I've got no idea what you're going on about, but 97% of the Earth isn't empty in any useful sense. For starters, almost 70% is ocean. There are also large parts which are otherwise uninhabitable, and large parts which have agricultural use. Buses don't go to uninhabited places, since that's costs too much. Every five minutes is a frequency which no form of public transport can afford.
The nature of technological progress is that it makes formerly uninhabitable areas inhabitable.
Costs of buses are mostly the driver. Which will go away. The rest is mostly building and maintaining them. Which will be done by robots. The rest is energy. The sun sends more energy to earth in an hour than humans use in a year.
> That is right in the wheelhouse of tracking a user across apps.
The design is old. It probably predates facebook, so it's not been intentional, as your comment might be interpreted. But it certainly seems ripe for abuse. I'm curious if it would actually be used for that, because any app that can access internet already has a better way to share information.
I was interning at Facebook in '07 when the first iPhone was released. Can confirm! Someone was 3rd in line at the Palo Alto Apple store and brought it over to the office.
Though iOS definitely predates 3rd party apps and the ad based economy. Which is a bit of a tautology.
Sacrificing people on the altar of your freedom is better? There was a reason for lock-downs and masks. They were implemented worldwide. It wasn't some fluke of US policy.
Quoting a parvenu like Yarvin is a sign of fanaticism. He sounds like a teenager on weed. The only reason he's gotten into the limelight is because some powerful people aligned with Project 2025 agree with him, and needed some philosophical sounding blather to cover their power lust.
He says nothing of intellectual interest, yet is presented as some secret fountain of wisdom by hard core, US, extreme right-wing cult followers. I say presented, because I have the vague hope they don't believe it, but only use it as yet another layer of deception.
> Companies and people are just pushing the frontier of AI ...
in the way that seems most profitable to them.
They may not be 'seeking to destroy the lives of artists', but that's a false dichotomy. The outcome may very well be that they will. They know, and they don't care.
People have said that about robots and computers in the workplace, and indeed, since the 60s, more and more jobs have been automated. And there are less musicians now. Film scores and albums are produced with samples instead of bands or orchestras, reducing demand for session players, leading to less income for musicians, leading to less musicians.
And while automating dangerous jobs is a good thing, generating AI music isn't. It's not as unethical as generating deepfakes, but it's useless, and bad for society.
Fortune 500? More like Fortune 50000 (ok, exaggeration). But there are so many banks in the world, and their automation can run back to the 1950s. They are only slowly moving away from mainframes, if only because a rewrite of a complex system that nobody understands is tough, and possibly very costly if it is the key to billions of euros/dollars/...
IBM prices processors differently for running COBOL and Java - if you run mostly Java code, your monthly licensing fees will be vastly different. On boot, the service elements (their BMCs - on modern machines they are x86 boxes running Linux) loads microcode in accordance to a saved configuration - some CPUs will run z/OS, some will run z/OS and COBOL apps, some will run Java, some will run z/VM, some will run Linux. This is all configured on the computer whose job is to bring up the big metal (first the power, then the cooling, and only then, the compute). Under everything on the mainframe side is the PR/SM hypervisor, which is, IIRC, what manages LPARS (logical partitions, completely isolated environments sharing the same hardware). The cheapest licensing is Linux under a custom z/VM (they aren't called z but LinuxONE), and the most expensive is the ability to run z/OS and COBOL code. Running Java under z/OS is somewhat cheaper. Last time I saw it, it was very complicated.
I've grown up on vi and later emacs, but VSCode is no joke. It does almost everything, and most of it better, and more intuitively. There's no reason to torture yourself with counting characters, words or lines in order to get the delete command correct in one go.
The single most intuitive ah-ha moment I’ve had in Vi was the change verb. Change In <object>: ci( means “change the text within parentheses.” Change unTil <object>: ct& means “change the text until an ampersand.” And so on. It just makes sense.
VSCode never had moments like that for me. It’s fine, sure, but it wasn’t anything special.
You may love to learn then: Those aren't part of change.
"i(" is a selector (see ":help object-select"), and it also works with "y" or "d" or even in visual mode. Likewise "t" is a movement that can even be used on its own.
There's also a sibling to "i", "a", that includes the delimiter used, and "t" is a valid delimiter for HTML or XML tags.
No, it isn't, but that's perhaps the point: it's so direct. It rarely gets in the way. Sure, some things are easier done in emacs, but that's when you just copy the text to emacs, do your thing, and copy it back.
What VSCode isn't, is elegant. I think the OP likes that very much, and VSCode has forsaken that in favor of simplicity and a kind of free-for-all extension mechanism.
reply