clairity

i believe that’s the user agent stylesheet doing that, because the browser/system color for dark is usually a dark grey, not black, just like the browser/system color for white is usually off-white.

like dark mode, there’s actually a media query for that, though it’s experimental for now: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref...

you were making an ontological claim, which simply doesn't hold true in any practical or reasonable sense, in any and all domains.

then, i put forth a separate observation (perhaps too tersely and obliquely) that biology is the most brutal (ultra-objective, yet ultra-complex) and so the least reasonable domain to be employed in pursuing your line of reasoning (which is wholly subjective and cultural).

biology isn't subject to human reasoning, emotion, or culture, which is where ontological arguments like yours squarely reside.

what unilever is doing is segmenting the market, and filling each segment with a product offering. cloud kitchens are trying to do the same, but the issue is they're not segmenting on quality at all because they're fundamentally pursuing a (lower) cost strategy. you can't differentiate on quality if you have thin margins, as implied by the cost strategy. they're primarily segmenting on (a select subset) of cuisines, which doesn't get you as far as you might think in such a competitive market as prepared food delivery.

it's 'separate human' whether you're speaking in terms of biology, sociology, politics, or anything else. biology happens to be the most brutal of these, considering human only those who reach viability, which for humans is long after birth unlike most animals. again, a group of cells doesn't an individual make.

heroku was great but their free pricing was almost too good. and once you were out of the free range, their pricing jumped too steeply. they should have had a much more gradual ramp-up as your app got bigger and needed more resources, more of a geometrically rising pricing curve rather than a discontinuous one (but not like the overly complicated aws pricing, by the nanosecond on 15 different dimensions).

it's pretty clear in the real world what is and isn't a separate human. i can't hang out and play paddycakes with a bunch of barely differentiated cells in a womb. it's like calling our gut bacteria a separate being because they have their own functioning processes. some even argue that gut bacteria have some sort of community sentience, but even that doesn't make them a separate being with any claims at all on the human's body.

there's a gradient between 'nothing' and 'human', and things toward the 'nothing' end can't invoke bodily autonomy, especially against actual humans with real, functional bodies.

that's arguing semantics (about "absolute"), not addressing the overwhelming experience of the right to bodily autonomy. we live in a complicated sociopolitical world and one contrived thought experiment doesn't a refutation make.

by right, people get to choose what to do with their own bodies when harm to others is small not simply zero (e.g., smoking).

i just learned from a cop that you don't even need a license to drive in LA! she said that cops don't want to put undue burden on people in a city where driving is almost mandatory for livelihood (though i don't currently own a car myself due to the hassles and cost). i kid you not.

i'm not sure what you mean by "choice on ad surveillance", but my point was about anti-trust, not simply anti-competitiveness or monopoly. anti-trust is using market power in one segment to distort another one unfairly.

the precedent you point out is what helps apple claim they're not a trust, because the two components, ads and content, go together in one business model. with google, being paid to place ads is the business model, and competing in the various channels for those ads are potential anti-trust encroachments because they're different markets.

as is usual in these cases, the harm is an inflated market price above the non-distortionary baseline.

that's apple's long term goal, to realize pervasive personal computing. that's why they released siri, airpods, the watch, and faceID (and even the future glasses), as waypoints to that exact future. they probably won't get rid of screens, but will minimize their use over time.

first, if you truly believe that, i have a bridge to sell you in arizona. economists make unwarranted claims buttressed by biased models all the time.

second, that's ultimately a racist argument disguised behind safetyism, neither of which have a leg to stand on. every unwanted child still wants to grow up, be they poor or brown or whatever. let's welcome them rather than paint them over with disgust and wanton disposability.

besides, the point was not to debate abortion, but that it's an (wedge) issue used to distract and divide, rather than focusing the populace on the most pressing problems we face. covid, mass shootings, or climate change (as opposed to pollution) are suitable alternative distractions to consider in place of abortion.

i'm there with you as far as LA is concerned, but too bad most people here are focused on all the manufactured media distractions instead. for instance, abortion issues[0] affect literally no one here in LA (because CA law), and yet, so much talk centers around it here instead of the housing crisis and other stark disparities.

[0]: i'm pro-abortion via the absolute right to bodily autonomy, but no, i don't support the current media rhetoric or focus.

the conventional counter-argument to that is that anything we care about can be valued, which in turn can be monetized, so everything under (and including) the sun can be compared and optimized for in a decentralized way.

that's much harder (and perhaps P=NP impossible) to do in practice for qualitative aspects of life (e.g., love, wonder, beauty, etc.), which is why we have such an imbalance of valuing things that are easier to value (food, machines, services, etc.).

it's certainly harder, but steve did it. tim is unable to, hence the shift to services for easier short-term growth, at the expense of long-term brand loyalty.

this is what you get when you elevate an operator (an operations/finance focused exective) in place of a product visionary. that's no knock on tim, who's done what he's been incentivized to do by the board and shareholders, and a good job at that (and rewarded disproportionately so). but steve wanted to win with a superior product, not just numerically as tim does. that's why steve, many years after his death, still garners more respect publicly than tim (though tim is respected too).

it's the same slow decline that happens over and over in these cases. apple is already focused primarily on services, which you can see in their financials. product has stagnated, while services continues to grow, and with it, more and more capital invested in chasing manufactured prestige awards like oscars and emmys.

apple is in a better position to defend against our (laughably weak) anti-trust enforcement, because the platform is closed, so they'd argue that the ad network is an intertwined part of that one market (mobile computing). google, being an advertising (and surveillance) company first and foremost, has a weaker position wrt the any of their flanking businesses, especially mobile computing, since it's hard to argue that mobile computing is an essential component of the ads business.

i'd vote for anyone who promises (and has a realistic plan) to fund the anti-trust division with 100× their current funding (the IRS too) to crack down on all these distortions in our markets. i have little hope of seeing such a political candidate however.

thanks! i was just last week looking for what the config might be to turn this on for firefox and didn't find it (didn't try very hard tho).

i tried using firefox's experimental :has() on my personal css framework that's using all the latest features css features like :has(). on first glance, it looks like there are some bugs with firefox, but i'm excited that they're working on it. the simple parent selector case seems to work, but complex layout seems to confuse the layout engine.

:has() is easily my most anticipated css feature since grid at least (wish safari would support subgrid!).

yes, the LA metro area is roughly 18.5M people (nearly half of CA; the bay area is about half of this at ~9.5M) and the 2nd densest metro area in the country (though that density is pretty unevenly distributed).

improving the LA metro would have provided better bang for buck, but it doesn't spread the wealth nearly as much, and we're already building metro rail here as part of the run up to the '28 olympics (but not nearly enough, given that the LA region extends roughly 100 miles along the main axes).

the main problem with this HSR is that it doesn't beat air for time or price between LA/SF, and that accounts for the majority of the projected trips (and purported benefit) of this rail line. i've done the air trip many times, and door-to-door times are about 4-5 hours, while this train will take that long without the door-to-door part (though city center to city center is nice, if they ever complete that part).

it’s not that confounding when you consider that iphones dominate apple’s earnings, and so apple wants to unify the platforms under ios (via ipados) rather than under macos where they have no app store lock-in.

too bad this site (which encourages it) and most of the comments so far are focused on (poor) singular predictions without taking the next step and wondering whether the mean(s) of these predictions are fairly accurate. i'd suspect that with enough samples, the mean of any given prediction would be fairly accurate[0], but instead, it's lot of shallow criticism.

for instance, i had been saying (since at least 5 years ago) that full self-driving was at least 15 years away. looking at the state of the tech, i was probably too optimistic, but i'd love to know the mean prediction of the population to see how far offbase i was.

[0]: this is the central thesis of the book wisdom of crowds, and of the many prediction markets it spawned.

randomly, i tried "king and i", which was my favorite thai place in boston (way back in the day), and it did find one nearby me first. the search ahead list did show the one in boston too, further down (i'm super happy they're still around btw).

but yah, foo anything is like a box of chocolates. you just never know what you're gonna get!

it's not that 'look around' is not important and has no priority, but that it's incorrect. if apple had solid POI/place data, then they could work next on improving look around, indoor maps, and 3D models, because that does add value, but not as much as accurate POI data, hence misplaced priorities.

yelp is was a smart way to get a jump start on place data, but apple should have spent much more time and effort (and some of it's $100B+ warchest) on getting this to a much more useful place on their own, especially if it really has designs on challenging google in the autonomous car space.

as a product manager, i can only shake my head when i see such a basic flubbing.

for that, i usually check traffic first, to see if that's the reason. if not, i take the route i want and let maps adjust automatically.

literally every time i go to search for anything--a restaurant, a venue, a specialty shop, etc.--apple maps returns an arbitrarily limited and often unrelated/nonsensical results set. it also has a habit of zooming me to an entirely region/country, when it knows my exact location right now, because the data is so sparse and incomplete.

i'm not saying google results are perfect, far from it, but they certainly don't typically do the above.

as much as i wish it were true, it certainly isn't evaporating because of apple maps, as implied by the post. apple maps is serviceable for directions, but on just about everything else, it's inferior to google maps (and i say this very begrudgingly because i'm no fan of google).

he notes 'look around' as an example of apple reaching parity, but that's such a minor feature, and a great example of where apple has misplaced its priorities. apple needs to do a much better job of getting accurate POI (places of interest) and being able to search on those on just about any facet a user can imagine. beyond the basics of roads, addresses, and directions, that's the killer feature of maps. instead, they create slightly better 3D renderings of urban buildings and tout that as some huge UX improvement in their annual keynote.

apple, please actually improve the killer feature and not everything else. i want to retire google maps (and waze) for good on my devices.

yah, often those moments are too short for deep thinking anyway, which really requires contiguous, distraction-free hours. the more pertinent issue is that devices tend to themselves fragment potential contiguous blocks of time and condition our brain for shorter attention spans (just like what happened to me right now, as i was in the middle of doing something else, but stopped to respond!).

it depends on what you're looking for psychologically. chain restaurants are the most popular, but that's because they're "safe". other folks want adventure, to wander off the beaten path. sometimes that brings great reward and other times it doesn't. it does, however, provide the adventurer satisfaction in the adventure itself. similarly, the mainstreamer gets comfort from the safety of their choice, apart from the enjoyment of the food.

note that these aren't mutually exclusive groups of people, but typically phases of our own selves. for example, i rarely want chain food, but every once in a while i do. and sometimes i go and enjoy it because the people i'm with want it and enjoy it.

to tease out the nuance, the mechanism of mainstreaming isn't an extension of stupidity (ignorance is certainly a more accurate term), but of limited focus and stress. most people don't spend much time thinking about the wider world and how it should work very deeply, so they follow the herd on most things, because it's a decent heuristic and it has a social benefit.

it's a literal luxury to have enough time and mental space to think for more than a few minutes on any given issue. that's one of the most valuable "legs up" that wealth gives you, not so much the money itself, but the room to think (and unfortunately, often to try to manipulate the world around you in a self-serving/self-centered way--the corrupting of personal integrity that's as old as time).