asdajksah2123

I think you're confused about what the communication is.

The communication isn't the waving in "reaction" (it's not clear it's simply a reaction, but let's assume it is) to the original wave, but the original wave itself.

And the fact that it's also triggered by videos indicates it's not just a mechanical reaction (like some of the research about how plants "communicate" is which are essentially mechanical responses to stimuli).

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the communication is meaningful. It just shows that a means of communicating exists.

America does need to bring back manufacturing. Not because a manufacturing job that pays $25/hr is somehow better than a service job that pays $25/hr.

The US needs to bring back manufacturing for strategic reasons and in strategic areas.

And it needs to have the capability to scale up manufacturing in response to emergencies.

But also, importantly, the US doesn't need to do this by onshoring all manufacturing. Near shoring and friend shoring will have to be extremely important components of adding these capabilities, and unfortunately, teh actions the US is taking will likely hurt nearshoring and friendshoring and will end up making the US less strategically capable in manufacturing even if it's able to reshore a significant amount of manufacturing.

> There are plenty of people saying these tariffs will not work.

Work to do what?

> But a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support a house with a yard, a car, a non-working spouse and children.

Why do you think this has anything to do with tariffs or manufacturing?

> How do we get that level of prosperity back?

Better pay for the jobs people actually work. Reducing inequality by preventing the richest 0.1% from capturing all the massive gains in wealth the US has seen over the past few decades. Removing regulations that prevent the country from building housing and therefore driving up housing costs. Switching to a healthcare model in nearly any of the comparable developed countries almost all of which deliver better healthcare at half the cost. Not expecting everyone to be able to live a completely unsustainable suburban life. Having the government support children's upbringing by paying for high quality education, instituting rules and regulations that require mandatory paid maternity/paternity leave, etc.

Lost of poorer countries manage to do this and more just fine. The US is far richer than most of those countries.

Very little of this has to do with manufacturing jobs falling from 18mm to 13mm.

The original ribbon sucked but with the improvements it's hard to say it's generally a bad choice.

The ribbon is a great fit for Office style apps with their large number of buttons and options.

Especially after they added the ability to minimize, expand on hover, or keep expanded (originally this was the only option), the ribbon has been a great addition.

But then they also had to go ahead and dump it in places where it had no reason to be, such as Windows Explorer.

1 tbsp of animal fat has about 900 calories.

1 tbsp of olive oil has 135 calories.

How would the app know which fat the food was cooked in?

> every website will bundle their own renderers into a <canvas> tag running off a WASM blob

Isn't that Flutter?

Any reason to choose this over OwnCloud or Nextcloud?

We saw this throughout the pandemic.

Companies used the very real inflationary pressures to increase the cost of their products well beyond what those inflationary pressures alone would require.

There are 2 reasons IMO that led to this working:

1. If every company does it, the normal competitive market pressures to reduce prices don't operate. Normally, every company will only raise prices due to collusion, which would be illegal. But when there's a broad based increase in cost, every company will also raise prices beyond just the absolute values of those costs independently, because companies are judged by their margins more than they are by absolute numbers. This is not illegal but the effect is the same.

If in your example, Acer sells 1000 laptops, they originally made $1mm in revenues, with $500k in costs, leading to $500k in gross profits and a gross profit margin of 50%.

If their costs increase by 50%, they need to increase their selling price by $100 to maintain those margins. $1.1mm revenue, with $550k costs, leading to $550k gross profits for a gross profit margin of 50%.

If, however, they increase their Selling price only by the cost, their new selling price will be $1050, for revenues of $1.05mm, costs of $550k, gross profits of $500k, but gross profit margins declining to $500/$1050 = ~47.6%.

The decline in gross profits will hurt their stock price and their valuations (if private) significantly.

2. Consumer pressure. The other reason companies do not easily increase prices with higher costs is negative publicity. Pandemic related inflation, and now tariffs, give them an easy way to explain the reason for the price increases to their consumers and avoid facing any backlash directly.

What did surprise me with the pandemic, which will likely be true with the tariff increases, is that once the companies did increase their selling prices after the pandemic, even though their costs then subsequently dropped, they did not drop prices, across the board.

And the result were the record breaking profits companies have been declaring.

This is pretty common now. At least my Vim/git combo does this, where I always open source code with my preferred formatting but by the time it's pushed to the server it's changed to match the repo preferences.

> stressing over the formatting and conventions of the blueprint (to use a civil engineering metaphor)

This is incredibly important.

This is the kind of stuff that prevents shit like half the team using metric and the other half thinking they're imperial, or you coming up with the perfect design, but then the manufacturer makes a mirrored version of it because you didn't have the conventions agreed upon.

Those comments are just sad.

"Why does the Wall Street Journal have articles about the city and not about the tiny suburb I live in? They have nothing to do with me! So elitist"

My favorite articles across the board have always been articles that have very little to do with me because learning about a different culture, way of life, completely different field, has always been the most interesting parts of reading.

I don't know if I'm over-reading things, but there generally appears to be a closing of the mind, and a sort of narcissism where everyone is all about themselves, and barely curious about anything outside their immediate surroundings. Alternatively, it could just be that the internet gives a voice to the least curious who would likely have had no avenues to let their opinions known (although I feel this wasn't the case in the pre social media, blog era at least).

Selling a ton of cars in China, where the competition is fierce, is no mean feat.

The observations in this article are useful, but the analysis is not as much.

1. It's silly to talk about "India"'s culture. The cultural differences between Bangalore and New Delhi are as great or greater than any 2 nations in Europe. 2. India's formal institutions are terrible. The author seems to confuse the construction of infrastructure with the establishment of institutions. The formal institutions are the same or maybe even worse than they were pre-Modi, with the only caveat being that India has taken huge leaps digitally (India is at least 1-2 decades ahead of where the US is in terms of digital identity, digital commerce, etc) which might give the impression that the formal institutions have improved, when in reality the formal institutions are as poor as they were, but some of their terribleness is now constrained by technology. 3. The indian "informal institutions" or "culture" are largely a response to the poor formal institutions. The author asks why the "West" is able to follow traffic speed limits whereas India is not, ignoring the fact that in the US, for example, with the reduction in enforcement during and following the pandemic, speeding in the US has shot through the roof. Jumping red lights has also increased dramatically. The reason Indians don't follow traffic rules is the same as everyone else. A lack of enforcement.

Now, it's possible that after severe enforcement for an extended period of time the formal institutional value will modify culture enough that even if the enforcement is rolled back traffic speeds would continue to be followed, but India has never experienced that.

Wouldn't it have been more useful to merge duplicates?

Even framing the same question in different ways is useful. If someone posts a Duplicate, adding that to a list of "alternative questions" that is collapsed by default on the original post might have been a better approach.

It also takes away the whole "your question is worthless" dynamic that closing a question raises.

1. Screens are usually wider than most web pages usefully support. This uses up space that would normally be wasted.

2. Most screens are wider than they're high. This is especially true of laptops. So using vertical space for a horizontal strip really eats into the vertical real estate.

3. Most written scripts are horizontal. As a result, lists are usually arranged vertically. This aligns with how lists in nearly every other context are arranged (how many times have you found a list where the second item is to the right of the first, the third to the right of the second, as opposed to them being on new vertically arranged lines?)

4. Since the text in most languages flow horizontally, it's trivially easy to adjust the width of a vertical tab container to customize how much of the text you want visible. This could range from really wide tab containers so you can see the entire title (which the larger width of monitors makes almost cost free) or you can make it really narrow to only include the icon, or somewhere in between. Arranging tabs horizontally provides no such easy and obvious UI to do such a thing, so you're reduced to either seeing fixed size tabs or icons only, controlled largely by the browser.

5. Again, because of horizontal text, tabs are shorter than they are wide. You can fit a lot more tabs in a vertical tabbar while still displaying their text than you could in a horizontal one.

I suspect they first became mobile phone friendly. Dumbphones provided kids a way to communicate with parents and the worst distraction would be kids wanting to play snake and/or texting little messages to each other on their T9 keyboards.

But once smartphones came around they replaced those dumbphones and snuck in through the same policies, but in reality they're a completely different category from dumbphones.

> some students feel that some of their time is better spent on their phones than paying attention to the teacher

And kids feel that eating donuts is better than vegetables.

Or that drinking soda is better than water.

The fact that students feel something easy (not just easy, but something that is designed by tens of thousands of the smartest people in the world to be addictive) is more attractive than something hard says almost nothing that isn't a tautology.

Brave also didn't do ads.

But now they do.

The only real constraint on what Brave will and will not do is their VC pressures to make money vs reputational damage. And reputational damage isn't all that expensive.

> Mungeshpur reported 52.9 degrees Celsius as an outlier compared to other stations. It could be due to an error in the sensor or the local factor

It "could be" an error since it's an outlier. But they haven't confirmed it's an error, nor have they confirmed it's correct, yet.

Entirely optional features that have a history of not becoming optional anymore in many other applications and quite evidently can easily be installed as a plugin instead.

Further, why in the world would you include a completely optional feature that runs afoul of many companies' software policies? And will be blocked by many companies even if it doesn't run afoul of their policies because nearly every competently run company will inspect software that claims to have AI features to understand the extent of the AI integration, but a significant portion of them will choose not to do that analysis for what's a fairly niche software that not only has many alternatives but is an alternative to an OSX built in feature and would block many of your users from using the application.

Even if you disagree with the ideological dissensions, and even if you disagree with the slippery slope argument, why would you grumble about the practical scenario which would block your users from using the application. Especially when you have a fairly easy alternative of packaging it in a plugin.

The GDPR has been a godsend for me as a developer.

It provides me with a language to speak with the product and marketing side of our business when pushing back against unnecessary surveillance and requesting resources for data security. And even when I'm working with a team that is unconcerned about the ethical side of things, the GDPR places a cost on collecting data that can be used to prevent at least some of the worst suggested ideas purely on a net value basis.

This was not the case before the GDPR where data security and privacy were of limited concern and everyone was trying to collect as much data as possible on our users.

My company's products have never been in the GDPR's radar but even without facing any threat of direct consequence from GDPR it has indirectly been responsible for us creating a significantly better product for both our users and for the company as well.

I wish the US had a similar "bug zone". Where I live has seen a whole slew of bugs that did not exist beyond several states South making it all the way up here over the last decade and a half.

The argument that it's just "missing deadlines" which as true as it is, is also a strawman.

Musk hasn't just "missed deadlines". He's outright lied.

For example, in 2016 he claimed Tesla already had self driving capabilities it hasn't shown today, 8 years later.

He lied about bulletproof windows on the CyberTruck. His own demo disproved this.

He lied about the solar roofs. The entire demo was false and staged and the tiles on the roofs were not solar tiles as the demo strongly implied. And testimony showed that he personally knew that it was a lie.

Musk doesn't just miss deadlines. He blatantly lies. And that raises the legitimate concern that a lot of "missed deadlines" weren't just deadlines that were missed, but deadlines that were never feasible and he just lied about.

It sounds like they consider it advertising.

Sounds pretty reasonable if you ask me. Especially considering that they are profitable.

There are about 3 flights between Tokyo and Nagoya taking about 1hr10 mins. There are 33 bullet trains taking about 1hr 30 mins.

The bullet train is almost certainly faster than the flight when factoring in security, distance from the city center, etc.

And even if this ends up replacing all air travel between Tokyo and Nagoya, you're talking about 500 people each way per day. That's a fraction of 1 of the 33 bullet trains that already run between these 2 cities.

I don't disagree with this project. But it's evident that the project simply doesn't make sense in itself. It's clearly a Proof of Concept that Japan is using to be able to sell MagLev technology abroad in places which currently do not have existing high speed trains and will be choosing between paying a lot of money for bullet trains, or slightly more money for an even faster Maglev train.

Which is a significant justification IMO, but that's a very different justification from saying that this new MagLev line makes sense in of itself.

The vast majority of opposition isn't from environmentalists. At least that's not what the article says.

In fact, the only person quoted speaking about the environmental impact is a local dairy farmer, who's more concerned about loss of local "nature" rather than broader environmental concerns.

I can't speak to whether this is a good project or not. The article doesn't provide enough details for that, but what is pretty clear is that the article provides no evidence that any opposition is due to environmentalists.

Also, thanks to environmentalists millions fewer people are dying each year. Or I guess you really like lead in your air, or burning rivers, or smog, or skin cancer, or asthma... And we haven't even touched on the impacts of climate change yet.

Well unless Reuters just made up these 3 sources they aren't lying.

Even if what they're claiming is false, the most likely reason is that they've been fed wrong info by their sources.

But that's not what Elon is claiming. He's claiming that Reuters is knowingly printing information they know to be false.

The argument has nothing to do with what Apple's competitors are doing. The DoJ claim you're responding to applies even if a non Apple smartwatch maker didn't exist. The issue is that the Apple Watch does not work on non iPhone smartphones, so this is an additional burden Apple has added to someone wanting to switch away from the iPhone, that they can't use the Apple Watch they own anymore.

Actually Sony does have a monopoly on the Playstation market. A monopoly is not in itself illegal. The first question is whether Sony has used that monopoly illegally or defended the monopoly illegally. Second, even if it has, the question is if the harm caused by it is worth even pursuing Sony.

Most likely neither are true for Sony but even if it is, it should be self apparent that distorting the smartphone market, or even the iPhone market, devices which are almost essential parts of modern day living can cause orders of magnitude greater harm than anything Sony could do in the game console market, which is much smaller, much narrower, and far less important.

And all this ignores that the DoJ's filing is about antitrust issues beyond just monopoly issues.

This is not at all what the DoJ is arguing but sure, go with what 9to5Mac is saying instead of actually reading what the DoJ has said.

Here is some of what the DoJ actually says about the Apple Watch:

> Apple's smartwatch Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone. So, ifApple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new , Android -compatible smartwatch

> By contrast , cross-platform smartwatches can reduce iPhone users dependence on Apple's proprietary hardware and software . Ifa user purchases a third -party smartwatch that is compatible with the iPhone and other smartphones , they can switch from the iPhone to another smartphone (or vice versa ) by simply downloading the companion app on their new phone and connecting to their smartwatch via Bluetooth.

> Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs , to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways : First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications . Second, Apple inhibits third -party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone. And third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.In doing so , Apple constrains user choice and crushes innovation that might help fill in the moat around Apple's smartphone monopoly

I'm so glad I stopped self identifying as an Apple fan many years ago because Apple fans' responses, first to the DMA and now to the DoJ's filing have clearly shown that Apple fans in their defense of Apple are willing to debase themselves publicly, pretending to be experts on things they know nothing about, without even doing the bare minimum of reading what they're actually talking about.