yourenotsmart
So the idea we'll see some vastly different concepts with different starting blocks is possibly unfounded.
Alien life might be very different at low level depending on their environment, but in terms of macroshapes, things like the formation of a head with eyes and mouth, upper and lower limbs, bilateral symmetry and so on will repeat over and over.
We'll see (in another life probably).
I'm personally expecting something like 80% humanoids and 20% exotic forms. Maybe I'm primed incorrectly by cheesy soap operas and sci-fi TV shows, but I think they're not far off (even if for unrelated reasons like SFX/VFX budget and character empathy).
If you have 100 things to do, certainly a list helps you at least not forget most of them, before you even start work.
I don't know what David Allen recommends, but if everyone is left with the impression he recommends TODO lists and he doesn't, it might be because the alternative is hazy and vaporous and poorly defined.
I scanned your answer for that alternative and it wasn't there, either.
Consider grocery shopping. You have 20 products to buy. Does a shopping list help? Uhm, heck yes. Otherwise you'd need to go to the store 10 times and not one time.
Well shopping lists, are just a TODO list in the context of a grocery store.
Issue reports on GitHub and other bugtracking systems are TODO lists in the context of software development.
Medical checklists enumerate all required steps in carrying out procedures. That's a TODO list in the context of medical practice.
I can go on forever. So, clearly, the statement "TODO lists don't work" is false. It contradicts reality. And the supposed alternative is apparently unmentionable. Odd.
Maybe we should clarify what is meant by "it works" or "doesn't work", because in general it only means "it's effective for certain uses" and it is effective for certain uses. No, a TODO list won't necessarily motivate you, unless your lack of motivation is specifically due to confusion what you're supposed to do. But I'm very suspicious that any similar "mechanical" alternative would work either.
Gamification works because it draws you into its own world. Posting comments, like mine and most of them, is low effort. Playing a game with colorful characters doing cute things is low effort. Checking for new tweets is low effort. All those are low effort things. This is why it's easy to be motivated by a system that gamifies those low effort actions.
I really doubt any game would motivate you to do an actual 9 to 5 job for years.
> The penalty is the result of a 2018 complaint by French privacy rights group La Quadrature du Net, which filed numerous lawsuits against Big Tech companies on the behalf of 12,000 people shortly after the GDPR was established that year.
This privacy group waited for the law to get signed, and promptly sued every big company that clearly handles user data.
Do you think finding everyone a billion or two would help them come up with a time machine and go back in time to implement a law before it exists so they're compliant by the time it's signed? Curious.
It means you have a rich set of laws, which punish various offenses which look fine on paper, but in practice everyone violates just to do their regular job, so they're widely not enforced.
But if you want to fuck someone in particular, you can easily find them in violation of a dozen or two of them, and put them in jail for a long time or fine them substantial amounts.
You threw the book at them.
This is basically what most of EU's data privacy, cookie and so on laws are about, in practice.
It's interesting how you can take a collection of seemingly or genuinely good-intentioned rules and use them to basically rule as a king, but there you go.
And it's not a good thing.
But even if I decided to call the commenter names, that wouldn't be ad hominem (link above on details).
It's rude, it's uncivilized maybe, we can have qualifications like that. But it's not "ad hominem", because "ad hominem" isn't about "you insulted someone".
You have politicians colluding with businesses to save them a billion in taxes, contrary to the intent of the law. Then you have the same politicians colluding to basically go pirate and surprise fine the same business a billion for some semi-arbitrary violation out of nowhere.
There's no system here, no law, just both sides one-upping themselves in being absolute fucking assholes.
The result is instability and environment not conductive to businesses or the people that makes them up.
Think about it, how come everything is fine, and then out of the blue you get sued for a billion? Was there a warning? Was there a grace period, a chance to rectify things? No.
This is not law enforcement, this is law abuse. It's like the US cops that stop random cars, and if the driver carries cash, they just take it under bullshit pretense.
We're moving towards an anarchy, under the guise of justice.
* If you have so little care, agency and skill that using Copilot results in you generating mountains of code you don't understand, that's on you.
* If you think what basically amounts to AI autocomplete will turn you into a bad programmer, then you were already a bad programmer, and that's on you.
* If you think what basically amounts to AI autocomplete will replace you, then you don't provide enough value to your employer, and that's on you.
* If you are angry about Copilot training on your FOSS code that's FOSS not only to people, but also to companies, machines and to the companies and people using these machines, then you publish under FOSS license without understanding what FOSS is, and that's on you.
The only objective problem here is that Copilot will mix-in incompatible licenses, or even proprietary licenses in its training base, and that should be rectified.
But it's in beta. So out feedback is expected and welcome, and no need for drama and vitriol.
- User: "This site is broken. Fuck Safari, I want Chrome on my iPhone!"
What users actually think:
- User: "This site is broken. Fuck it, I'll go to another site."
Safari isn't THAT BAD that sites can't work on it. It's mostly minor differences, and lack of some "nice-to-haves" that are not crucial to UX (or in fact, their lack improves UX).
No one cares about your site that much to go to another browser just to browse it ON A PHONE. This is why I said, outside the web dev echo chamber, no one cares.
I've been around for IE6, and comparing Safari with IE6 is honestly absolutely ignorant and laughable. But I did also make my sites work fine with IE6 back in the time. That's our job.
Safari will move at its own pace. The only thing I care about it, is that it's secure, power efficient, fast and user friendly. I speak also as an iPhone user, because users matter more than developers and their endless whining about features.
Ad hominem doesn't mean "don't say bad words about me and my opinions". Ad hominem would be disregarding an opinion not by discussing the opinion, but by discarding the opinion based on WHO said it.
It's in fact very hard to commit ad hominem against an anonymous person online who has said nothing about themselves. If they said "I have a history of delusions" and I said "therefore your opinion has no merit", that's ad hominem.
The fact that despite that you constantly hear people complaining about "ad hominem" online is just that much funnier. Strawman is another one that most people love to say, while having no clue what it means.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/two-misundersto...
I don't know or care who said the above opinion. I care about their opinion and their opinion was delusional.
Thinking the world at large knows, cares, and can make "informed choices" about the browser engines used throughout their phone apps is delusional.
Also, there's nothing "subjective" about whether all smartphone users are web developers, and therefore happen to care about browser engines.
No one is discussing some hypothetical situation where someone knocks on your home, either.
We're talking about a problem that's systematic, at volume, and persistent over time, and therefore qualitative change for McDonald's and the environment they offer to customers.
McDonald's wanted to offer finite refills to paying customers. Their current system had a loophole with unintended consequences, so they closed that loophole.
If you want to help homeless people I guess go work at McDonald's and give homeless people water when they ask, and everything will be perfect. But let's see if your ideals stay intact after 10 cups of water. 100 cups of water. 1000 cups of water. A million cups of water.
It's very easy to say "oh I gave water to a dude once". I also gave water to a dude once, doesn't matter for McDonald's and people habitually coming back to leech a resource they provide that's not intended to be free in the first place.
Also you should review what "ad hominem" means. Saying "no one intellectually honest would say 2 + 2 is 5" is not ad hominem.
Not one reasonable and intellectually honest person expects that the average phone user out there even knows what a browser engine IS, let alone compare two of them, or know where it's used (when it's not even disclosed).
Keep in mind smartphones are even more widely used than "computers" in general. So I guess even 8 year olds now are expected to do a security analysis on the browser engine their game uses before playing.
Delusional.
I find it cringeworthy to even have to explain the problem here. "The web" is not an app written for one browser. By the same logic, Firefox is also "killing the web" because it can't run Chrome-only apps.
The web is all mainstream browsers, and the web standards. Do you want to know what's really killing the web? Google subverting the standards process and unilaterally adding all kinds of random "standards" (like connecting to USB and Bluetooth devices, for some reason) as part of the web, then guilting other browsers into not following along.
Instead of critiquing Google for acting as if they singlehandedly own the web, web developers are parroting their line and enabling them.
Fucking embarrassing.
So no, you can't choose. When we say "you can choose" we need to realize that this is only good when you can make an educated, informed choice. If you can't, you need to be protected. And that's Apple's role.
Random choice is not a choice. Would you have your infant "choose" what drugs to take for headache for example? What criteria will they use? Pill shape, color, size and flavor. Well that's basically also our proverbial mom and pop picking a browser engine.
Furthermore browser engines have this peculiar habit of getting into everything. Open any app at all and it's probably using WebKit without you realizing it. What if the app uses some random outdated fork of Netscape, why not? Do you realize what "choice" you made by opening that app?
No.
Good luck having bunch of lawyers figure out what the impact of a browser "engine" is.
And honestly good luck having regular users care about this, either.
The reason Apple won't have a problem with it is because the whole argument is just in the echo chamber of web developers who want their new shiny.
As for the "all we know" thesis, for all you know the Sun might not rise tomorrow. But odds are it will. And therefore all thought process and decision making is made on odds. Not on absolute, perfect certainty.
And the odds are that management decisions at McDonald's have a higher quality data sourcing and analysis process, and have spent more time figuring a problem out, than bunch of random people on Hacker News, who spoke about McDonald's that day simply because they saw a tweet about it.
But of course, "for all we know" maybe the Einstein of fast food is here among us, so who knows?!
If I can speculate on their overall behavior, there's no intent behind this. They are relatively decentralized, and everyone is throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.
To have a feature known you need concerted effort by design teams to make it accessible, marketing to make it known and so on. There's nothing of the sort with Google.
Surely if you had a restaurant, you'd want to invite your customers to the smell of pissed pants and drunk people begging for change?
Let's be real here.
Homelessness is an issue that shouldn't exist, but it's not McDonald's issue, that's not their role in the game, and they can't offer their services at a level, when they need to deal with homeless people on their premise. If your country sucks and can't take care of social issues, it's not suddenly the role of private businesses to play that role for those in need.
So "it's hard" is the natural outcome, given we always strive to optimize our efforts, therefore we keep pushing programming beyond "it's easy" right until "it's hard" but before "it's impossible".
Therefore programming is most typically "hard" for most people programming at any given moment.
So what does it say and about whom, seems like a wrong question. It only shows a property intrinsic to systems (including social, biological, artificial and so on) and how systems balance themselves.
Really? And how do they work?
It's a drink dispenser, not a Mars spaceship. How complicated do you think it is to have one that mixes in syrup and tap water, and one that just serves from a container, like a regular water dispenser THAT'S LITERALLY IN EVERY OFFICE around the world?
> It's not besides the point at all. Actually it's completely central to the point. The comment chain you're replying to is precisely about whether people are being denied tap water, or some (supposedly) more premium product. If it's the latter, it completely invalidates the point of the original tweet.
No, if it's branded as a specific type of water, it's not tap water. You're reaching here for a conspiracy theory based on how "these types of drink machines work", despite evidence to the contrary.
Also no, a business doesn't owe tap water to anyone, either. So it's absolutely irrelevant wrt these RFID chips.
- They have feedback from every venue, sales data, and dispenser use data, and these teams have been running the company for years, some decades.
- And we have A SINGLE TWEET, and 30 seconds for a hot take during a coffee break.
Clearly, we know better.
FFS.
> Eg. A unique QR code on the underside of the cup.
Let's have a QR scanner below the cup, where people constantly spill their drinks. Great idea. /s
A printed QR code adds few complications to the process:
- You can't print the QR code with the rest of the cup, as it has to be unique. So we need a separate printing step. That also adds costs, and the question is does it cost almost the same as embedding an RFID chip (which is 7-10 cents).
- You need to align and scan the code before a refill, which is a lot more intentional for a customer, than simply holding the cup for a refill as usual. So it's worse customer experience.
- The only flat surface of the cup is on the bottom, so any spill means you're spilling drinks over the scanner. So that would mean scanners constantly requiring maintenance to keep working.
These "free T-shirt" kind of schemes have always the same loophole. They rely on people acting "within measure" naturally due to social norms. Those fall apart quickly when the alternative is infinite free stuff.
Your regular variety grocery store Coca Cola is also 90%+ tap water, bottled and shipped. They're not mixing syrup at the store.