Having a billion dollars means the rules no longer apply to you. That is incompatible with functioning capitalism—incentives are no longer aligned with the rest of humanity—or personal freedom—rules for thee but not for me.
Money is a made up idea that we use to benefit everyone. It's a game that, largely, has positive returns for society. When that is no longer the case, when someone breaks the game and removes themselves from the rules, you have to change the rules.
“Boars are attacking the town! Kill 200 to thin the herd.”
“We tried everything to cure the boars, but we couldn’t. If they go any farther, they’ll infect everything. Kill 200 to stop them from infecting the forest.”
“You are inside your own mind. Your fears surround you. Fear of the boar. Free yourself. Kill 200 dream boars.”
Texas would need to train its people. And the people would need to be as hungry as the Chinese were, and are to a certain extent. You should read the book the OT is talking about, it shows how the U.S. didn’t stand a chance in manufacturing, even going back to the 80s. Literally just not getting back to potential clients for two weeks and saying X or Y can’t be done, while Southeast Asian companies were jumping at the chance to build stuff.
There’s a giant cultural shift that needs to happen in the U.S. to get that back—not sacrificing labor laws, like China does, but the same idea that X or Y CAN be done, and actually jumping at the chance to build stuff instead of feeling entitled to it.
We do have agency, but the agency actually starts in the U.S., in education and culture, and not with a company like Apple.
This is the key passage. That may be true at some point, but it isn't now:
> The filing also disputed SpaceX’s argument that it is a “carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government.” Evidence presented by SpaceX shows only that it carried SpaceX employee letters to the crew of the International Space Station and “crew supplies provided for by the US government in its contracts with SpaceX to haul cargo to the ISS,” the filing said. “They do not show that the government has contracted with SpaceX as a ‘mail carrier.’”
> SpaceX’s argument “is rife with speculation regarding its plans for the future,” the ex-employees’ attorneys told the NMB. “One can only surmise that the reason for its constant reference to its future intent to develop its role as a ‘common carrier’ is the lack of current standing in that capacity.” The filing said Congress would have to add space travel to the Railway Labor Act’s jurisdiction in order for SpaceX to be considered a common carrier.
Would you say that about really well-edited scene in a movie, or a photograph that feels perfect, or a joke with perfect delivery?
A lot of those things are defined by timing and the space between moments that aren't exactly fully rational. And, if they're doing it well, they make you feel something, even if you can't describe exactly how they're doing it.
A "beautiful" font is like that. The font itself is not beautiful on its own, imo; it's raw material. The beauty comes out in how it's used, when you can look at A or B completed thing and say, oh yeah, B feels "better," but I don't know exactly why. It's not just because of the font, but the font 100% matters.
I'd wish a lot of people who make statements like "it just doesn't matter,"
or "this is meaningless" or "this is stupid," or any statement that terminates without some kind of qualify or scope, perhaps take a moment and also add "to me" to it and consider if there might be people for whom that statement is not true.
It’s, hilariously, the opposite: the exposure of this idea makes every other product better and Apple can’t change it (until they do).
Product tying is not a thing you can bypass.
This is idea is independent of whether Apple’s strategy is good or bad, legal or not. Product tying can’t be undermined, or it’s not actually a problem.
Another razor I’ve used is whether the user has chosen the content or what will appear, when it comes to naming navigational elements. Strawman* example: “My Favorites” when you populated the list vs “Your Favorites.”
*Strawman example because this one could easily just be “Favorites,” which imo is the preferred way: avoid ownership pronouns unless it actually makes sense to use them.
In Safari settings (Settings > Apps > Safari) there’s an option to use “bottom” vs “compact”, which brings back the tab button. Much better interface tradeoffs.
Vultures picking what away at parts of a corpse they can.
You see so many examples of this, just straight parasitical behavior, in at least American society. I don’t think the U.S. is economically where the Soviet Union was when it fell, but it’s rapidly approaching the civic dysfunction and deep corruption. You have to wonder, is this the fall of an empire or something like the corruption of the late 1800s and early 1900s, that created a backlash that corrected it and led to more prosperity? Dunno. We’ll see, if the vultures leave anything behind.
If they aren’t bringing evidence, it’s a waste of people’s time. Taking a big risk that is most likely a very bad decision shouldn’t provide any credibility at all. Do that when you can show evidence, and then you have credibility.
Good for situations where you aren’t expecting or care about realism in this detail. AI hallucinations will be amazing for entertainment, especially games.
Money is a made up idea that we use to benefit everyone. It's a game that, largely, has positive returns for society. When that is no longer the case, when someone breaks the game and removes themselves from the rules, you have to change the rules.