dev_tty01

Great site. Feels like the internet before social media.

That is fine for the first flight, but the connections can quickly turn into a mess. Also, after getting there an hour early, you grab a beer, sit around, and then the flight gets delayed or cancelled. I've noticed it is stressful until the plane for my final connection going back home leaves the ground.

If you don't have to get somewhere at specific times and events, no problem, just chill and you'll get there eventually. If going to a planned meeting, or giving a talk, etc., it can be very tiring.

I always bring a couple of burritos. No problem.

No one has presented any evidence that they are keeping it secret. You are arguing against a straw man. Maybe they are just using a tech that some other company created. If they sued someone for using some of their recycling tech then I am right with you. But these accusations and projections based on assumptions are unfounded.

Setting aside the secrecy assertion, don't we want companies to innovate and use reduced eco-footprint as a marketing advantage? Companies are profit motivated and must be to survive. Don't we want other companies to look at Apple and see the market goodwill fostered by eco-friendly practices and strive to emulate that? Or strive to create even better ways of doing things?

Throwing stones at environmental innovation just seems a counter-productive reaction.

>It’s not really an improvement until the tech is available to all product producers.

Sorry, that's not true at all. When they ship a couple hundred million phones a year its an impactful improvement regardless of where else the tech goes. Having said that, don't you think these recycling contractors are using that knowledge for other customers?

Is it really that hard to say that its great that such a large vendor is working so hard at these goals, good on them? There are plenty of things to criticize about Apple, but these changes represent real corporate goals and serious investment.

Well, obviously he first has to prove he is Satoshi Nakamoto. Unlikely.

Fair enough. I don't think that's what the parent comment was trying to say and I certainly wouldn't want to say that in general. However, some times it is true, but those people still deserve kindness and care. Life is hard. My personal intent is to try and remain as healthy (physically and financially) as I can so that I can minimize the chance of becoming a significant burden.

It is personal for me. My grandfather spent several years spoon feeding his mother who had severe dementia. He didn't resent her. He loved her but it still impacted him. When his own health later degraded to the point where he was going to need more care from the people he loved, he couldn't live with the thought of losing control and being a burden to his children so he ended his life. It was not a spur of the moment decision. He had all the legal and fiscal matters lined up. He even had his tombstone in place. He lived a full life with lots of close family and friends. Was he a coward or a saint? Maybe some of both. Maybe neither. Maybe he was just practical to the end. I haven't figured it out.

Sure, of course it is a statistics game. The point is to improve your odds. As someone who cares for two older family members, I can tell you that the more we do to keep our weight down, and maintain agility and strength, and give some priority to cardiac health, the better the odds of maintaining a high quality of life for a longer period of time. Its about creating some health margin so we can better handle the inevitable problems.

Pointing to anecdotes of healthy people who were stricken anyway as a reason to live an unhealthy life will end predictably.

Every kilogram of mass added to the return trip increases the required deceleration, fuel, etc. Not cheap. At some point you can't reach orbit with the required fuel to get everything back. The Falcon 9 boosters are nearly empty when they come back. As a matter of fact, at least one of their early landing failures was because they cut the fuel load too close and ran out of fuel just before reaching the ground. Minimizing weight on the return landing is critical.

Heat pump with gas auxiliary heat for cold nights. That's what we run and it is the best of both worlds.

Agreed. Last time I checked, the folks who got Linux running on a refrigerator did not get any vendor support either.

No, I don't think so. There are about 100 million Mac users. The vast majority of them don't even know what Linux is. No way Apple's "grip" is impacted.

>Crypto has its positive uses, but you have to balance those against the negatives of slow transfer speeds, speculative bubbles, scams, energy consumption, and carbon emissions.

Good list on the negatives, but don't forget child trafficking, drugs, and other illegal uses. Like you, I have a hard time seeing a net positive when you add it all up.

Well said. There is no Apple-scale market to disrupt. If the largest market for the wearable remains as gaming, Apple is in a very poor position since they have always only begrudgingly embraced gaming.

This isn't about disruption, this is about creating a new market.

If I think of myself as an example, I don't have interest in the gaming angle. If it is comfortable enough and the experience is great, I might buy it for telepresence, if for no other reason than richer visits with my children on the other side of the country. Maybe there is some other use I would buy into, but I'm sure not seeing it yet.

I don't disagree with your examples. Yep, they've made plenty of mistakes. A key difference here is that Apple has been spent many years developing and promoting substantial AR frameworks. It has been a huge investment. It at least appears that this huge investment has all been leading up to some sort of vision based wearable. If it does turn out to be a failure, the magnitude of the failure will be much larger than the above examples.

His comments might have some weight if he actually provided evidence of his assertions. For instance he says "it doesn't know what the words _mean_." How do we indicate/prove that we know what a word means? We can give a definition. We can offer an example of how to use it in a sentence. We can explain and/or demonstrate how its meaning can vary depending upon context. Etc... ChatGPT can do all those things.

So, is there something more fundamental going on in our own brains? If so, what is it?

As far as false vs. true, humans also make many mistakes, confuse references, draw false conclusions drawn from unrelated evidence, and on and on. We also often get things right. ChatGPT is similar.

He just makes conclusory statements so it is just an opinion. I'm not saying any true intelligence has been demonstrated yet, but the progress that has been made in just the last year or two has been enormous. Does anyone doubt the progress won't continue? Something very important is happening and I personally think it is more than just "playing games with words." Just my opinion...

>When Amazon was sky rocketing and Blue Origin had not reached orbit...

Blue Origin still has not reached orbit.

> One is being peddled a bucket of old shit that might have been okay in the 80's for portability reasons.

Like unix or linux? One person's "bucket of old shit" is another person's reliable swiss army knife that is always there when you need it.

True enough, but let's not forget that NASA blew up a lot of rockets before they ever got to orbit. Relativity did pretty darn well for a private enterprise. Good on them.

I'm expecting the Mac Pro to have AI/ML massive GPU modules and/or specialized ML dedicated compute available as add-ons for in-house training. For a not-so-small fee of course. They have all the pieces, it just needs to be brought to bear on the ML training market.

It is impressive, but worth noting that the macOS version was running x86 code under Rosetta. Hmm, I guess that's also impressive...

The value of documentation (and a great writer) in a nutshell.

>The next week I sat down to meet with Caroline for the first time, and she couldn't have been more different than the previous writer. As soon as I began to explain the first routine, she started bombarding me with questions. She didn't mind admitting it when she didn't understand something, and she wouldn't stop badgering me until she comprehended every nuance. She began to ask me questions that I didn't know the answers to, like what happened when certain parameters were invalid. I had to keep the source code open on the screen of my Lisa when I met with her, so I could figure out the answers to her questions while she was there.

>Pretty soon, I figured out that if Caroline had trouble understanding something, it probably meant that the design was flawed. On a number of occasions, I told her to come back tomorrow after she asked a penetrating question, and revised the API to fix the flaw that she had pointed out. I began to imagine her questions when I was coding something new, which made me work harder to get things clearer before I went over them with her.

Related reference: https://vintageapple.org/inside_o/

Yes. I agreed that the VCs are at fault for poor decisions relating to their use of SVB in the face of known issues with the bank. I also agree with your additional point that the initial concentration of uninsured funds in a single bank was also a bad idea.

When the Moody's data became known it was going to happen one way or another. Well over 90% of the accounts were uninsured. Someone was going to pull money. Perfect unanimity in inaction was simply not possible. Given that scenario, it is a rational response to try and be first out the door.

The fault here is with SVB management making some very bad decisions and with VCs not looking at the publicly available data and moving away from SVB a lot sooner. Of course, hindsight is alway's 20/20. Once the Moody's trigger had happened the choices were simple.

> no need for heroics, just don't "lie" about it by signing statements

Have you read the statement? There is no "lie" in pulling money and signing the statement. Here is the text:

"The events that unfolded over the past 48 hours have been deeply disappointing and concerning. In the event that SVB were to be purchased and appropriately capitalized, we would be strongly supportive and encourage our portfolio companies to resume their banking relationship with them."

The statement clearly communicates that they have ended their banking relationship (pulled their money). They are simply stating that if the finances of the bank are straightened out they will start banking there again. I don't see any disconnect or deceit between pulling their money and signing the statement. When the Moody's data came out and it was clear things were headed south, of course they transferred or at least tried to transfer their money out.

The failure of all of these financially savvy VCs was not pulling their money weeks or months ago. The data was all there as others have pointed out. They have all been whistling past the graveyard hoping the problem would go away. If there is any shame, it is in that failure to act earlier.

Why do you think the Fed was making things up as they went along? The rules were written down years ago and they were followed in this case.

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap2.pdf

I think at least a part of the solution is to increase regulation as banks get larger. Since it is clear that the fate of very large banks is tied in to the the fate of the economy itself, they should be appropriately regulated. In particular, short term asset/deposit ratio requirements should be modified as a bank gets larger. That could reduce the need for the FDIC to step in when depositors get nervous and provide disincentives to getting too large.

I think something like this could make large banks more of an asset for the economy rather than a liability. I wouldn't want to just set a maximum size. If a bank wants to get huge and maintain conservative and safe asset/deposit ratios, good for them.

That article says nothing about the relative risk of no oral polio administration vs. the small number of people who can get polio from it. The level of death pre oral polio vaccine vs after is clear.

The article is simply pointing out that it would be better if everyone could get the vaccine without live virus because the live virus oral version is beginning to have some unintended issues. The use of oral polio vaccines has saved huge numbers of lives but it needs to be modified now. It is not speaking against vaccines in general.

>At the same time, this is yet another example of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy.

No, there are systemic risk exceptions within the rules. If a bank is large enough, then the systemic risk to the economy as a whole is large enough to warrant this step. "Too big to fail" is typically a derisive comment, but it is not without practical reason. Governments are supposed to act in the best interest of the governed. I hope it is clear to all of us that avoiding the economic disruption of a cascade of bank failures is in our interest.

Smaller bank failures do not pose systemic risk and so they will not be backstopped in the same way. Might seem like unfair treatment, but practical concerns often outweigh the theoretical. By the way, SVB is still a failure and as a company is now gone. Some other entity will take over its assets, debts, and customer services. All senior management has been removed.

>I understand part of this is human nature but I really wish we could plan for these entirely foreseeable events ahead of time so that it's not just cases of "selective justice" with regards to who gets bailed out.

We did. That is why we have the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury department. They did their job and did it quickly and effectively. SVB did not get bailed out, the depositors did.

CDs are duration deposits, but you can still get the money out minus some fees associated with the early withdrawal. That doesn't help the run on the bank situation.