I'm pretty sure that Wittgenstein, while agreeing with your point about meaning being defined by use, would still argue that there's a lot of unspoken confusion that comes from calling the smartphone a smartphone.
The first thing I did when opening this thread was Ctrl+F to see if anyone was suggesting it should be called a "personal computer", because that's what I've thought best described what the smartphone really has become.
Now, to suggest even trying to use that to refer to smartphones these days would be adding a much heavier does of confusion. But the insight seems fundamentally right to me.
First, I think you mean "less valued". That's generally what happens when there's little demand for something, or when there's a good substitute at a cheaper price.
Second, if all the free, evil ad-sponsored content on the internet is of such "low quality", it certainly would make such services more valuable, as it would offer something scarce. Their conspicuous absence seems to indicate something is amiss with this analysis.
That's not a claim that will meet much opposition.
However, to claim that marketing is inherently "manipulative", or that manipulative tactics are even a significant part of it, seems a little ill-informed.
Y Combinator's motto is "Make something people want". To the overwhelming majority of practitioners, this is exactly what marketing sets out to do.
Yeah, it's just too bad you're the only person in the world to define advertising and marketing that way, I guess? At least among people who know what they're talking about.
Presumably, if the exam is well-designed, you can't pass it without understanding the material, which you could learn over however many hours you like. Requiring both an exam and a mandatory number of hours seems redundant.
Am I supposed to carefully read every stupid comment from a poster that so far has only annoyed me on the off chance that he writes something insightful once in a blue moon?
I'll ignore him and take that risk. I'm sure it's still a +EV move overall.
I'm proposing HN introduce a feature that exists on virtually every message board on the internet (i.e. blocking users). That's because its usefulness is well-recognised.
I fail to see what being here has to do with how precious my time is. My time is precious to me as soon as I start to value some experiences over others and decide which ones I consider valuable, and which ones I consider a waste. I don't have to be spending my every waking moment "hustling" to have a concept of value.
Reading comments from authors that I find interesting is a valuable use of my time.
Reading comments from authors that I find stupid and annoying is a waste of my time.
That's why I wish I could prevent that from happening.
"Not thinking" about the existence of such users is in no way a solution to that problem.
So not thinking about things you don't like makes them disappear?
That's odd, because I spend about 0% of my time thinking about dumb Hacker News comments, and yet I can see them right there, and before you know it, I've read them and wasted my precious time. How come?
The first thing I did when opening this thread was Ctrl+F to see if anyone was suggesting it should be called a "personal computer", because that's what I've thought best described what the smartphone really has become.
Now, to suggest even trying to use that to refer to smartphones these days would be adding a much heavier does of confusion. But the insight seems fundamentally right to me.
Interesting article on the subject that brings up this point: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/11/7/mobile-ecosyste...