rTX5CMRXIfFG

I'm honestly appalled by how mental health is talked about in this whole thread. I am male, I have many experiences with mental struggle, but I never thought to blame women and the rise in popularity of feminist discourse in social media for it, especially with how the vast majority of the said mental struggles were due to my negative interactions with destructively competitive and/or insecure men. For all this rallying of mental health under the banner of the male sex, the toxicity of how men treat each other is completely left out of the discussion. That's also why you're incentivised to suffer in silence, by the way, because what you say will be used against you at work and will keep you out of a promotion.

And then there's a kind of mental struggle that's brought about by isolation, not having genuine and deep connections with others whom you share ideals or interests with, which is driven by the modernity of our lifestyles and possibly by socioeconomic class. Why we are gendering mental health as an issue is beyond me. People seriously need to learn another paradigm with which to evaluate world events besides gender politics.

What are "men and their ideals"?

Not really, you'd be better off health-wise with the stainless steel one. And, the plastic coffee maker was already bad for the environment the moment it was manufactured; whether it is actually used or not is irrelevant.

Swift

Wow you actually identify with the label “HN posters”

How does this tie in with the opposing view’s narrative that gdp per capita has been increasing since the industrial revolution? I mean, this is an issue I’d actually like to take a side with—I do in fact dislike it whenever the latter statistic comes up because the actual and lived experience of cost of living and capital accrual in the present day is actually incredibly difficult, that even the prospect of home ownership looks bleak for many people.

I don’t believe there’s a question at all. You actually can’t just install any software you want on any hardware that you own. You don’t even have the right to compel companies to design computers only in such a way that appeals to your personal preferences.

Just get the Air. Moore's law peaked a long time ago and the differences between the M-generations are too small to be meaningful.

There's just no getting "then don't buy it" for people who obviously don't agree with Apple's terms and conditions, is there? Not every product sold in the market will be done your way, and you can't act oppressed here because if you don't like Apple computers, you have a ton of other options...

Honestly, clean code is one of the worst approaches that is popular within and uncritically accepted by the industry. It's one of the reasons why I'm glad that AI happened. You typically can't argue away this practice since it's more often that a programmer inherits a codebase, so just teach your AI the approach once (say, via a skill), and just generate the code and clock out and enjoy life.

Then you have bad tests and didn’t consider all cases in your prompt. That’s on you.

You want to regulate an industry 90% of whose output is just a bunch non-critical CRUD apps? You haven’t thought out the macroeconomics of that, you’d go hungry faster than you’re being obsoleted in the age of AI

But why should writing be universally tailored to them, subjectivists?

Oh, and the irony

I’ve certainly seen companies think of safety that way but it’s myopic. The cost of lawsuits arising from an accident tends to me far more expensive, both in money and in reputation, than just having guardrails in the first place.

I've always thought that consumer complaints about Apple in HN only come from a loud and self-important minority, but wow the replies here represent such an infinitesimal market share

Huh? Why wouldn’t you want to maximize compatibility considering how expensive divorces can be, both financially and mentally?

Humans, no matter how unique and self-important they might be, can certainly be broken down into personality traits to come up with a model that projects the likelihood of a lasting marriage. It likely won’t be perfect or precise, but it can be done, so I’m not sure what your point even is. As people age, it’s just the fleeting expressions of themselves that whither away, but they have a core personality founded on their values and goals, which stand the test of time. That’s not the sort of thing that you can just mix with someone else who has a different set of values and goals.

Isn’t it the other way around, ie that you might be compatible with just anyone is more likely to be the idea of a naive 22-year old?

As you grow older you’re going to have your own values, boundaries, non-negotiables. Thinking that you can just jump into dating and “open-mind” the singles scene is a huge sign of someone who hasn’t fully developed their sense of self just yet.

Do we really need to obsess so hard on citations here? I mean what further proof does one need from the retail price of electronics lately

i personally wanted those to work (except Twitter, i believe social media is net net bad for society)... and yet i don't feel the need to jerk him off with my hands

Funny you say that without even knowing the school’s use case for the data. And most certainly in the abstract, companies have even less reason to collect PII than they are currently doing.

Eh, they have a higher probability of success entering the enterprise AI server space than any of those two since it’s not about creating new hardware. Granted, they made their own silicon, but that’s aligned with all of their vertical integration strategies.

To anyone who's seen the Apple Silicon launches, this was obvious the moment that ChatGPT went mainstream.

I've honestly been surprised at how Wall Street only ever paid attention to Nvidia. If Nvidia is worth what it's worth now because of AI demand, then Apple must be way undervalued.

If you're looking for a pay off for learning anything at all, just don't---AI is projected to take over a lot of knowledge areas. You'd better invest in learning a physical skill or build a network of high net worth people and somehow make something of it.

Now, if AI eating the world doesn't matter to you, then just learn what you want to learn.

Can somebody attest or falsify that we’d all be better off with a huge gaming monitor plus an Apple TV? Expensive, of course, but privacy is the main consideration here.

It’s not a matter of perspective to evolution, it’s a real binary between whether you can survive or not.

We’re free to pollute the planet as we like, but it’s up in the air whether we can survive nature’s response to our actions

Again, that’s just outright false. Whether theory-first works or not highly depends on whether a learner is experienced or not, and it tends to work better on those who have a long experience of learning about many disparate topics; while imitation-first tends to work best on younger and less experienced learners.

Re: not knowing how to play because author doesn’t get the why

Quite a lot of people learn by imitation without knowing the underlying theory. Some people need a theoretical framework so that they have a mental model with which to understand everything else.

Fundamentally, you’re arguing against learning theory. Not everyone learns the same way. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with a basic fact of life.

Oh, evolution certainly can. The bad ones always get killed off.

Honestly this level of snobbery is reserved for D/SLR cameras

That's a good macOS version name