Color is a problem, isn't it? Also, they have software and as soon as there's software, there's an explosion of over-complication that raises the minimum age limit for being able to use them.
This is a bit of a rant but I have a lamp/flashlight that my 4yo can't use because it's too complicated. It has 3 buttons which control 2 separate lights built into the same device. You can spend all day pressing buttons and making it change color or brightness or turn the flashlight part on and off but if you want to turn all the lights off, you have to know the secret button code. Also, one of the buttons is disguised as a USB port cover which looks the same as the other (!) USB port cover that isn't a button.
Is it? Kids in India learn from black-and-white books in school all the same as colored ones.
I think we used to have this UX problem sorted in the pre-smartphone days. Remember the classic Kindle with tactile keys? It's just a matter of design.
Sure, but do they read them for fun? Would they choose them over a paper book in color? There's no point providing every kid with something they don't want. Making them available, perhaps.
That's an assertion, not a thought experiment. You can't logically reach the conclusion ("It won't") by thinking about it. But it doesn't sound so grand if you say "The assertion I use constantly to explain this".
Can someone explain what the drama is? From what I can tell, OpenAI donated to Trump's campaign then won a contract with his government. Anthropic lost that contract because they had some morality redlines they refused to relax. Where exactly is the badness in there?
Is there evidence the donation cause them to win the contract? Seems like the evidence is that their competitor backed out, no?
I suspect this is a conspiracy theory feeding on people's pre-existing hatreds.
I suspect his persistent confidence was already there to lead him to write to Disney in the first place. As a kid, I had an idea like that and my Dad was going to write to the company but he never did, I never had the inclination to do it myself, and now I'm not an actor.
It also takes some awareness to state your age at the start of the letter. That's what makes people respond so well to it. I would never have thought age was relevant, or even that it was shameful to admit you're just a child. I didn't understand how people think. This guy apparently did, so again, he was already cut out for acting, I'd say.
Good insight. Yes, I do remember at the time, purposely thinking I must lead with my age knowing instinctively that somehow that would help me and they would be more likely to pay attention.
What specifically? I suspect it's just stuff you're angry at because of excess social media consumption, not actual crimes that have long prison sentences applied to typical perpetrators.
He's right though. Blaming someone else for your own failures is victim mentality - regardless of whether they really are the cause or not. Notice how China managed to break free from US tech dominance, no matter how difficult it was, by making itself strong and capable instead of accepting helplessness which is victim mentality.
>Notice how China managed to break free from US tech dominance, no matter how difficult it was
They did this because in the Chinese narrative Americans are a bunch of hegemonic brutes and self sufficiency was a matter of survival. Europeans don't use LinkedIn because they're victimized, they use American products because there was a belief that the United States is a civilized country whose companies and government can be relied on.
That Americans of all people now adopt the rhetoric of the Chinese about themselves and Europe, which has some terrifying and unflattering implications about their own self image should make people think about what they're saying. Europe didn't go for a different route because of victim-hood, but because the rule of law and the so-called Western values do still mean something on the old continent.
If Americans now openly say, Europe you losers you should have treated us the way the Communist party told you to, fair enough but mind you that's how people talk who are at the end of their own civilization, I'm German I know the attitude very well.
Is LinkedIn established in a place where Member State law applies? I guess not? You can't just go around pretending your law applies to people in other countries because none of the necessary institutions in those countries will respect your law.
The GDPR applies to the personal data of individuals in the European Union, regardless of where the data is processed. You can easily find the relevant law online.
It might say it applies but other countries have their own sovereignty and their residents aren't bound by every extra-territorial law written by every other country in the world.
European governments and institutions have conveniently exempted themselves from GDPR.
And just because it's a law somewhere on earth, doesn't make it reasonable or enforceable or legal.
1. American and European laws have different standards for data processing
2. EU citizens willingly go into a contract with an American company, buying and using American services
3. EU citizens complain American law is different than European law, whilst continuing to use American products
4. EU citizens expect their laws and regulations to apply to American companies
Nobody can reasonably expect American companies to just bend over for whatever the lawmakers in Europe demand. It's an absurd scenario that only the EU can come up with.
That doesn't seem to make sense. As things get cheaper and wages go down too because there's an oversupply of labor, those poorer people can still afford those cheaper things.
We're talking about factories using low/no labor to produce goods, right? Those goods will be cheaper because they cost less (man-hours) to make. That's obviously already true for all the mass-produced stuff we have that's cheaper (measured by hours of work needed to pay for it) than 500 year old artisinal furniture, cookware, clothes, etc. which was very labour intensive.
Housing is weird because it just sucks up whatever leftover money people have. We all have to eventually spend all our income on something so it's impossible for everything to get cheaper in the long term. That doesn't mean we won't be able to afford stuff, just that we'll spend all our money just like we always have done.
Food would be encheapened by labour-free production just like products.
There are two ideas here - locking up actual criminals and locking up people who happen to fit the pattern of a criminal even without committing any crime. You're arguing against the latter, but I don't think anybody was proposing that.
This is a bit of a rant but I have a lamp/flashlight that my 4yo can't use because it's too complicated. It has 3 buttons which control 2 separate lights built into the same device. You can spend all day pressing buttons and making it change color or brightness or turn the flashlight part on and off but if you want to turn all the lights off, you have to know the secret button code. Also, one of the buttons is disguised as a USB port cover which looks the same as the other (!) USB port cover that isn't a button.
reply