In addition to that one, very concrete impact, the situation may also have subtle effects. Players may be going into matches against Hans being down a point when they would have been tied, changing the psychology of their play style. Similarly, Hans may play more confidently being up a point. Even spending a single second thinking about the situation is an unnecessary impact forced on the other players by Magnus. Pretty unsportsmanlike.
I experienced this a lot as a kid. Adults tend to leave out a lot of context in their answers to children. Often, it seems like they don’t even try to see the question from the child’s point of view. For instance, I didn’t do well in school. When I asked adults why doing well was necessary, they would give answer along the lines of “if you don’t do well, then the only job you’ll be able to get is as a janitor.” Perhaps that’s true, (or not?) but the answer was largely devoid of meaning to me as a child.
The top 8 players in the tournament get invited to the next tournament. Hans Niemann got a free point from the game Carlsen resigned. That impacts the standings for all the other players. It’s hard to see how they’re not impacted.
The issue isn't his belief. It's that he's throwing a tantrum and has ruined two Chess tournaments (so far). He's free to believe whatever he likes, but to resign in a match in a tournament is not fair to all the other players.
Top athletes have a history of having mental breakdowns as they realize they've aged and no longer can dominate as they once had. Famously, Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear off during a match, but there are other examples like Serena Williams' berating of the umpire during her loss to Naomi Osaka. It's always a bit sad / pathetic to see adults lose their cool when losing to a child.
CPUs don't have logic or reason, so it's not a good analogy. E.g. you can replace an infinite set of memories by distilling them into a few bits of knowledge that underpin that given set of experiences.
> The bare minimum to compete would be native and web apps with good UX, competitive reviews and search, and better social features. Then you can fight the other half.
That does not seem like a winning recipe for competition. The bare minimum for competition would be some type of product differentiation that substantially differentiates the experience. Trying to compete on things like data, UX, or search doesn't seem like a winning formula to me.
In your anecdote, your comparing tourists to a local. Of course a local is going to be more productive regardless of tackle. There are a lot of anecdotes here, with very little data.
I agree that fly fishing is beautiful, but disagree that it is an elective way to make things more difficult in the name of beauty. Most fly fishing happens in relatively shallow rivers where flies comprise a large part of the fish diet. There isn't really any other way to catch the fish. What I love about fly fishing, though, is that it often takes place is beautiful mountain streams. The beauty of the environment is hard to beat.
The problem with your argument is that you’re only looking at the negatives. If you believe that weapons can only be used to kill children, then, yes, your view makes sense. If you’ve been adversely affected by weaponry, you likely hate weapons with every fiber of your being. However, there are others who have used weapons to defend themselves against unjust aggression and those people may view weapons favorably. And finally, there are most people who have never been directly impacted by the machines of war. Those people probably fall around a neutral opinion of weapons. Some may skew towards a positive opinion, some, like yourself, skew negative, but overall largely neutral. Given this sentiment distribution, I don’t think you can make a judgment on whether or not it is immoral to like reading about weaponry.
I agree with your general assessment of the economy, but those are all factors everyone knows.
The adjustment we saw earlier this year was going from “the economy is booming and interest rates will be 0 forever” to “interest rates are going to 4% and we’re going to have a recession.” That’s an absolutely massive adjustment in expectations and stock prices, especially of high growth tech companies, reflect that adjustment.
In order for valuations to drop substantially further, a similar expectation adjustment would need to happen. Something like “I thought we were going to have a recession but now it’s worse than the Great Depression”. Simply adjusting expectations from “minor recession” to “moderate recession” isn’t big enough to crater the markets like we saw earlier this year.
But did the bubble already burst in tech? Valuations are very low right now. I don't think we're necessarily at the bottom yet, but I think the worst has already come to pass.
But there are other cases where peoples’ lives were saved by such machines. E.g. billions of dollars in weaponry has been supplied to Ukraine to defend the country from invasion. Was that immoral too?
What’s the argument that being entertained by weaponry is morally comprised? The only argument I can think of would be reliant on a belief that human killing is always morally wrong. I’m not sure many people share that belief. But would love to hear an alternative perspective.
Back feeding seems insane. Most residential circuits are rated for 15A. A 5000 watt generator can produce over 40 amps at 120V. Seems like a good way to start an electrical fire.
Not necessarily. For instance, Firebase's Realtime Database doesn't scale vertically or horizontally. The only option is to create additional, entirely independent databases. It's up to the application developer to implement some type of sharding scheme.