There’s been plenty of philosophy, but what will probably happen is a re-definition of the terms to a more rigorous and repeatable mathematical formulation. This will fail to satisfy philosophical or fundamental questions, but will enable better quantitative predictions.
This essentially is where the schism is between science and philosophy, and has played out repeatedly across history. Heat for example was redefined to a specific physical property, and subjective experiences of warmth were then explored in reference to that. Or look back to the moment when Newton essentially said “I don’t know what gravity is, but I can accurately calculate any ballistic trajectory you can think of.”
I think you’re right about this deal. But it’s kind of funny to think back and realize that Microsoft actually has just written off multi-billion-dollar deals, several times in fact.
FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]).
The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.
I think this is sane washing their idea in the modern context of it having failed. I think at the time, they thought VR would be the next big thing and wanted to become the dominant player via first mover advantage.
The headsets don’t really make sense to me in the way you’re describing. Phones are omnipresent because it’s a thing you always just have on you. Headsets are large enough that it’s a conscious choice to bring it; they’re closer to a laptop than a phone.
Also, the web interface is like right there staring at them. Any device with a browser can access Facebook like that. Google/Apple/Microsoft can’t mess with that much without causing a huge scene and probably massive antitrust backlash.
I think headsets might work, but I think Meta trying to use their first mover advantage so hard so early backfired. Oculus, as a device, became less desirable after it required Facebook integration.
It's kind of like Microsoft with copilot - the idea about having an AI assistant that can help you use the computer is great. But it can't be from Microsoft because people don't trust them with that.
> I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not being beholden to other platforms.
Devoid of other context, it’s hard to disagree. But your parent comment only asserted that the metaverse specifically as proposed by Facebook was an obviously stupid idea.
Naming your company off a product that doesn't really exist yet and then ultimately fails is a pretty crazy and stupid thing to do. A bit cart before horse.
Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
Meta's vision was worse than that. They were trying to hype doing work meetings in VR. There's a case to be made that VR games and VR universes can be fun... But work meetings?
These athletes are eating nutritionally complete diets overall. The simple carb intake is a strategy just for the run itself.
That said, pretty much everything about highest-end athletics is net negative for long-term health. It’s incredibly hard on the body to run a marathon in general, let alone at record breaking pace.
The idea is that people will lie lie lie since words are free, but make real decisions when it’s their money at stake.
It’s not that different from the general concept of pricing. People will swear they want to buy American, support small business etc. but when it’s time for new jeans they go to Walmart and buy the pair on sale.
And yet this sort of endless (fingerprintable) browser feature list is what people cite when they claim that mobile Safari is somehow way behind Chrome, and how it’s a travesty that Chrome can’t natively implement all these (again, highly fingerprintable) features on the iPhone.
“Planetary defense” is a fig leaf covering the development of technologies to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles above the atmosphere.
The belief is that the first country to have this reliably at scale breaks the “mutually assured destruction” paradigm that has governed nuclear weapons policy for decades. If the U.S. can send nuclear ballistic missiles, but can’t be hit by nuclear missiles, what stops them from just nuking anyone who disagrees with them?
People do forget what it was like. Device battery life was way shorter and the manufacturer was incentivized to keep it that way because it sold more batteries.
Devices all had proprietary batteries. If I had 3 devices on me, I was carrying 3x extra batteries, one+ per device. My Nikon D1H required 5 huge proprietary batteries to cover a day of shooting sports. Plus a battery for my BlackBerry, plus batteries for my headlamp.
Devices were not waterproof except for a few expensive, complicated options. Upsell! My Canon waterproof camera came with a tube of silicon I had to dab on the battery compartment gasket every few times I charged it.
Today devices are lighter, more water resistant, and easier to charge in the field—just bring one power bank. And you often don’t have to power off or stop using the device while it’s charging.
This is not just a phone thing, even headlamps are moving toward a built-in battery for all the reasons above.
Or device battery life was shorter because we hadn't developed better battery technology or better power management
You talk about the misaligned incentives of replaceable batteries but fail to point out the incentive built-in batteries: need to replace a battery, buy a whole new device.
My points are about what it’s like current with removable batteries in cameras with current technology. Battery usage is dependant on usage to some extent. For casual use my cameras last weeks on a battery and even shooting all day e.g. in a studio, I would only get through one battery. Modern cameras also have usb-c charging and can be used whilst you do that, so that’s an option too, though less practical in my view. Yes, camera batteries are proprietary and it would be better if they weren’t, though they are generally the same across similar cameras from the manufacturer and the same in the successor cameras. Many mirrorless cameras are water resistant (with the right lenses) so the can be used in heavy rain, though not under water without a housing. Action cams like the GoPro 13 Black are waterproof with a removable battery.
My headlamp is waterproof and it has a replaceable 18650 battery without needing to dab silicon(e?) on it. It is also rechargeable over USB type-c so I have both the option to replace the physical battery or plug it in to charge that battery.
> My Canon waterproof camera came with a tube of silicon I had to dab on the battery compartment gasket
And those devices are MORE water resistant than most phones. The grease is to improve ingress protection beyond what's possible with double sided tapes used in "waterproof" phones. And the manuals for that gear should mention a retention period of x hours under y depth counting down from the moment the housing was closed.
Contrast to that, waterproof ratings for most glued-shut waterproof phones are invalid after purchase. Out of package, out of spec. Most manufacturers don't honor warranties for water damages for waterproof phone, and very few offer requisite gasket maintenance to retain waterproof ratings.
Apple doesn't have a recertification option even for battery replacement at Apple Store. Do ANY service and it's invalid. Not waterproof even in THEIR hands. Frankly their terms is one of the most egregious.
Headlamps for sensitive applications will ALWAYS involve a replaceable or external battery. Can't have your light going out when you are in a dangerous situation. When I used to rock climb, I always kept 3x AAA's taped to the strap in case the one I had in died. Never needed to use them, but made me much more confortable.
A lithium ion headlamp plus power bank does the same thing for the same weight and more flexibility. You can also charge phone, InReach, cameras. You can decide what is most important use of power. That’s the standard these days.
Another approach is to bring 2 charged headlamps. Again, same weight as an old headlamp + 3AAAs. But covers additional failures like breaking or dropping.
I know this is a joke. But when I was at Vanguard, something like 95-99% of our users literally just logged on, checked their balance and logged off. A decent percentage of the user base does that every day. So only a few percentage a day actually made a trade or anything else. I always found it pretty odd before I realized I only make a trade 1 or 2% of the time.
I'm one of those users! I make a trade at Vanguard maybe every other month! I have another brokerage account I use for more active trading. My Vanguard account isn't "for" that, and the UI is so bad it kind of discourages it.
This is the same way I treat my 401k platform too. I never touch it and only log in to check a balance a few times a year. I opened a RobinHood acct for my own lil side pot and projects that I actively buy/sell on.
Decades ago, I worked with my uncle in a family shop. Every single day, he sent me to the bank to ask for the balance. Then, they innovated: a person at the bank finally started giving him the balance over the phone.
I do weigh myself every day. But I only check Vanguard every week or so. I alkmost never actually do anything other than look, my investment style for my IRAs & 401k is "invest like a dead man" aka no touch.
> But when I was at Vanguard, something like 95-99% of our users literally just logged on, checked their balance and logged off. A decent percentage of the user base does that every day. So only a few percentage a day actually made a trade or anything else.
Most people just want to keep tabs on how that petulant orange manchild is wrecking their portfolio with his disgusting market manipulation antics.
"Should I use a 3.5% or a 4% safe withdrawal rate? My house is paid off and I got a company pension, two dogs and a partner. Cars are paid off but our iPhones are on a payment plan till 2028. Net worth around $2.5 billion but highly concentrated in one company"
> Should I use a 3.5% or a 4% safe withdrawal rate?
Well...
> My house is paid off and I got a company pension, two dogs and a partner.
Kids? What are you planning for your estate after you croak? You can do a little better than 4% with an lifetime joint annuity for you and your partner, so long as you don't care about leaving anything to family...
> You can do a little better than 4% with an lifetime joint annuity for you and your partner, so long as you don't care about leaving anything to family...
"How are you spending your retirement with all that free time?"
> Also, going over his past statements as recent as during this year, it seems like he didn’t want to leave his CEO position, so he got forced out?
I bet that was just good message management. The steadiest approach to a CEO transition is to make it seem a long way off until the moment it happens. Markets don’t like any wobbling at the top.
This essentially is where the schism is between science and philosophy, and has played out repeatedly across history. Heat for example was redefined to a specific physical property, and subjective experiences of warmth were then explored in reference to that. Or look back to the moment when Newton essentially said “I don’t know what gravity is, but I can accurately calculate any ballistic trajectory you can think of.”
reply