54 karma · joined May 22, 2017
It would not. I said civilization "extracts resources, generates waste and disrupts ecosystems". A sponge does not disrupt its ecosystem. In fact, it keeps it alive.
> Non-native species often disrupt ecosystems when introduced somewhere new.
And how does this happen exactly? Non-native species do not just walk around - you need humans and civilization to move them around, and create exactly these kinds of issues.
All civilizations including ours have been doing it this way, so you can argue it is a part of the civilization. It’s a comforting fiction that humanity can fundamentally change its character, but the history proves otherwise.
They can also be clean. Look at Earth. Don't see an argument here. We are discussing whether civilization pollutes or not, not whether planets are inherently habitable or inhibitable.
> We have seen it is possible.
Where have we seen it possible?
There is absolutely nothing special about beef. We could replace beef with palm oil, lithium, air travel, or even data centers. The same system logic applies: convert energy and resources into power, growth, and order, while displacing entropy elsewhere.
A clean planet is a planet without civilization. This is a factual observation, not nihilism.
Does that mean some vendors will be treated unfairly? Of course.
Does it mean Apple users will remain happy? Absolutely.
If there is one OS that is anti-tinkering by design it is iOS, and yet people keep criticizing this intentional design decision that forms a large part of Apple’s moat.
The modes don't exist. You either figure out how to effectively manage the company in front of you, or you don't.
Our thoughts and ideas come from an unknown source. We might call it intuition, but scientifically speaking, it remains a black box.
Lethologica - a temporary inability to remember a particular word or name - is one evidence of this. You can have a fully formed thought in your mind, but be unable to express it with words.
The success of generative AI depends on producing human-like content, and the models are only improving. This means the signal used to detect the AI will only grow weaker, causing detection technology to fail more often, get more expensive, and end up with diminishing returns.
From a cost and accuracy perspective, Twitter's community notes system is a far superior solution, albeit a low-tech one.
What we need to do is regulate watermarking at all levels of the content pipeline: production, editing, and reproduction.
This involves prescribing mandatory watermarks for AI tools, ensuring they cannot be removed by digital editing software (and making it illegal to do so), and finally, ensuring all software dealing with the production, editing, or reproduction of content must display the watermark information to the users.
In practical terms, this means that if you get a video produced by SORA, it will have a watermark. If you use it in Adobe Premiere, Movie Maker, or another video editing tool, you will see but won't be able to remove the watermark. If you add filters, the tool might add a piece of history to the video clip indicating you made an edit. When you output a final video file, the watermark in your clip is preserved and displayed to anyone watching your video, including any editing notes added by your tool.
This is a tall order, but achievable.
It is not bulletproof by any means, and someone would inevitably find a way to crack the technology and remove the watermark.
But this happens in software all the time - the goal isn't to make the technology impossible to crack but to make it incredibly hard to do so, which protects the large majority of parties involved.
One one hand, you could say this move violates basic human rights to decide what to eat and how to nourish themselves. For example, it is well known that protein and fat-rich diets are beneficial to patients suffering from diabetes, epilepsy and many other ailments, and many people have seen huge improvements in overall health by following a keto or paleo regimens which are simply unobtainable without meat. From that perspective, you can read into this decision as downright discriminatory and even harmful for many of their employees. There are probably grounds for a lawsuit as well.
On the other hand, you could applaud them for taking a stand and fighting over a worthwhile cause, as it is in fact true animal farms are one of the the main factors contributing to environmental change. The move is even bolder given how polarized the audience is around this - vegeterians vs meat eaters is a never ending drama. If they decided to make their lunches sugar-free, nobody would object, but making them meat-free seems to piss people off for some reason.
Personally, I think it’s just a bad PR move as it will be hard and costly to enforce this rule on many levels, but time will tell.
One thought on the building blocks summary - I would add an Ideation phase after the Insights phase or somehow mention the importance of ideas. The current outline suggests strategy creation is a highly analytical process, when, in fact, it is both creative and analytical at the same time, and requires both sets of skills.
As a side note, you might want to check out the work of Victor Cheng who introduces a lot of McKinsey strategic tools in his book and video series. Could be helpful for your future work!
Any good advertisement appeals to both rational and emotional aspects of your life:
- This car moves you from place A to place B fast (rational)
- This car makes you look cool sexy (emotional)
With this in mind, "1000 songs in your pocket" appeals to the practical, rational side.
It does not make you feel like a better person, it just makes you think "Wow, I can put here everything I ever want to listen." So this part is the mistake in the analysis.
The product design and creative approach - specifically the iPod ads, which positioned the product as a part of a cool & hip look - are what made people feel they'll be way cooler if they owned that device.
Our society fails badly at teaching people how to use their brain properly and how to prevent it from going on a bender.
The best advice I've heard on this subject so far is to think when there is a specific problem to be solved. Use your brain like a tool, then stop using it after you're done - meditate.
Very hard, since thinking (and overthinking) is addictive.