metadept

I was really hoping for a continuous (rather than discrete) fourth dimension. The concept is cool and looks to be well executed, but it's not very different from other alternate reality implementations such as the Dark World in Legend of Zelda.

Interesting points, but I don't think the lack of privacy in a small community is very similar to the lack of privacy in a large surveillance ecosystem. If the concern is over the ability to have secrets at all (i.e. to know facts that are unknown to others) then the metaphor works. The problem is that it's not about personal insult or embarrassment, it's about a larger power disparity.

In a small town, the lack of secrecy is (generally) mutual. People are aware of the reputation they gain and can usually address any rumors or allegations directly. Furthermore, there's still the option to physically move away, and one can presume that there will be other communities to join while leaving behind social baggage.

When it comes to the internet, the metaphor breaks down. Most people are (by design) unaware of the degree or even the presence of surveillance around them. The parties collecting the information (corporations, government agencies, and a few individuals) remain unknown, and their motivations reach far beyond those of rumormongers or gossips. Because they don't share in the same small community, the powers that watch us don't have to fear direct or indirect repercussions from the ways they use our data for or against us. This should be much scarier than any threat of individual antagonism or public shame.

There's also no effective way to 'leave' the internet. As this article illustrates, it's difficult or impossible to avoid revealing even a single specific piece of information, let alone your whole identity. It's more than the fact that we "really like" our involvement in the online community, it's a necessity for the vast majority of us to sustain ourselves socially and financially. We will inevitably reveal many things about ourselves by our actions online, and this data will never disappear.

I agree that we need to move forward from the way things are rather than trying to back out at this late hour. However, I very much disagree that this is in any way comparable to the way things have been, or a reemergence of previous societal trends. This is a new problem created from our many advancements, and we need to find new ways to address it.

While it's certainly a good general policy to not abandon significant segments of your user base, this is not a conflict of user ignorance vs developer laziness. The real question is whether preserving IE6-8 functionality is actually a good way to serve your customers. The resources you dedicate to retaining that 10% might be better used to improve your service for the other 90%. Focusing on modern browsers will also help to attract new customers who won't lock you deeper into these technical shackles. While this doesn't have to mean directly antagonizing people, it may involve making the site unusable and 'ruining' the experience for some.

"bro" is a short mnemonic/memetic context which makes the command easier to remember and use. I don't think it has any relation to the intended audience or constitutes an endorsement of the "bro" culture by any means.

I think it's a very serious issue. Clearly the population will balance itself at some point, whether by education/moderation or mass-starvation. However, I believe we have a finite window of opportunity to make a number of critical scientific and social advancements in order to continue our species' progress in the next few centuries and beyond. This window is defined primarily by the availability of materials and energy which are necessary to support technological development at our current scientific frontiers. Increasing population, especially in the developed world, consumes resources faster and thus shortens the span before many critical materials become scarce. Better extraction and synthesis will likely become available in the future, but first we need to get there.

I am not arguing that we shouldn't have children at all, but responsibly limiting our population seems like a critical supporting factor in any qualitative advancement we want to make as a species. This is especially true since much of the world doesn't seem likely to do the same any time soon.

"Having five children..."

Somehow overpopulation didn't make his list of existential risks? Seems like a glaring hypocrisy for someone who claims to have an interest in saving the species.

The more relevant question, especially in the context of startup success, is whether George W. Bush is wiser, more forward-thinking, or oriented toward better goals than you. Intelligence is only useful when you're directing it toward the right tasks and your end goals are genuinely beneficial.

To all the 'justified in my bitterness' responses:

Yes, it's hard work being more knowledgeable, productive, smarter, better, than people around you. This is particularly a problem in software development since it takes an intense and often fleeting concentration to be really productive. Interruptions, especially those stemming from the ignorance or poor choices of others, provoke an immediate frustration and bitterness which seems (and probably is) justified.

Being justified, however, doesn't mean it's helpful. When I'm faced with these situations I often find myself analyzing in my head all the reasons that I shouldn't have to deal with this, why the person who brought it up is an idiot, how much better it would be if I could just be left to get things done. None of this thinking is productive, or even gratifying, except in the shallowest sense.

As hard as it is, the appropriate response to ignorance, idiocy, or other negative stimuli is NOT to be negative, but instead focus on positive solutions. Change the system where you can (as close to the source as possible) but don't compound wasted time by spending your energy being bitter about it.

With their announcement speech so full of contradictions, it seems like they're struggling to differentiate the Mini from the cheaper Nexus 7. The major appeal is its small size, but in comparison to the Nexus 7 they emphasize how much larger it is (albeit lower total resolution). Seems to be a clear case of presenting weaknesses as strengths, which will, unfortunately, probably succeed with many existing Apple customers. The two compelling advantages over the Nexus 7, the presence of a second camera and the availability of cellular capability, were barely mentioned.