

> Maybe the CEO can jump on here again and give us a bunch of back-peddling double talk about how they’re misunderstood, as when they were caught censoring news results.

I must have missed this, what's this about censoring news?

Craft seems really interesting. Applied.

Highly subjective based on personal preferences.

I use Gnome and the top bar is far from a checkbox for stylistic design for me. On it are applets that I use multiple times everyday (Calendar, Caffeine, a few custom applets, VPN controls, etc).

The author assumes that utility would come from something like a global menu which is also a choice, as I access menus only using the keyboard and not mouse.

I do love the magic corner though.

I noticed a sharp decrease in my world curiosity at 34. This was also the time in life that I accepted a lot of "responsibility" towards the traditional way of life, ie, stable well paying job, career growth, long term relationship, etc.

My read is that once you are fully integrated into the "system", it has micro ways of keeping you engaged - working towards that next promotion, buying a new model of your favorite EV, having your stocks vest so your net worth can increase, etc.

Creativity requires freedom to take risk. Post industrial revolution life incentivizes you to not take risks. Overtime, variability of actions goes down as does creativity.

Our jobs are all consuming of our lives - we see it as a moral good to see our jobs as "crafts"; so if you want become a better X, you should not only invest your 9 - 5 in it, but also your weekends reading books about it, your free time doing side projects showing your "passion", found a business so you can ascend into a new social class of "founders", etc.

That's obvious. You're missing the point.

Neat; but if I were non-technical person, the next question I would ask would be, why can't Mallory just forge Ted's certificate and use that to fool Alice or Bob? In this scenario, Alice or Bob would receive a box which has a certificate which looks very similar to what they remember Ted having.

What would be a good non-technical metaphor for that?

In reality of course, we use trustworthy browsers such as Firefox which (relatively invisibly) enforce certificate validity for us. I'm wondering where that would fit in the metaphor.

> Not in a free society with the rule of law, anyway.

How strange to negate mountain loads of evidence with a single religion-like self-defending assumption. Of course you would believe that yours is a society of Law if you actively ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Seriously, with what we know about PRISM [1], why do comments on here only fear China's surveillance and not that of the United States?

Apple was revealed to be a participant in 2013; there is no reason to believe they are not a part of it now.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

Single data point with a spotty read of the outcome should not be enough to put any weight behind a theory.

Chances are "big tech" advertises popular brands, both items in your pocket are likely to have fit into that category.

Ah yes, "naughty words", that's all that hate speech is. What a smart fella.

Hate speech is not a joke. It predates the Internet. It has led to (and will lead to) massive atrocities. Some of the most well understood atrocities of the 20th century (Rwandan genocide, Nazis, Anti-muslim attacks in India, many others) were engineered via hate speech.

Without regulation, Internet tools will be used to (and are being used to) conduct mass scale human political change including manufacturing consent for war, hate, colonialism, etc.

The world is big, and not all centered around the American take on politics (Commies and Liberatrians). It's also much much bigger than "daddy-corporation" and minor disagreements. The Internet is a tool that governments and political actors use for control.

I would very highly recommend reading up on Hate speech outside the American context of "free speech" and the Internet.

Detoxifying platforms is a "new" responsibility that a lot of social media has discovered over the last decade and with good reason (again, not saying that Twitter is doing is well).

That responsibility has a few dimensions including financial (a platform that is overly toxic deters users and hence reduces ad revenue), moral (most corporations are a-moral by nature, but there are some attempts to assuage the public and deliver on a few safety features), and regulatory (hate speech is a real thing and can be enforced selectively (as opposed to "free speech" laws)).

> Dramatically reducing the size and scope of the speech rules they implement to something akin to "If the speech is legal in a country, then it's legal on Twitter" would reduce technical and operating complexity. Between developing the technical infrastructure to automate restrictions and bans, to having staff trying to judge all sorts of petty bickering between groups trying to take advantage of the rules to report and ban their rivals, I feel like Twitter is wasting a large amount of resources on stuff that they shouldn't even be trying to do. A smaller team could focus on the essentials: removing illegal content and responding quickly to actual issues of safety (stuff like death threats that might pose an imminent harm). Hell, I feel like Twitter is so involved in trying to get involved in Internet drama and disputes that they currently do a mediocre job on actually dealing with genuine safety issues.

You say that Twitter can reduce its operational load by doing what exactly what it is already doing. What "Internet drama" is Twitter trying to get involved in?

> I feel like

There's your problem. You're feeling more than realizing. Twitter's most complex problems aren't infrastruture; it's adhering to various national laws on language while trying to keep hate speech off as well (they are doing a terrible job at this of course). But saying that they should just allow "free speech" is an extreme oversimplification and lacks an understanding of jurisdictions outside the US.

Interestingly it crashes starting on "how many emojis on i"

Right on

"It's okay when we commit the same immoral acts that authoritarians commit because we're a democracy"

American democracy commits heinous crimes across the world. Being a democracy doesn't absolve them of the moral degeneracy.

Do you really think the media industry behaves a single entity and churns out pieces because the entity as a whole is jealous of tech?

I don't care about the NYT, but do you really see andreessen horowitz, elon musks and the likes as anything more than shysters?

What an inanely dumb comment - could've been written by Trump himself.

I don't particularly care for the NYT, but I've found that people with overly simplistic and hyper-narrow views of the world have become more common in silicon valley in the last 8 or so years. Chances are the reason for this is exactly what the article calls out, silicon valley was once about technology and innovation, it is now about business. It hence attracts business people and has changed the general populace of it quite a bit.

> I don't care what culture it has as long as it respects the Constitution and the laws of the land

You know that there are people outside America right? The "constitution" is not a global concept, but Silicon Valley cannot thrive without globalization.

> Documentation, when it exists, is usually a band-aid covering up bad design. Pretty documentation seems like lipstick on a pig.

The above two ideas are incongruent, but anyway, you do realize that system design can't be self-evident for complex systems? How for example would you have no documentation for the Linux kernel?

Either you're mis-communicating your point or not thinking of anything larger than tiny systems.

You can apply that logic to extol anyone.

Jobs was a veritable maniac. Because he can write poetry with a crass corporate sign off doesn't add anything to him not being a shithead.