My theory is that Zuck has profound imposter syndrome due to the public knowledge that his joke of a side project in college went uber-viral and he has had to play CEO dress-up ever since. He has been desperate to prove that he actually has deep technological insight with his big bets on wearables and the metaverse and AI, but the truth is that his entire dynasty is built on people's need to snoop on pictures of their crushes and their exes. I think the company has actually done some impressive things with staying alive via acquisition as facebook has rotted, but he wants to be known as a tech genius, not an M&A suit.
Funny thing about internal work is that it cannot happen via changing one’s external circumstances. And it’s super tempting to numb it out with status symbols.
The evidence for this is rather plain to see at this point in history. ;)
One can only hope that he just fully turns to philanthropy a la Bill Gates sooner rather than later, and gives up trying to "connect" people (which somehow always turns into privacy nightmares).
The disincentive to provide a durable product is unfortunate. Ideally businesses pair high-ticket one-time sales with low-cost recurring sales of related products and services.
If you want to me to care about what you have to say, I'd prefer if you cared enough to write it yourself. Especially on on taxpayer money. If I can spot it as slop, you have a problem.
Weird take. When it comes to trying to compel tech companies to not be evil, trying to use legal precedent for crimes you can charge them with is usually difficult and turns into a semantic debate. I think what's more important is that we recognize when people and companies abuse power to do evil things, regardless of what legal precedent or written corporate policy is relevant. These companies act exactly as evil as they can possibly get away with without pushing us to other products and services.
One year before 1969 we had never been to the moon. In the 70s credible scientists and physicists predicted that large martian colonies would exist before the year 2000.
If a metric goes from 0 to 2 it doesn't mean it's on a long-lived exponential trajectory.
Even if there is a growth pattern that doesn't say how long it will continue. Some things can grow for a while and then hit a ceiling. Sometimes they are a fad that dies (when was the last time you bought a pet rock), sometimes everyone has one - you get a few sales of replacemets but no growth (you have a washing machine and won't buy another until the old wears out)
What if I fold you... that using 1960s technology it would be easier to just go to the moon than it would be to fake it? Have you SEEN a 1960s movie with SFX?
The seasons idea is interesting -- to me, both proposals feel wrong. I think it's because the weather changes that I perceive seem to lag behind the changes to daylight length by a few weeks.
I would propose boundaries that align partly with how I perceive the weather, and partly with how we plan our year (by months): Summer starts June 1st, Fall starts September 1st, Winter starts December 1st, and Spring starts March 1st.
Ocean currents, elevation and distance from the equator also have a big impact on what the season is going to feel like.
There's no need to change the dates. They're already arbitrary based on the position of the sun and the earth and people have the experience to take them with the grain of salt necessary to the region they live in. People who live near the equator probably don't have much care for the notion of the winter at all. Folks who live far up north know that spring actually comes in much later than march 21st. People who climb glaciated mountains in the canadian rockies know they won't get summer conditions until late june.
That's how it works in Australia, though rotated six months: Summer starts December 1, Autumn starts March 1, Winter starts June 1, and Spring starts September 1. I think it even has legal status. In the North of the country though they typically just use wet and dry season.
I've also always thought that the equinoxes and solstices should be the middle of the seasons, so using the 'cross-quarter' days as the beginning of seasons makes more sense.
In my country the dates you stated are what are considered the start of the seasons. This year there was a very clear change between winter and spring on March 1st. February was cloudy and minus, March was sunny and plus.
Forcing seasons into chunks of equal duration also feels wrong, to me but also anyone I recall having a conversation with so seeing every HN comment assuming all seasons are 3 months long is somewhat perplexing.
Sunrise and sunset don't shift at the same time, and December 1 is right about where sunset approaches it's earliest time (where I am it's 4:19, vs the earliest at 4:18 on Dec 8)
Summer doesn't work with that association though, with the latest sunset being the end of June instead of the start.
> I would propose boundaries that align partly with how I perceive the weather, and partly with how we plan our year (by months): Summer starts June 1st, Fall starts September 1st, Winter starts December 1st, and Spring starts March 1st.
You do realize there's also a southern hemisphere on planet Earth?
I'm conflicted -- the author's rounded Mac looks more comfortable to use, but aesthetically it looks worse. He turned the track pad notch into an amorphous shape that looks like a mistake.
There's certainly a % of mac users who prioritize aesthetics over function.
I feel like there's got to be a way to do this in a way that's more attractive though. Maybe something more gradual or even.
I suspect that with all things Apple 10% really care, 80% are indifferent and 10% really hate it. The middle 80% are happy to be led by those that really care.
> the agency said it was confident that a change to the re-entry trajectory would be more than adequate to offset any spalling issues. Somewhat confusingly, they also announced their intention to switch to a new heat shield design, starting with Artemis III.
It's fine to be concerned, but this kind of take is why public agencies are damned no matter what they do. In the private sector, operating with the suboptimal resources you have while working on a better iteration is standard practice, even in industrial settings. But when you're a public organization, if anyone can find anything that is less than 100% optimal, the same people who complain about how slow the public sector is will complain that you're cutting corners, or that you're inept.
But everyone at the company has that private domain knowledge. The only thing you're bringing to the table that anyone in any other role doesn't offer is the commoditized skill set.
Right, and you'll not keep everything out of materials like AI
generated meeting notes for every repeat of every process so
the company doesn't really need many experts in its existing
operations.
reply