everdrive

This feels completely oblique to the parent's comment.

Despite the local US politics, it's not really the US which is primarily hurt by Iran cutting off the straight. It affects Europe and Asia much more.

Epic is just setting up for the same rug-pull as every other tech company: get you entrenched, and then turn the screws. I don't care what they give away for free or what improvements they make.

>That really annoying tech feature which has always been awful, but now in your healthcare!

Everyone is skipping security basics. The most secure server is one that doesn't exist. The most secure feature is one that doesn't exist. People just need to keep building and scaling. Security is risk, and the C-suite are gamblers. They're gambling with multiple types of risk (the market, investor money, banking on technological breakthroughs, etc.) and security is just another gamble for them.

It was deeply stupid for us to start an unnecessary war with Iran, but it's not clear that we can leave any time. Iran is suggesting they will charge fees to traverse the strait, (and attack shirkers) and it's also not clear that Iran has the remaining navy to successfully clear the mines.

It was incredibly stupid to start this war, but we're now fairly well stuck.

>Smart people don't think others are stupid

In my experience, this is true even when they _should_ believe that someone is stupid. It seems that the very intelligent make two errors: humility, and then the same theory of mind error that every makes.

The "humility problem" is well-intended but incorrect; they don't want to claim they're above anyone, at at least in the same of some very intelligent people this is not just a social signal. They seem to think that other people must be just as intelligent as they are, but there's some other explanation for why they don't understand things. This ties into the next problem:

I don't have a clever name for the next problem, but I would call it "the same theory of mind error that every makes." When we try to model other people, we use our own mind as a model. We do this even when we've been proven wrong over a lifetime. We do this when we know better. We slip back into this when we've previously corrected for this. How many extroverts do you know who can tell when an introvert has had "enough" social interaction. It's exceedingly rare. But the extroverts aren't bad people. They just have no real way to slip into the introvert's perspective. They're modeling the introvert as being more or less the same as them, but just with a few quirks. The model fails over and over.

The in case of intelligent people, they seem to have no understanding what a very unintelligent mind would look like, and instead seem to believe that apparently unintelligent people _could_ be brilliant if they just read more, or were not so closed minded. Or maybe they had a poor upbringing, or are dealing with trauma. They don't seem to understand that for stupid people, abstractions are often impossible, impulse control is fleeting, and emotions rule their mind more than thoughts. They cannot really place themselves in the stupid person's mind, so they try to ask "how much would need to go wrong for _me_ to come to such an incorrect conclusion." And so they come up with a false hypothesis, such as "their school teachers must have failed them."

>with minimal casualties.

Unless you measure the male deaths in per capita terms.

Much of modern internet content is far worse than cable advertising in the 90s. I remember when I was a kid; I'd aggressively mute the commercials because I hated the idea that someone was attempting to influence me. The modern internet is orders of magnitude worse buy nearly any measure. The nastiest, most outrageous content is plastered on every wall. Every single person has an angle. Every bit of content meant to pull you in one direction or another, and given the addictiveness of novelty and powerful emotions, we keep coming back for more. It's an absolute disaster we don't know how to walk away from.

I'm sure there's an economist out there explaining how this is "more efficient."

I just don't understand. Wouldn't we have evolved in an environment with constant stress? Constant fear of disease, starvation, predation, attacks by neighboring tribes? Why would our body's natural response to our environment be to immediately grenade itself.

You got further than I did:

>Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

If they wouldn't find another to help me? Absolutely. I can't imagine I couldn't just ask the server a question like "what's cheap and good?" or "I'll take the soup of the day."

>Maybe I have all the apps I need already?

>Maybe I just don't mind having an app on my phone because I know that I can set it to basically never bother me.

Maybe when the government decides you're a dissident, they can purchase the location information from all your convenient apps?

I love you.

I just hate smart phones so much. I need to stop commenting on HN. Sorry for wasting your time.

"Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get 'Comfortable' Not Owning Their Games"

Nothing makes more comfortable than not playing Ubisoft games.

Attacks on someone's culture are high cost and low benefit. Culture is important to people, and attacks on culture can foster unnecessarily-large responses given what is at stack. However, there is also very little to gain from the attacker's side.

>Microsoft 364 is down

I think that characterization is too broad to be considered accurate.

It's for psychological, ergonomic, and privacy reasons.

Using the internet on a mobile phone is not advised.

Almost any smart product these days starts with a couple of basic assumptions:

- All consumers own smartphones and like using them

- Consumers have no idea how their home networking works

- Consumers could not move a file from their computer to an SD card (or something similar)

So, everything is done by the app: you install the app, the smart device broadcasts a wifi network. This allows you to use your phone to give the smart device your wifi password. Then the remote servers handle everything else.

There's nothing in between. You're either an actual engineer, as mrb describes, or you're just beholden to cloud services that are terrible and also are guaranteed to disappear in 0-3 years.

You can, but you can never be strictly certain that you haven't been duped. At least for me, that uncertainty does a lot of work.

"Hey, this house between 101 Main st. and 105 st. is blurred, how will we ever find it?"

>Nerdy boomer nostalgia

What group are you in? My impression is that they have the worst taste of all.

No one agrees on what "consciousness" means, so it's very difficult to debate it with anyone.

>You just can't write a cohesive story for a cynical multiplayer FPS like Quake, Wolfenstein II, Doom

Except you CAN! Doom and Quake films are begging to just be reskinned Aliens. Begging! I have no idea why someone doesn't just make this film.

Hard to know how to feel about this. Bots and such have really ruined the value of customer reviews. The best that can be said is they don't work as intended. The question is whether Amazon can actually fix this problem rather than continuing band-aid over it.

Are there _any_ good video game movies whatsoever? The 2005 Doom film was the easiest miss I'd ever seen. All they needed to do was remake Aliens, but with Doom. Instead of ending up in the Alien nest, you end up in hell. No idea how they managed to drop the ball on that one.