stouset

> Even if you only save $500/store/year, you can see that it really adds up over a chain of 1000 stores.

People always say stuff like this, but it never tracks for me. If you’re a chain with 1,000 stores, $500,000 is barely a blip on your budget sheet in exactly the same way that $500 is barely a blip on the budget of a single store.

Plus there’s no way this remote management stuff doesn’t cost at least $500/store in operating costs.

The pricing isn’t extortionate. It’s literally just them having to pass on the insane price of RAM (itself priced due to the massive demand and supply shortage).

Shallow or misguided criticisms of Apple—of which there are countless—get shredded on this website. This is not a shallow or misguided criticism of Apple. It is clearly and obviously unacceptable.

Better luck next time.

Maybe this is too pessimistic an attitude, but we may be ten years from it not even mattering.

I’ve heard Grant Sanderson’s take. But I suspect math is going down a dark road where humans have little reason to pursue it any more. We’ve crossed a threshold where computers are regularly solving problems that have remained open for decades. Humans barely stand a chance today; ten years from now we’ll be irrelevant in terms of pushing the field forward.

AI might be around to produce new techniques for other AI. But will it be relevant for humans? Will humans even need to be part of the loop? Will the new techniques be presented in ways that are intended to be conveyed to humans? Will there be humans interested in or capable enough to use them? I have my doubts.

You’re upset that it wasn’t exploited as fast as people were concerned it was going to be?

It may not have happened this time, but we are rapidly approaching a future where this will be the case for every exploitable bug.

> Why aren't you excited for pushing the frontier of knowledge.

In mathematics specifically, having answers to open problems is often not inherently all that useful. The value of open problems typically comes from new theories and techniques that mathematicians produce attempting to drive towards solutions. The open problems themselves are a means to an end.

Suddenly having the all the air sucked out of the room by having all of math’s open problems solved—without producing fruitful new areas of research—is not inherently a win.

Any sufficiently complex set of principles is going to have situations where two principles conflict with one another. This exact situation is one of them.

That's always the case for a novel exploit. There isn't a lot of value in popping somebody's PHP blog, so people who've invested time and money into a zero-day exploit have little incentive to use it for that purpose.

The white hats want to extend the time before an exploit is in the hands of the masses who might do so just for the fun of it, and the black hats want to use it on high-value targets.

Yep. My old Honda Fit did this way before CarPlay. I believe it’s a holdover from external mp3 devices using track numbers in their filenames.

It was always a stupid decision to start playing your music alphabetically, but it became a more stupid decision when music libraries were no longer carefully curated folders in the filesystem.

Mindlessly repeating slogans like this is not convincing anyone this is an opinion to be taken seriously.

Maximizing value to shareholders is a literal legal obligation of public companies. A company being unprofitable today does not mean they are not seeking to be highly profitable tomorrow.

I’m pretty sure many of us are actively unable to afford the private energy we’re having to pay for today.

This is true of literally any proof of sufficient complexity, human-authored or otherwise.

It takes time to convey the core ideas. It takes time for other mathematicians to come up to speed on the new techniques and approaches or the novel combinations of existing ones.

The actual experts in this field have asked for the argument to be explained to them, and are now at the point where they believe this is plausible. Another person in this thread has produced a Lean proof and presumably is not trying to pull a fast one on us by exploiting a bug in the solver.

TL;DR chill bro.

That’s not entirely true. There is joy in being someone who pushed the frontier of knowledge forward, even if only by a hair.

This is evidenced by the scant few people who get into math just so they can rediscover group theory or differential calculus on their own with no spoilers.

Solving problems and advancing the field are two related but separate endeavors.

Nobody has solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but it has been highly fertile ground for new mathematics. Answering the question is of far less value than the question itself.

> If the machines understand math but humans don't, we're going to be in a bad bad bad spot.

With potentially plummeting value for human involvement in these skills, I think that’s precisely what many people are worried about.

> There are a thousand medicines that have experienced literally infinite deflation over 50 years

There are always individual counterexamples. And yet as a whole the cost of healthcare has exploded.

> at least some of that is affluence meaning we choose to eat out instead of cooking at home

A lot of that is poverty, not affluence. People working two jobs and living in food deserts aren’t cooking a lot of meals at home. It’s expensive being poor.

I’d love to see some of that disinflation you’re talking about. From my perspective, luxuries have gotten cheaper while basic necessities like food, housing, and medicine have become dramatically more expensive across the board.

More and more it’s seeming that the “societal benefits” from the last fifty years of progress have largely been concentrated at the top.

This is a tech demo until it actually ships. Actual engineering requires things like cost effectiveness, reliability, and reparability that are yet to be seen.

It’s not like this is the first time that Elon has overpromised and underdelivered.

I get your broader point, but making it potentially easier to cut Russia specifically off from the Internet might not be the worst thing in the world.

Default to telling everything to your physicians. A good physician will have zero qualms with you getting a second opinion.

You don’t like the answer you got, so you ignore it. Again, you’re not asking in good faith. The fact that Apple has actually done these things is widely agreed upon by privacy and security experts, and there is essentially no evidence that contradicts it.

Now you’ve pivoted to an entirely different conversation.

For 1g of acceleration, none of the light produced after 1 year will ever reach the spacecraft. You only have to operate the power source for a year, but you only get a year of source power spread across an infinity of time.

You have it backwards. The further and faster the ship goes, the less energy is received. The energy collected over a day will be spread over a week, a month, a year, a decade, etc.

GP has it backwards too. For 1g of acceleration, none of the beam that is produced after a year will ever reach the accelerating spacecraft. You only need to run it for a year.

Also why.

Sure there will always be some people who want to explore for exploration’s sake. But a generation ship leaving a garden of Eden we’re quite literally built for in order for our children’s grand^(1000)children to terraform a rock half a galaxy away in order to have a different mix of resources?

That’s a hard sell for the first generation, to say nothing of those who come after.

They sell their own products to you and that’s all they care about. Google, Meta, Amazon and others want to collect a profile on you in order to target ads or more products to you.

With Apple, you are the customer. With others, you’re the product. It’s an easy differentiator for them, plain and simple.

HN hates when people are “just asking questions” but haven’t bothered to make any attempt whatsoever to answer those questions.

Yes, Apple has actually put work into designing, building, and shipping secure enclaves. Yes, they have put a gargantuan amount of work into PCC to uphold the claims they make about its privacy. Yes, they employ differential privacy. Yes, they have shipped a feature that enables privacy-conscious users to be the only ones to hold the keys to their iCloud account. And on and on and on. Nothing will ever be enough for you.

You aren’t asking these questions in good faith. If you were, you’d have your answers already.

It’s paranoid lunacy to ignore the irrefutable, demonstrable work that they’ve done to minimize the data they can ever collect or access while conveniently ignoring the miserable track record of every one of their competitors, and to ascribe intentions to them that are in direct conflict to every intentional action they’ve taken in at least the past decade.

Apple has done more than literally any other technology company to limit their own ability to ever access your personal data.

Always missing from the paranoid lunatic side of this discussion: what devices do you use? I presume you do all your computing on an abacus?