Don’t forget that we WANT to eliminate all the middlemen if we can, because middle men = bloat. It IS undeniably cheaper to interact directly than it is through a middle man. Don’t forget that!
This is analogous to function pointers (or vtables or dynamic dispatch) in programming. It’s a really tight analog actually, almost literal. It’s slower (more expensive) to go through a cranks. You only do it for external reasons, but you should always try to eliminate them. I hope people around here saying these companies add value aren’t forgetting that we want to destroy them because in an ideal world things are more direct than they are already. We SHOULD want that too, that is the right direction to move in.
Why is that a weak argument? And don't you think its rude and unnecessary (trolly?) not only to say its weak but its literally the weakest possible? What other purposes do we have in life besides those given to us by evolution? All other purposes surely are rooted in something ephemeral or fantastical. Dreams not truths.
Probably there is not a way to accept death. Humans forever fight against death. Probably death truly should be scary and offputting, and it’s inevitability drives us to do crazy things like believe it’s ok. We probably should fight death with all the strength we have. It’s one of our evolutionary imperatives!
They don’t need width for this do they? You could think of them as a set of points which have 0 area, but a region can still contain the points, so which set of points is overlapped by the most regions? I’m pretty sure U’ve got a bad idea there about width.
So when are things too intolerant to tolerate? And what other behaviors would you call "tolerant" besides those that tolerate intolerance? Thats the only time you're really being tolerant of somerthing that requires an effort to tolerate.
I thought that was true everywhere? Isn't that a major reason people work at Apple, Google...? I didn't ever notice anything different about academia's concern with prestige (feel free to prove me wrong.)
How could you say such a thing? It seems like they’d need to be doing some pretty absurd stuff that you can say they should’ve been fired with such confidence
Taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable person, or as you put it "showing some cleavage, saying thank you or talking to you" is abusive. Just because you trivialize it (which you should feel ashamed for doing, very harmful attitude) doesn't mean its not abusive or wrong.
They try to emotionally manipulate their viewers into donating to them. Or they try to form a real bond. There’s some clear mix of genuine value for the lonely donators and id assume emotional abuse on the part of the streamers.
See my other comment! I wasn’t necessarily talking about that (depends on what exactly you mean by that). Although that’s true too. Anything they can do to improve the product, even if it’s a trade off, can be a good thing. Shouldn’t take a narrow (or so it seems) view like that!
Removing it opens other doors, like waterproofing and more room for hardware. Thinner phone maybe too. Bruh your users into the 21st century. It’s about ditching the guys who want you to freeze in place, which I know there are many of here (not to say you in particular are one of those)
Design, as the op even says, is not just (although it definitely also is) about utilitarianism! The world of successful products should at least suggest that to you, if you won’t take it as proof.
Agreed. I think “learning to be social” is the opposite of the point of being social, which is only good so long as you’re trying to authentically connect with people. Seems like anything else is evil. And so authentically connecting with people shouldn’t require training! It should be as natural as being itself. That’s just my POV anyways...
The extent of socializing that should be “learned” is recognizing things that may be confusing or upsetting. Nothing more. But by god and by no means should it ever be learning to act cool and by god not learning to lie about yourself. Those are extremely antisocial behaviors.
I don't know why people take it on its face that hating their job is something that is fixed, and not changeable. What if rather than seek a different lifestyle, you try to learn to love your job and be ok with working under others? Why does everyone assume your feelings as they are are ok, in the sense that they shouldn't be worked on and navigated. Does everyone here just work off their first impression, for instance, that they wouldn't consider their feelings the problem on occasion?
For those of us who can't go to Cuba (I'm sure there are a lot of us), could you say more about what was wrong with it? Also there are lots of other factors I'm sure that could contribute besides just that its socialist.
THe premise of this video is that what he says is interesting because its steve jobs whos saying it.. theres that authority built into it. It makes sense to attack his authority as a response to this video, thats not fallacious I don't think. Most of what hes saying isnt backed up by evidence (I mean that hes not citing stats, not that the science falls against him), even if some of it makes sense.
How do you have such insight? If you can produce such insight so easily, surely you must be a very successful investor? This is such a strong perspective it seems.
>But nonetheless, the number of people who are security conscious enough to lock their keys into their hardware, but not worried about malicious hardware seems quite limited.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you're misinterpreting these people. TouchID is an ease of use feature that you feel good about because you also get to improve your security (save for malignant hardware manufacturing). Its very easy and it improves your security. You don't have to be excessively security conscious to be interested in that. I like TouchID but I'm not a security obsessed person (although I'm not quite on the same level as your average joe), and im pretty sure its easy to sell this and any TouchID people to anyone regardless of how security conscious they are on the basis that using TouchID is even safer.
I just don't like your view that people who like TouchID must be obsessive about security and understand it inside and out. Most people do things regardless of how much they understand.. you won't be an expert in everything.
I didnt know we were still concerned about deviant adult behavior in 2017 lol.. Seems like deviance is fine to me and everyone is free to live a life according to their own wishes and priorities
This topic is very hard. What would be harmful? We have to agree about that first.. somehow it seems putting your child into an awkward position is harmful, and itd be awkward if your child was normalized to corporal punishment.. Thats probably not that severe of a harm to the point that it should prevent you from considering corporal punishment.
You know I think hacker news and reddit can be exasperating because only people who disagree reply.. so nobody ever seems to agree with you or understand you. Just wanted to stop in to let you know that I 100% agree this is a sad moment for a python fan or dev. As a general rust fan (although in this instant I'm a rust hater), this is a nice moment, but I 100% see how this sucks. Its as deflating as if a large rust project ditched rust, or Mozilla maybe said "actually rust was a waste of time lets go do Go or C++".. truly a sad moment. I'm with you on that!
For me, if I received a comment like the one I just wrote, I may feel slightly vindicated and ok about myself, for those of you who wonder why I wrote this comment and are not satisfied with the first sentence as explanation. I'm sure there'll be others who still think this was a stupid comment.. but hopefully someone out there understands where I'm coming from and sees the value in what I'm saying.