I believe you. I'm the only surviving member of what was our three member nuclear family (four if you count grandma, which I do). Even when someone is terminally ill and you KNOW they're dying, you still cling, without realizing, to some weird hope they can live, a hope demonstrated by the heartbreak that happens when they finally die. To have to be the one who makes that moment finally happen has to be horrible beyond all the rationale that a human being can muster.
>It's just a restaurant.
As opposed to being what, a nuclear reactor? I'm curious what type of institutions you consider important, and see if there are any parallels between those and a restaurant.
I guess it depends. In some cases, it's easily obvious how software matters, as was the case with Visicalc, but with something like cars or aeroplanes, it's mostly been about the hardware. With self-driving cars, the software is again going to be of massive importance, but up until now, it's the hardware that's mattered.
I've never understood, is an Antarctica glacier (or polar ice caps) melting akin to adding ice cubes to a glass of water, or is it akin to ice cubes already in the glass melting? Ice caps on mountain tops melting are clearly akin to the former, but what about ice that's in the water anyway?
It seems to me the comparison being made between Ballmer and Cook is not in their characters, but in similarities between the directions their companies take under a comparable set of circumstances.
It isn't strange, because what is being compared here is the utility of the website and the utility of the ERP. The amount of work (and, subjective though it is, the value of that work) done vis a vis the number of MBs each occupies.
Am I the only one who found it odd that the author had internet access, but there was no phone signal? Maybe it's because I'm Kenyan, where phone penetration is much higher than internet penetration, and where internet access over GSM has the biggest share of the internet access pie chart.
My anecdote: I discovered Edmunds because of their review of first Tesla sedan. It was for me, a technically inclined but nevertheless technically naive reader, the best car review I've ever read.
I saw this headline and went "SHIT!" No, I'm not emotionally invested, in fact I only learnt about it a few hours ago here on HN. Good to hear they have signal.
Speaking of pedantic, what is the difference between "high resolution screens" and "high DPI screens"? Assuming, of course, that screen and display mean the same thing.
What is the relationship between what is at stake here and the suitability of Trump as the person most suited to realizing whatever real and true issues that his supporters want realized? Does wanting those issues to be addressed mean wanting a man like Trump for president as a matter of necessity? Does the importance of the issues Trump speaks to or purports to speak to trump the quality of the man?
"I quit Apple precisely when the iPhone 1 was released..."
Just so I understand, since the iPhone was the first phone Apple made, are you saying you stopped using their PCs (and music players?) because they'd made a phone? If you were happy with their other products up to that point, how does the phone change the grand scheme of things? I'd want to hear what your ideology is.
I'm not sure how restrictions on drone ownership would be a hindrance if drones become a useful tool in preventing poaching. After all, guns are used in fighting poaching yet gun ownership is restricted in (I presume) most countries.
You'll also notice how they're premising stuff on realities that don't yet exist e.g. improvements in the design will make it fully independent from using the grid, or that it's a backup plan for when global warming makes current tomato growing areas unproductive.
Question: If Bernie Madoff had advertised his pyramid scheme in, say, the New York Times, can the paper be held responsible for subsequent losses suffered by those who took up the offer made in the advert?
Is this case legally similar, or do the specific crimes of human trafficking make it different? You know, sort of like how contracts are ordinarily enforceable, but if I agree to marry off my 12-year-old daughter to you, that "contract" is not enforceable.
They say plants are grown in coconut husks instead of soil. Does the coconut husk act merely as a plant holder, or is it the one that provides the nutrients that the plant would otherwise obtain from soil (with/without fertilizer)? That part is not clear to me.
Edit: "There is no need for pesticides as seawater cleans and sterilises the air..."
What does this even mean? Do we normally use pesticides to clean and sterilize the air? Are the pests that we fight with pesticides eliminated when the enclosed air in a greenhouse is cleaned and sterilized in this manner?
My knee has jerked and called this BS. Take electricity generation. When you include water used to generate electricity in this "cost" calculation, you're implying that money was spent to source the water or put it in the dam. It wasn't. The water was put in the dam by the sun, and the water cycle continues whether or not you put a turbine in its way. Does the dam have costs? Sure. But water is not one of them.
We could ask this question recursively ad infinitum. Because their intention to respect wherever it says they'll respect the blog post can be questioned too.
Well, if this video [0] is anything to go by, most of the other jobs will be automated as well. And although I have no foresight to know how it will pan out, it looks like advances in technology (which have produced previously unimagined jobs for humans - hello, Android dev), advances in technology in this new age will only create new jobs for automatons, not for humans.
And ultimately, remember that the biography is just one person's version of the story of another human being. You don't necessarily know what was left out, or left in.
I always have a question about this stuff: when the robots take all of our jobs (or the jobs of a critical mass of the human population), who is going to buy all this stuff the robots make if the humans who are supposed to buy the stuff are broke because they lost their job to a robot?
Has anybody tried to do some kind of study/educated guess about this impact?
At the end of the day, while robots can do our jobs better than we do, they can't consume stuff better than we do, and ultimately our consumption of stuff is what creates the jobs the robots are taking over.
With jobs even as "safe" as surgeons potentially under threat, how long before everyone is in trouble?
You and me are thinking similar thoughts. Something else I want to do, you see how people build public libraries and community libraries? I want to build public and community laboratories. Chemistry, physics, biology labs that any random kid or adult can walk into and do science stuff for free or for as close as possible to free. With smallish libraries that have all the books related to that stuff.