I treat Copilot as literally a programmer in pair programming. Which means that if it's trained, i.e. it has "seen" GPL code, then it's tainted, and we should treat resulting code as GPL code.
Replace "GPL" with the most restrictive license that's on GitHub, but you get the point.
They're kinda shooting themselves in the foot, because this reduces the commercial potential of the tool to almost nothing.
We know what Wozniak would say, as he's a tinkerer from a time when computers were "human-sized" and able to be tinkered with.
I think realistically the only thing we can demand is user-replaceable battery. Everything else is doomed to end up on a single chip integrated. And that chip either works, or doesn't. It's not about profit, it's about integration and miniaturization.
Watch a repair video, there are those who can solder new chips on. The problem is when Apple bans their suppliers from selling them to individuals or hardware locks components based on ID. These are artificial roadblocks and part of what r2r wants to address.
Remove those two barriers then people can fix or not as their skill or funds allow.
Of course your smartphone doesn't have to be glued shut, but the video shows 3 phones that are larger, have lower quality materials, and are missing features like water resistance.
The fact of the matter is that customers won't buy those phones over the "premium" phones even if they are impossible to repair.
My potentially unpopular opinion (as someone that does mechanical design of electronic devices for a living) is that iFixit is actively hurting right to repair by focusing on the wrong things. They are focusing on an ideal that is never going to come to fruition because most customers won't buy a product that is worse than they have today just so they can repair it themselves. A vast majority of customers don't want to repair their own devices even if they were "easy" to repair. Rather, they should be following Louis Rossman's goal to make repair guides and parts are easily available to independent repair shops so that more people can easily have their devices fixed by 3rd party repair providers. A goal on top of that is that effectively "consumable" parts (e.g. the battery, ports), should have to be accessible without risk of damaging expensive components (i.e. you should be able to change them without removing the screens on the phone).
Broken digitizer/cracked glass is also fairly easy to repair, and should be included with that. Besides that, I think phones are at a scale where repairability becomes a bit of a moot point.
This sounds like Apple apologism. Repair shops certainly have the capability to fix these devices but are hampered by actively Apple who would obviously prefer you go through them for repairs which are nearly as expensive as buying a new phone which is the whole point.
I see you haven't been a victim of a shitty third party repair shop. Yet. I have stories to tell.
I don't mind us demanding Apple to be more flexible in authorizing and training third-party technicians, providing them with parts.
But I don't need every idiot to have a repair shop. I don't need this to be a "right". You still need to meet some minimum bar of competence in my book.
> I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset.
The scientific method doesn't include the word "belief" at all. If you reduce it to belief, it's not science anymore, it's religion.
> In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government to make decisions based on facts and methods of finding out more facts.
Science is a process, not a collection of hard facts. The only hard facts (or the claim of them more accurately) come from religion.
Science concerns itself with building speculative models that have predictive power, and trying to match observation with prediction of the models. Redundancy (peer review) is used to REDUCE (not ELIMINATE) errors. Social and cultural factors can result in false positives and false negatives in peer review.
That's it in a nutshell. The models don't reflect reality, they only reflect an approximation of aspects of reality in given contexts.
Anyway, the problem is that people do have a religious instinct. And when they're incapable of perceiving science with all its subtleties, they simply reduce it to a religion, which requires the belief that it's basically flawless, it provides hard facts, the best solutions, and that it's uniform (and any contradictions are just examples of "interests" corrupting it).
While politics are very corrupted and often result in incompetence rising to the top, even it weren't the case, those competent politicians have no single place to turn to to understand what "science" thinks on any given problem of society. Science isn't a guy, so it has no opinion.
Which means there's no such thing as "how much time it takes light to travel from the Sun to Earth". It takes no time at all. Yet we do say "8 minutes 20 seconds". Everyone would claim that's the correct answer. In which case at the point of detecting this light on Earth, if someone asks us "when did the event of it leaving the Sun occur" you'd obviously say "8 minutes 20 seconds ago".
So while there's no true universal "when it happened", we're all here on Earth and we've developed a certain way of expressing ourselves about time and light, and broadly speaking we're all sharing a relative point of view in spacetime, relative to something 31 million light years away.
So to say "we detected it 3 hours after it happened" when it happened 31 million lights away would be poorly written, simply put.
There is only one event that happened, the question is how much time we will measure between that moment and the photons of the event reaching earth.
In the reference frame of earth it is 31 mio years. In frames that move faster and faster to the speed of light, relative to ours, this would take less and less time, an effect known as time dilation.
Obviously the article means that 3 hours after the first photons of this event reached earth (and we see it as happened), we managed to aim our sensors towards it and start measuring. It looks a bit clumsy indeed.
Another way to think about it would to change the distance and see if the sentence still makes sense. If the event was on the other side of the world, 100 light-milliseconds away, it wouldn't be an issue. If it happened on Mars, a light-minute or so away, also not an issue. If it happened on the Sun, 8 light-minutes away, this phrasing would also be fine, same for Jupiter and even Pluto. Not sure where the line is, but it's somewhere between 10 light-minutes and 31 million light-years, I guess :P
In China all four expectations are ramped up to the max though. Long hours means 9 AM to 9 PM 6 days a week ("996"), property prices are completely unaffordable, getting married is an ironclad social requirement and, thanks to the one-child policy, every young person has four grandparents and two parents breathing down their neck to produce offspring. And oh, your life is largely determined by your performance during the gaokao exam, so you've spent your entire childhood cramming for it.
Also, I doubt there's any other country aside from maybe North Korea where the sentiment "I want to be lazy!" is a censorable offence.
> Fertility rate in Spain and Italy is below 1.3 and we have no clue how to address it.
There are alredy too many people in this world... we don't live on farms anymore, so that we'd need many kids to help work on them... the only problem currently is, that our pension systems and some of the economic systems depend on more and more people producing and that we have yearly growth (instead of sustained business).
If your concern is sustainability then a fertility rate closer to 2.1 should be your goal. 1.3 is just collapse. Right now in the US we have 3 workers for every retired person. Imagine instead a world where every worker is supporting four retirees. It doesn't matter how you structure or fund your pensions, that just isn't going to work.
This is an interesting point, even if the retirees self-funded their retirement. There would need to be a nearly 4x increase in productivity per 30 years to avoid an inflation catastrophe as the workers products have increased demand relative to the maximum supply of workers/services/goods.
The U.S. (and Spain and Italy) are desirable places to be so immigration can make up for fertility rates being below what's needed to maintain the population. As a bonus, you don't need to wait ~18 years for an adult immigrant to be a productive, tax-paying member of society.
The US has a long tradition of immigration and it will certainly make the collapse less painful as compared to places like China and Russia but I'm skeptical that immigration can make up for a FR as low as 1.3.
I think
1. It's going to take a lot more immigration.
2. Significantly higher immigration is going to politically destabilizing for a variety of reasons.
Are we preparing for this? I really wish we had a functional government.
EDIT:
3. Pretty much everywhere except India, Afghanistan, and a few places in sub-sahara Africa have fertility rates below replacement. Immigration from anywhere but those places helps the destination country but makes the originating one worse. What effects is that going to have?
Maybe the fundamental assumption that society needs to provide help to keep people alive as long as possible has to be revisited.
I think it well may be that the tradition of supporting elders forever either worked when they were not living as long in such large numbers, and persisted due to the outsize political and economic power they have (or had).
Once the younger people have power, they might choose that the best use of their resources is not supporting those 70+ year olds.
I also thought that, but given the birth rates I see in my social circles full of very high earners (and worldwide data), I have come to question the assumption that women would want to have sufficient children to be able to support our large proportions of old age people.
While lack of parental support and high volatility is a cause for not having children, I also think there might be a decent portion of women that given the financial freedom of not having to do anything they do not want to do, will choose to not have children at numbers previously seen.
I think it is playing out before us in real time, especially as ACA introduce cost free birth control, and technological advances such as IUDs introduced convenient birth control.
I often wonder if the explosive population (and resulting economic) growth of the post WW2 era would have happened if women had been financially independent and had access to the same birth control we have now.
For those who haven't heard or read it, the 60 is a law on the Earth of the future that requires that on your sixtieth birthday you report to a medical center for euthanization. Those who refuse are tracked down and forcibly euthanized.
I would not characterize it as a very small step, although I do acknowledge the line of reasoning could lead to forcible euthanizing.
It takes orders of more resources to support people in the last weeks or days of their life. It is possible that such a huge portion of resources of society can go towards providing a very marginal benefit, that it is not worth it anymore.
I struggle to see why I should not take myself out when I will need to have constant attention from someone younger and more able. Obviously, the will to live is a powerful one and walking the walk is surely harder than just talk, but I would not want my kids to spend their time wiping my ass, and I certainly would not want a stranger to when they could be doing something else.
We're just another animal on planet earth that consumes resources and takes up space. There is some saturation point where no more people can fit and/or no more people have the resources they need to survive. Ideally, the alarm is sounded before that saturation point. It may sound bad to say there are too many people, but it would be a lot worse if we got to the saturation point and billions of people suffered.
This is such a moronic statement. If you really really want to limit population then limiting the number of children is a absolutely terrible and potentially catastrophic way of doing it.
Who is going to replace and look after that rapidly aging population? Or is complete collapse your goal?
9AM to 9PM 6 days a week matches what the US went through during the Industrial revolution. The one child policy has been replaced with three children.
Also the article doesn't speak about any of it being censored. The fact a commenter in state media said "this is shameful" is not censorship. The fact it's hard to find T-shirts with the meme also isn't censorship, unless we have evidence of someone trying to sell such T-shirts and being censored.
What you say is a great example of how you can take some half-truths and spin them into a propaganda narrative. You just want to make sure China looks bad, for some reason. No shades of gray in this country with over a billion people. All fits into a simple narrative, doesn't it?
In the western world, young people often need two jobs just to survive. No they don't have houses either. Laying down and memeing online is often not even an option, censorship or not. Why do we need to villify China about a problem that's literally world-wide? Does it simply feel better to know someone is worse out there?
loosening the one child policy to 3 doesn't change anything for couples today who are supporting 2 sets of parents - it's not making more brothers and sisters for them.
The hilarious part is how the Chinese Communist Party's official propagandists and elite Chinese academics are using their bully pulpits to explicitly shame anyone who contemplates giving up on the rat race.
Imagine you go to nytimes.com one morning and the US government and Harvard professors have written op-eds scolding you, demanding that you work hard to "ensure a happy life" or you will be "unjust", "shameful", and "disappoint your parents and the taxpayers." You might get the vibe that they protest too much, and your well-being is actually the least of their concerns.
To be fair, the Chinese would probably find NYT op-eds from the Great Awokening era equally hilarious and self-undermining.
It's my perception that those op-eds are very much in the contrarian minority, a far cry from being the central position of the media institution. They're roundly and immediately mocked, and the majority of coverage in mainstream newspapers is much more sympathetic to the antiwork extreme than the bootstraps one.
Yeah, if anything, US is the mirror image, where all prestige media is filled with complaints about how bad The System sucks and how it is the cause of every hapless individual's inevitable burnout and despair.
In Canada, the op-ed pages at the start of the pandemic were full of articles about how CERB (benefits for those laid off due to COVID) was being exploited by work-shy layabouts.
Very astute, the form of the struggle is the same therefore the degree of the struggle must be the same too. In the same way that a famine isn't a big deal because we've all got to figure out where our next meal is coming from.
Imagine other industries did what the software industry does, so we had articles like "how big should transport vehicles be". So we decided a sedan car is basically the right size, and proceeded to call trucks, trains, airplanes, ships, tankers, motorcycles, bikes and scooters as being the wrong size.
That's how stupid this entire way of thinking is.
It's attempting to take a problem that requires a ton of domain-specific considerations, and dumb it down to something that everyone can read and understand with toddler-level experience and feel smart.
Everyone is doing it. At the pub after work. They take turns being right about politics, being right about sports, being right about their boss, being right about the state of society and Susan the receptionist. They're spot-on right about her.
And if they skip the pub, they take out their phones and go being right online on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Hacker News.
And for things like paying for ddos attacks and money laundering in general.
Ah yes, and the classic all things dark web.
There is not one use case except speculation for people who are not amongst the non law abiding elements of society.
I prefer to look at it as crypto is exposing a market that wasn’t visible - companies need to invest in their security and 3rd party software needs to be better vetted.
