Investment is about growth; Apple is already huge. When you've already cornered your respective market niches and you have big competitors it's hard to grow more. That said I think there are less reliable investments, so Apple's probably fine.
For me, I just don't really care about needing to discover everything myself. Discovering things like that takes time. If I play a game, I want to get the maximum intended experience from it without dragging things out while being confused. Does that "ruin" the experience? I don't really care if it does
I'm new here; Hacker News is supposed to avoid the modern Reddit trap but feel it often falls into it. The topics are more relevant to me but the comments are often unbearably cynical and excessively dismissive
Ah man that's why laser eye surgery scares me. My eyes are pretty bad so a lot of my lens has to be shaved. I noped out of last consultation; they recommended I get a lens inserted behind my cornea cause of that, but there are so many horror stories online
Line will always be different. There's healthy and realistic worrying where it motivates you to think and act if your situation is improvable, and there's the type of worrying where it's just wallowing and it just makes your situation worse.
But overall I think it's better to lean positive, in a similar sense to how overconfident people tend to be more successful.
I love how well-spoken Tao is. I've enjoyed lots of his lectures before; even if you're not an expert in whatever he's discussing he knows how to explain it just right to get you up to speed as best as he can. His communication and math skills are phenomenal.
I agree with you. The person you're replying to is too negative about Japan. Like every country, there's parts of technology that are ahead and behind the curve. Japan is indeed lagging in some areas, but in others it's clearly one of the most advanced countries in the world.
If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, I don't think your presentation of the role of popular consensus on Wikipedia is accurate. Read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus.
Wikipedia doesn't establish consensus by pure numbers or voting, although it is a contributing factor. In disputes, it has moderated discussions with verdicts given by elevated users, including admins. Things like statistics and even (perhaps especially) precedent all weigh in. Popularity of a side can be weighted, but ruling purely based on popularity is actively discouraged.
This can lead to scenarios where 90% of users want something, but the moderater rules along with the 10%. Often, this happens when the discussion was initially among a bunch of relatively new users who aren't aware of some policy, and a more experienced editor points that a dispute is clearly not in line with some policy. This happens very regularly and is often a source of drama with long discussions.
This process actually arguably works better on popular and contentious pages; you get eyes and discussions of substance on those. Most boring pages are virtually ghost towns and are counterintuitively more susceptable to popularity-based consensus. Whatever you put up will likely stick, so it's just a matter of how many people and who will protect the page for the longest.
The second page addresses your concern about not giving too much weight to fringe theories. It's not enforced as well as it could be in many places though; it can be hard to judge what's due or undue weight.
Disagree, this is too dismissive. Commons, Wikidata, and Wiktionary are all useful. Especially Wiktionary; probably one of the best online dictionaries imo. Often has a lot of unique info that's hard to find even in dictionaries, very good etymologies. All useful in ML.
I agree on lawsuits being likely and needed to establish precedent. CC-BY-SA specifies "other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material".
At some point, maybe poorly-trained chatbots that consistently produce what's seen as avoidably/negligantly poor results may become regulated. Like how if a company poorly trains its employees, it is on the hook for their employees' behavior.
Man, hacker news comments can be so reddit quality with how dismissive and gut instinct they are... i came here to avoid that