redial

Or, by doing something that is not illegal in the EU: not forcing manufacturers to bundle Google Search if they want to include the Play Store.

> It had a monopoly on Intel based computers.

No, it had a monopoly on IBM-Compatible computers, which is a category that includes multiple OEMs that sell compatible machines.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market category where more than 1 player (Apple) is involved.

No, Microsoft was fined for forcing OEMs to install IE and not preinstall other browsers on PCs if they wanted Windows. It had nothing to do directly with end users.

We'll be to busy preparing for the next big thing, in 20 billion years VR will be just a couple of years away.

That's next year complaint.

That factory is mainly for the american market. The trucks paramilitary groups love is the Toyota Hilux, not sold nor produced in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux#Use_by_militant_g...

Toyota is not an American company.

Let's just forget Guantanamo, Iraq, Kuwait, Vietnam, South America, etc. and just focus on the recent border thing, that is way way tamer than what China has done or is doing you know. The truth is there's plenty of guilt to go around many times over probably centuries back in both cases, but let's blame a cellphone company for oppression, that seems logical.

This reminds me of the time when the Taliban were all driving stolen Toyota trucks and congress asked them to explain why they were aiding terrorism. The makers of the automatic rifles they were carrying were never even mentioned of course.

He can promise to :)

The Core m3 launched nearly 10 years too late tho. They didn't have anything near 4w in 2007.

> The watch is part of the iPhone ecosystem. You can't use a Watch without buying an iPhone. The watch is an accessory to the iPhone.

So? The iPhone was part of the pc ecosystem, for years you needed a pc to even set it up. That says nothing about its architecture or the resources required to develop it.

The watch is less than 10% and the HomePod is less than 10% and they seem to manage just fine custom designing chips for them. And at some point the outlier in your example is going to be the Mac, and I don't think Apple would care enough about it to go through the engineering effort of creating x86 laptops when all their expertise is in ARM.

> t's equally true, and for essentially the same reasons, that Android as a whole exists because the Google leadership basically assumed Apple would screw them over sooner or later if they could.

That is the whole reason. Same with Chrome.

No. When I visit friends I go to 1432 Union St. not to Walmart. I wouldn't even know how to tell the taxi driver where I want to go if not by the address.

Maybe the solution is to share those wheelchairs. Not everyone needs one all the time.

It goes both ways. If you claim there is an unwarranted assumption about the relationship between consciousness and the brain you have to prove it. All I see is consciousness is highly correlated with having a brain.

> I agree that people should show some humility and admit that we have no idea if or when consciousness begins and ends.

I think our understanding of it is not as vague as you claim. We can see consciousness develop in all kind of animals; infants are less conscious than adults and elders show a higher degree of loss of consciousness. Furthermore, it is linked with brain activity somehow, as damaged brains show erratic consciousness related behavior. There is a lot more to learn, a lot, but to say that we know nothing is very dishonest in my opinion.

That is assuming we are talking about the same kind of consciousness you and I. But I've got a feeling we are not.

Although WSL is great, having a system that could lock itself and start updating at any moment even ignoring user preferences is unacceptable. Trust is at the core of a lot of complaints against Windows, and Microsoft is not helping by forcing updates or reinstalling applications/ads the user specifically removed.

Not true, what we call the color red is an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength between, according to wikipedia, 625 and 740 nanometers.

And if you are looking at a picture on a computer, the computer will call red a pixel with an rgb value of (255, 0, 0) even if nobody is looking at it.

The question is "are" there any blue reds. In other words, regardless of who is watching it, or if anyone at all.

The question is not "can we perceive" some reds as blue.

It seems to me you are more interested in the question than in the answer. You agree with me, and then spend two paragraphs justifying why you don't want to agree with me because somehow asking the wrong question still has value. It may have historical value, poetical value, emotional value, and that of course is valuable. But as to the question itself, when everyone means something else either the question is malformed or the language is useless.

And it is not so obvious what they actually mean as everyone interprets it in a different way. Some people mean still existing in this "plane", some in some other reality, some mean to be reborn, some mean to trascend, some to reincarnate, some a mix of two, or of all.

If we keep pretending the question is right when it obviously lacks meaning and all the information necessary to be able to answer it we are never gonna find out.

But again, that is what some people want, for some things to always remain a mystery, so they ask paradoxical questions.

"What was I like before I was born?"

Sure, but they don't change the fact those are the only 2 options.

And in the "shared reality" option, consciousness is somewhat measurable.

Except noise, please get rid of the noise.

The problem is one of humility. If you admit that something is at this point inexplicable then that is where you should stop explaining it. Sometimes I don't know is the only real answer. Because if you want to make this statement:

> It doesn’t seem to occur to people that consciousness itself is completely inexplicable and therefore all bets are off regarding its true nature.

You have to, ahem, explain it.

I meant to say shared context. Everything you said is part of a shared context or not, those are the only two options.

That is interesting, but it is also an answer to a different question. The question is "are there any blue reds?" not "can we see in some circumstances reds as blue?".

Not so clear, because you see, that is another question. This is why we need to define things very explicitly and then accept the implications of those definitions or we’ll never get anywhere.

Now that you accepted that there is a paradox in the original question (“is there life after death?”) you reformulated it in a way the paradox is no longer present and your meaning is less ambiguous:

“Is there something not physical that continues to exists even after the physical body no longer does?”

And that is a very interesting question, but first we have to acknowledge that it is a different question and because you asked it in a non paradoxical way it opens up avenues for exploration unavailable to the original question. I would personally start simply by asking “is there something not physical, ie. a soul, “in” a being?” That is in itself is own can of worms because even if there are “souls” they might “die” when the body does so it is not as clear cut as one might initially think, but at least is a start. I’m sure there are other approaches, but at least we should all agree: it is a different question.

My point is only unparadoxical questions can have a shot at being answered. Most of the “great questions” are paradoxes; “what came before the beginning?” sounds very profound but it will never lead anywhere, as centuries pondering it have already proven.

All those options are the same: they are either part of a shared experience or they are not. Nothing is preventing a demon from deceiving me right now, in fact one can come anytime I'd love to meet him, preferably her.

> If you're asking if there exists something that's 100% X at the same time as being 100% not-X, I'm not sure there's much to debate about it, as there clearly isn't (at least not in this world, where things can't seem to be themselves and not themselves at the same time).

You found the loophole! Sad to see you abandoned so swiftly your own logic when the time came to evaluate your own statement. This is exactly why the metaphysical deals in the realm of ambiguity: once you define it in a clear and concise manner all the mystery disappears, and that to some, is no fun.

That is also why a question like “is there life after death?” is uninteresting: by definition life comes before death.

Solipsism is basically the only defense against the conclusions from the evidence of the "real" world. But if you argue for solipsism then I say you have much bigger problems than consciousness because you basically rejected everything that has ever been "known" or experienced. If you reject our "shared reality" then anything is possible, including paradoxically, the "shared reality".

If you accept the shared reality on the other hand, consciousness is measurable to some degree. So the real question is do you or do you not accept we share experiences?

As an addendum, if it is all up to me as you suggested, I just made consciousness measurable so there is no need to keep arguing about it.

Violet is not blue and it is also not red. I'm not asking for a bluish red but for a 100% blue color that it is also red.

You are misusing the language, or rather I am in this case, to ask a paradoxical question. Where are all the cat dogs? This is a never ending game because we don't agree on the language. This is exactly the realm of metaphysics.

And greatness is in the eye of the beholder. To me greatness could be quantified by how much progress has been made in answering the question. After a thousand years and possibly millions of lives wasted trying to answer "is there existence before this life?" we are not one single iota closer to an answer. That implies a pretty bad question that is not grounded in reality, or at the very least not "grammatically" grounded in reality.