a257

High energy EM radiation is able to ionize atoms through the photoelectric effect. Cellphone radiation is unable to do this because it doesn't have enough energy. This is strictly the case because energy in these scales are quantized.

Such a world sounds unappealing, if not naive and silly - why can't people be motivated by multiple reasons anyways? The author doesn't claim that they are a great at business in the first place.

Sorry, I was referring to the parent comment's notion that the headsets would be as "easy as wearing glasses" and have high quality (especially color fidelity), not that you can't have high quality VR overall.

Theres also the fact that the headsets doesn't nearly present digital content with enough quality to rival traditional 2D interfaces. There does not seem to be a simple way to fix this problem, the laws of physics is a cruel mistress.

EDIT: I had the image of a "glasses" like VR form from the parent comment when making this comment. It is not talking about Meta's product.

What can 3d interfaces do better that they replace 2D interfaces as the preferred medium for digital activity? Are those benefits worth the additional costs of producing, distributing, and interacting with 3D content?

The argument that VR/AR is a boon restrained only by current technological ability seems to be incomplete. Rather, could there be some other economic, cultural, and practical factors which make VR/AR unappetizing outside its niche use cases? (EG, why did 3D television "fail" despite being available for a long time?)

I don't personally believe that 3D will eventually replace 2D because I know I wouldn't want to develop 3D content when 2D is a chore already. If 3D will replace 2D in some point in the future there should be a greater emphasis on developing technologies to make creating 3D content as easy (if not easier) as creating 2D content.

As far as we know, there is no biology on Mars. It is entirely possible that people could bring life to Mars in the future to fulfill oxygen needs.

related thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31870345

the URL is broken, it should be https://github.com/settings/copilot

> Your GitHub Copilot setup is incomplete. Select your preferences blow to start using GitHub Copilot. [sic - typo 'blow']

It seems that Github has added some new settings for Copilot. You can now block suggestions matching public code and opt-out of "allow[ing] GitHub and its affiliates to use my code snippets to research and improve Copilot suggestions, related models and product features"

I haven't seen this before till today. Is this new?

> Yet once again ... a white supremacist shot to death ten people just days after posting his racist manifesto online on Google Docs.

Sounds like an excuse for further expansion of the system. "all businesses must scan and report content and etc..." (see Apple's recent cp scan controversy). They are more likely to double down on it than admit they were wrong.

I'm skeptical the system was made to protect the common gentry anyways. Besides, relying on surveillance to stop these sorts of things sounds like Bad Engineering -- it is certainly not the most cost effective solution if privacy is of any value.

I am confident that I treat my laptops very well. According to the article linked above, this issue has been occurring during normal use.

I've had a M1 Macbook pro (13-inch) display shatter on me within 10 months of purchase for no reason. The cost of repair is $800 which being around 80% of the cost of the laptop, was untenable. Since then it has been gathering dust in the storage closet for the past five months.

Looking online, it seems like there was a quality issue with their displays for the first few batches of production.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-facing-m1-macbook-cracked-s...

It is a shame. I did enjoy using the laptop very much.

On one hand, the exclusive job opportunities are providing value to students which can allow students to increase their value. On the other hand, the employers are benefiting from the fact that the universities themselves are selectively gathering people with high market value. Exactly how much of whether it's the former or the latter is an open question. Whether or not a university is an expensive platform to pass a corporation's gatekeeping is questionable.

If government funded student loans are eliminated and as a result the demand goes down, will the price of education decrease by the same amount? If the demand is relatively inelastic, wouldn't it be the case that it wouldn't lower the price as much as expected? In other words, how elastic is the demand for education? How much of the current costs are resulting from taxpayer funded student loans?

These sorts of 'exploits' take advantage of the site-agnostic nature of passwords. Using a password manager may be able to mitigate this.

For this particular attack, a fun 'solution' may be to incorporate some sort of AI-based detection system to warn the user if anything resembling a browser is shown on the site.

Is a non-profit-based press necessarily a better thing? I'm not entirely convinced that FOSS-like press is the better alternative -- open source has its own fair share of problems.

When it comes to low-quality journalism today, I notice that most (if not all) of the notorious cases follow a pattern where the shttier the news the cheaper it is. Could it be that journalistic quality is proportional to the costs the reader has to pay?

If so, rather than seeking a news source untainted by monetary interests, wouldn't it be more productive to seek costly news sources with individual interests you are clearly aware of?

> Basically what this means is they are teaching people really sht lessons now, and if this sort of thing continues for too long, it's going to produce an entire generation of shtty people.

Out of curiosity, how much influence do movies/tv shows have in shaping society? Could it be that the seemingly casual link between movies and culture be opposite? Or, in other words:

B (bad movies) = "this sort of thing continues for too long"

S (shtty people) = "produce an entire generation of shtty people"

B -> S is claimed in the video, is !B || S always true? Could it be B <- S instead? B <-> S?