The future of computing is certainly multimodal. What I see with beaming is being both hands-free and prep-free further enhances the spontaneity of life and helps fill in small gaps.
Printing otoh requires hands and prep. That's greater effort. You wouldn't print a recipe if you were just a little uncertain about step 3, you would ask for some kind of just in time modality instead. Voice might be fine for short info but sometimes you'd prefer to have it up and there's beam.
yeah, I don't disagree, though you could think that a robot with a heat-paper printer or pen could go a long way.
But more importantly I ultimately think that one of the unstated goals is to reduce screen time. And setups like these are only one voice command away from beaming youtube videos all around your house.
Are they really? Nothing of value is produced unless the exact artifact is transmuted into a professional good? There’s nothing to be gained from sketching preliminary drafts or notes because they’re never polished for publication?
Not what I meant. The point was work under a certain grain size of effort has very little (or negative) value to others.
We're in an environment awash in 'content' where every person has an infinite slop producing machine, and a lot of people are publishing nearly zero effort drafts, awed by the appearance of meaning.
If you go by the letter of the law (your legal residence is another state) then you should apply it uniformly (your vehicle's tint is illegal where you currently are). You can't pick and choose which technicalities apply to you.
If you go by the spirit of the law, then a grace period would be reasonable to apply to infrequent visitors. However, you travel there daily, so that does not apply to you.
Doesn’t really seem like you have a leg to stand on here.
Their tint law is stupid. See my previous comment on Crosstrek vs Impreza. Also, I've never heard of anyone getting pulled over for tint unless it's like really dark, so I'm not concerned, just pointing out it's ridiculous.
You're certainly entitled to think the law of a state you don't live in is stupid. The state you don't live in is equally entitled to not care whether people outside the state think a law is stupid.
>Also, I've never heard of anyone getting pulled over for tint unless it's like really dark
Idk about the rest of the country, but in my experience in the southern US it's a pretty common tactic to pull you over for assumed illegal tint to try and catch you for other charges. Especially if you aren't white.
Every time somebody decides to ram their suburban up the ass end of my car and flee the scene, the first thing the police ask is "did you get a good look at the driver" followed closely by "did you see the make/model/plates" and "what state was it registered in?" I don't have a lot of sympathy for windows dark enough to prevent me from making out the driver, the blatantly illegal license plate hiders so common in CA, and other such nonsense. If we want to adopt a policy of registration/licensure/insurance/whatever not being legally required for privacy reasons or something then that's one thing, but current policy tries to make sure people are responsible for their actions with a relatively small impact on privacy, and unless you're arguing against the broader issue then I think any tint law complaints are misplaced.
>the first thing the police ask is "did you get a good look at the driver" followed closely by "did you see the make/model/plates" and "what state was it registered in?"
If your argument for this law is that it forces people to incriminate themselves, that's really an argument that the whole thing should be thrown out.
Under no circumstances should you be able to be compelled to assist in your own prosecution, either directly or indirectly.
That law has nothing to do with incriminating yourself (it's more about safety), but even if the law was specifically "so someone can see into your window and identify you if you do something bad", that's still not self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is requiring someone to testify against themselves.
Your position boils down to: "I should be able to commit traffic violations anonymously because anything else is an infringement on my 5th amendment rights".
Basically you're saying that any law is invalid if it makes or ensures that any kind of wrongdoing visible to witnesses. That's absurd.
>That law has nothing to do with incriminating yourself (it's more about safety), but even if the law was specifically "so someone can see into your window and identify you if you do something bad", that's still not self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is requiring someone to testify against themselves.
You are requiring someone to take action that will assist in their own prosecution. That is the goal as per your own statements, and is the obvious primary purpose of these laws.
If that is not compelling someone to self-incriminate, what is?
>Basically you're saying that any law is invalid if it makes or ensures that any kind of wrongdoing visible to witnesses. That's absurd.
No, i'm saying that if you make a law whose primary purpose is to assist in the prosection of those who are compelled to follow it, that law is invalid. If you make a law that incidentally requires someone to assist in their own prosecution, then the law may be valid, but the usage of that information in prosecution or investigations is invalid and falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I see no difference between it and compelling people in court to testify against themselves, because the only difference is where the self-incrimination is happening.
You realize life is complex enough that two things can be true, right? That everything isn't either/or?
The reason we've haven't had more outbreaks of more diseases in the last century is because we had a lot of smart vigilant well-resourced people who very much felt the disease was the problem, and took steps to mitigate.
Classic late-stage civilization blunder is taking the fruits of civilization for granted. Sorry you're not aware of those things, but that's on you.
Basically, moon bases need to be underground to prevent micrometeoroids from messing them up, and any bigger impact like this is going to wipe out anything we build, even underground.
All the more reason Earth is pretty awesome!
Fun fact: moon regolith is made of ~45% oxygen, so in a roundabout way digging underground is kind of like having an atmosphere.
or just build it on the earth facing side of the moon , then you have the entire thickness of the moon shielding you. But I believe some of the more interesting use cases for lunar bases require the far side, notably telescopes
The lunar near side is not shielded from impact craters in any significant way. Impactors can cross the earth's orbit and hit the near side of the moon just as easily as they can hit the far side.
The fact that the near side appears to have large areas with few craters, and the far side doesn't, is a result of many near-side craters having been erased by lava flows. It's not because it received fewer impacts.
Interesting, I did a quick search and you are right. I think I remembered the incorrect fact about the near side being shielded from 2001: A space Odyssey (the book). It actually has a few other outdated moon facts since it was written just before the Apollo missions
> basically what the moon is for us for most sizes of asteroid
Popular myth. "While the Moon does undeniably experience asteroid impacts, these impacts do not proportionally alleviate the impact risk to Earth; instead, both celestial bodies are subject to independent and interconnected bombardment" [1].
I like your reasoning about oxygen and would like to contribute the factoid that the molecular weight of CO₂ is over 72% oxygen. We really need to be spewing more of this stuff into the atmosphere to improve its oxygenation. Obviously O₂ would be best, but CO₂ is much more practical, and still gets us 72%.
I can't take that software line seriously. While it's not 'solved' (if it ever could be, given it is a human endeavor), the degree to which software development has been transformed in the last 6-12mo is absolutely astounding. If we weren't so quick to adapt to new realities and find flaws, it would scarcely be believable.
… and on the other hand, it feels like everything I use has become way buggier and unstable in a similar time frame. Websites, apps, iOS, the only exception is offline open source tools which run locally. (And to be fair, many of those have slower development cycles and I am likely using older versions.) This is just my experience, so inherently anecdotal, but it really feels pervasive across a ton of different things.
Obvious bugs and low quality software are nothing new, but something feels new about it. Occam’s razor says LLM coding is a likely culprit, but it could also be management style encouraging this sort of carelessness from the top down.
He also didn't say it would be "solved". He said in 2025 it would be writing almost all the code "in 12 months", but that it would also still need programmers to guide and manage it at that point. People always leave off the end of his quote.
Edit: Boris Cherny, the lead of Claude Code did say on a podcast that programming seemed "largely solved" "for the kind of programming I do" (writing harnesses I presume). Maybe that's what they were confusing it for.
> He also didn't say it would be "solved". He said in 2025 it would be writing almost all the code "in 12 months", but that it would also still need programmers to guide and manage it at that point. People always leave off the end of his quote.
It's crazy to me that people will misquote him then claim AI hasn't complete changed software development. Even just the last 6 months. Like look around! It would literally have been magic 5 years ago!
I think this is the definition of a polarising topic. It's very hard to hold a sensible middle ground without everyone wanting to take it to extremes of either "AI is just useless autocomplete" or "AI has solved software engineering".
Your argument was you've argued your whole career for native. The article argues only very recently the cost equation has changed. Your argument reads like you are not taking into account the broader context or the passage of time.
I'll put it this way, my argument was pro native. And in the context of the article, if a large company had unlimited resources, they would choose native. I'm not discussing the business case for it, but the end result of it being the better option. It can be seen as "Shopify tried Reactive Native and left it behind the second they could after sinking resources into it for 6 years".
Time and progress have overtaken them. At the time they were likely correct but I certainly wouldn’t bother with react native any more when the LLMs have gotten so good
You're making the mistake of comparing a possible future for the present. This is like the most common mistake people in tech make when it comes to education. I've seen it for >15 years and built a whole edtech news organization to try to educate engineers about this kind of fallacy.
The NYC policy is for this school year (now). The link you provide begins with "China aims to build". Not "China is deploying to one of their largest school systems". If its referring to this policy [1], that's a plan for 2035. Apples and oranges.
Tiredness is a signal that the body/brain needs rest so the glymphatic system can go to work. You can lose the signal but still need rest. If your brain doesn't flush metabolic waste periodically you develop brain fog, bad memory, and increased risk of Alzheimer's, and you'll eventually die, as sleep deprivation studies have found.
Printing otoh requires hands and prep. That's greater effort. You wouldn't print a recipe if you were just a little uncertain about step 3, you would ask for some kind of just in time modality instead. Voice might be fine for short info but sometimes you'd prefer to have it up and there's beam.
reply