forthefuture

Well the idea of a stay at home parent is that child care is work. You can either pay someone or do it yourself, in which case you're doing the job you would have paid someone else to do.

> lets drop all the non-tech

Sounds good.

Like Theranos, the mistake is ever having positive coverage, not only now having negative coverage.

Life is a human construct. The rest of the universe just exists. We only place value in water based reproduction because it's what we are.

> How is AI any different from other technology improvement such as electricity, automation, personal computers, steam engines, or the cotton gin?

The same way Anti-biotics are different than Leeches.

Just because there is any connection between two things does not mean they are equal.

Depends on how good you're talking. Chrome supports the SpeechRecognition API.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SpeechRecog...

Title is just wrong. Netflix has 2x the downstream traffic. Youtube isn't even on the subscribers chart because they have more than an order of magnitude more.

Yeah sorry I can't edit it again now. I editted because the reason I used "evil / unreal" was because those are typically the traits given to a God to illustrate contradiction. And as religion is intrinsically overflowing with contradictions they aren't a particularly compelling way to argue against it.

Thinking that framing God as a contradiction will convince people not to believe in it is naive.

People have been saying the same things for 2,000 years. The only development is that we can say it's been longer now.

Harm is again an unnecessarily negative judgement. We are the same matter and energy (nature) as the Earth, the Moon, the Sun. What we do when our matter and energy moves around is not any more purposeful or harmful than what the Sun does.

It's kind of like asking if the Universe was harmed by the big bang.

Is free will not understood? I haven't seen a human make a decision in 25 years that wasn't based exactly on their prime motivations.

> slow down progress enough to save humanity

The future is the same no matter how long it takes. Advancing slowly doesn't prevent the results of advancement. It just increases the likelihood that something else is advancing faster than you. We should rather humanity destroy itself than lose a fight to a more advanced civilization.

More people have chrome than greasemonkey / stylish.

I don't know if it's a bubble, because nothing depends on the valuation of Airbnb / Uber. It's more like a Ponzi Scheme where investors put money in to establish value, then make the company well known enough to pawn it off to public shareholders before it tanks.

While most Americans know what Twitter is, less than a quarter use it. Facebook would be a better bet for reach.

What does the back button do that you didn't expect? When I click on a different page it takes me to that page, when I click back I go back.

From what I understand, breaking the back button would mean only the URL changes when you move pages, and back takes you off the domain entirely.

I agree with this sentiment, but would add that I'd rather people want to be nice to each other than be forced to be nice to each other. It's a lot more compelling to have reasons why being nice is good than to just tell people to do what we want them to.

Google it like everyone has googled everything for the past 15 years.

It's more that it only affects poor people, regardless of age, and they really don't care about poor people.

Young rich people are doing just fine.

That's kind of the problem with politics.

> academics I've talked with think the computers of the distant future will have no limitations.

This could mean a lot of liberal arts students. Academics aren't in any advantageous position to understand the progress of technology. Computers necessarily have limits because of their physical properties of matter and energy.

Thinking that "future = no limits = no scarcity = everyone gets everything they want even fantasy" is kind of a logical leap that most people in tech are not comfortable making. Maybe "academics" are more optimistic because they don't know anything, and it's easier to believe we'll have flying cars in the future than to realize that there will never be a time on Earth that it makes economical sense to fight gravity for an individual transport medium.

I keep in contact with everyone I want to and don't need facebook to do so. It's a bubble, albeit a billion+ user bubble.

The reality is that every second you spend on facebook you are dying and the faster you realize that the further into humanity's future you will reach.

Maybe post this again when the answer is yes.

I mean Trump currently does have the majority of votes.

Thread from 6 Hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12875092

Clicking this link takes me to a login page with no ability to access the content in any way.

I screen shotted it because I've actually never seen something like this before: http://i.imgur.com/1YBFuiU.png

Also, doing the web link brings me to the same login page.

I've found this to be my experience as well. Going to Target or King Soopers takes like an hour because it's an absolute Zoo, so I just stop at 7/11 or Wawa pretty much once a day.

> Your perspective would probably change drastically in your third century or millenia.

I'd rather have that opportunity than not.

It might be unthinkable to someone in the future that we could experience the universe meaningfully in 100 years.

I tend to see human-lifespan rationalizations as simple fatalism. It's okay to think you'd get bored after a million years, but dooming every living human to die because you'd be bored is kind of insane if you think about it.

Well 3DTVs looked really good, they just also hurt your eyes and you had to wear glasses, so people weren't willing to make that tradeoff. Those concerns are pretty consistent with VR's current iteration.