No, they can't actually record everything that happens in neurons. They observe small set of changes, and based on those changes and currently understood theory of brain they reconstructed full picture* (Kinda like archeologists reconstruct structure of dinosaur bones based on other knowledge such as bird bones).
* I have no idea how accurate that technique or my description of it is, but in general that is what happens. We got a model of something, we record set of measurements, and then we compute what internal state the model needs to be in for us to observe that set of measurements.
Valve doesn't need all the AAA titles initially. What if SteamOS were released to a group of perspective and current gaming hardware manufacturers à la Android? Despite the DirectX platform being incumbent on the mid to high-end x86 PCs, if Valve were to target the Wii/smartphone gaming demographic they'd stand a decent chance at commoditizing consoles.
I would disagree here. Nobody likes fragmentation. If Valve can't deliver AAA on linux right away, then this will likely go the way of Ouya. The most interesting thing here is the streaming which could act as a bridge until we see native Linux AAA games.
Lastly, DirectX is so widely used in game engines. I haven't seen any hard evidence (not coming from Valve) that OpenGL can meet or exceed DirectX capabilities. I'd love to see real data on this.
What if SteamOS were released to a group of perspective and current gaming hardware manufacturers à la Android? The DirectX platform may be incumbent on the mid to high-end x86 PCs, but if Valve were to target the Wii/smartphone gaming demographic they'd stand a decent chance at commoditizing consoles.
Is there? It seems to me that the majority of people are not murderers and have no intention of doing each other harm. People have plenty of obvious ways to harm each other at their disposal, but few people actually do so (and this is in a country with the highest violent murder rate of any developed nation).
To put it another way, everyone knows that a knife can be a deadly weapon. Yet we all have at least a few knives in our kitchens, and we are not piling up dead bodies. Would it really matter if everyone knew that, in addition to knives, they could also use some other common household item?
It is also the case that we learn how to kill/seriously injure people from our TVs all the time. Even countries with much lower murder rates have such violent entertainment.
I think pg is using the word identity differently than you (or Jung) here. He doesn't attempt to explain the source of the "strong convictions" that drive political or religious beliefs. He simply observes the connection between the case where people think of themselves as a certain type of person and consequently will defend the associated beliefs regardless of evidence.
So there's something about peoples minds that makes it costly for them to accept certain facts. For a long time now, professing a certain belief with conviction has been a way of associating yourself with a certain group has had and continues to have direct implications on a person's physical well-being. Given acting is hard and cognitive-dissonance is nasty, actually adopting the belief makes sense.
A more precise way express the essay's thrust might be "don't get attached to your beliefs."