Dave

VOA News is not a reliable news source—it’s literally a taxpayer-funded propaganda outlet of the USA. Since the Trump administration the organization has been pumping out odd conservative talking points.

I mean, 1 in 5 is a lot, just to be perfectly clear, so anything even approaching that is a pretty bad. When I was growing up, the number of cars inappropriately using high beams in city traffic was basically zero, so this is a massive regression.

You can tell that a car is using high beams because their light fixture appears fully and evenly lit from eye level. Low-beam headlights look “half full” from an opposing driver’s view. You can also tell because many lower-end cars have a separate housing just for the high beam that only light up when the high beam is on.

I am that old, but I am not this old:

.

Is the answer no? It’s no, isn’t it?

Yep, Axios straight-up printed an ad as news.

I thought this was a new Chuck Tingle novel.

It’s gotta be some kind of meme, where friends tell friends to do the thing, and they pass it on, because it’s gotten worse and worse over time.

Here in the SF Bay Area, it’s Tesla drivers. All those BMW drivers have traded in their cars for Teslas.

I live in the SF Bay Area and about 20% of cars are driven with their high beams on all the time. The drivers just click that stalk and leave it there no matter what. It’s an epidemic.

Define “complete”.

A 1.0 product is by definition the worst product the company will make of that type. That’s no different from any other product by any other company.

There is no complete product. There are only products you can buy, and those you can’t.

You’re conflating the perfect with the good. The question is not whether Vision Pro is perfect, it’s whether it’s good enough for today. I happen to think that it is for the goals the company has set (well under 1M units sold). But it will of course improve rapidly every year.

This is not new. This is every new product Apple has introduced.

I heartily disagree. This is a 1.0 product, and though it’s deeply flawed in so many ways, it also nailed interactions that other companies have struggled with. They’re going to iterate and pivot on this platform for the next few years (and sell cheaper models) and they will find the sweet spot. This platform is here to stay.

I think so.

Apps can get woken up when a remote notification arrives that has the content-available key. Apps are woken up in background mode, at which point they have a few seconds to do whatever they need to do to refresh their content cache. This, of course, often leads to the app making a connection to the server, which exposes the user’s IP address.

I think the sin here is that some apps always set the content-available key regardless of whether there is content to be retrieved or not. That turns the notification into a surveillance tool, allowing the app to check in periodically.

“Externalities” are just expenses that corporations incur that have to be paid by the public.

Make externalities losses again.

One week of bug fixing ought to fix it.

That’s not what “soft skills” means, Satya.

Morals are subjective anyway.

They may be subjective, but they exist as a concept and can be discussed. Morals describe the value system from which you make decisions and build consensus. Pretending they don’t matter is nihilistic and self-serving.

Let me frame this issue a different way: when Google doesn’t make money from showing you ads, or getting money from your subscriptions, they don’t pay the creators for your views. Are you arguing this is also OK? Will you promise to support each creator directly instead? Or are you only interested in getting entertainment for free?

While the RIAA does continue to exploit artists, it’s now possible to support many artists directly by buying their albums online, buying merchandise, and attending their concerts. Do you do any of that, or are you simply pirating music for your consumption?

If you feel strongly that Google is a data-gathering evil so great that they deserve not a sliver of your money or attention, then stop using YouTube.

Sorry, but you can’t make a moral argument for your position. What you want is to benefit from Google’s services without paying them. That’s it. That’s the whole argument. It doesn’t really matter if you like them or not, really. You’re arguing that you deserve free service.

That is not a morally sustainable argument.

Here’s an interesting idea: pay for what you consume. We can argue whether ads or a YouTube Premium are a fair price, but I don’t think you’d have a moral or legal leg to stand on if your argument is that Google must provide you with hosting and streaming for free.

You are consuming resources on Google’s computers. I think they have a right to ask for payment.

To me, the ad tracking industry is completely out of control, and I’m not going to disable my ad blocker. So I signed up for YouTube Premium.