My need for this new iPhone is driven by my declining vision. Twenty years ago, I had no problem with my first iPhone. Five years ago, I started to get acquainted with some of the visual accommodation measures in iOS. I do still use my (physically larger than I would like) iPhone 16 Pro Max, which I bought for the biggest screen.
I'd love to do my stuff on my laptop or desktop, but smartphones are de facto The Computer these days. So I'll probably buy an iPhone Duo after I sell a kidney for financing.
All that said, today's Apple presentation left me gobsmacked at the technology they've developed. I was born before civilian jet transports were in service, with all that implies for a long personal view of tech dev. The tech feels to me like a cut&paste from 2076.
And why should we all have to buy big ass phones because your vision is declining? Nobody argued big phones shouldn't exist, it's just small phones currently don't.
Tungsten is 1.0015 times denser than gold. A gold-coated tungsten ingot could be adjusted (tiny internal cavity) to have exactly the same mass as a solid gold ingot of the same volume.
I've no idea what checks are done to exclude such artifacts from gold storage. If somebody accepted them and stacked them in a reserve vault, they might go decades without discovery.
I guess it's not something to worry about. It's improbable, and even so, if everybody agrees on the value of undetected bogus W/Au ingots, makes no difference from the real thing.
We can do more than hope: Move the wall from the southern border to the eastern border (and probably embargo whatever oil rigs and space launch platforms are planned for places like Monterey Bay)
That way, we can get to keep our beaches, and continue to hire migrant labor from the rest of America to help during harvest season.
Yes, and the one thing I'd add is practice. And more practice.Take an occasional macro video so you can remember how that perfect joint felt when you did it.
Source: decades-old Lockheed certification for rework on Trident C4 & D5 SLBM G&C boards.
Any system that executes variation, selection, and inheritance will show evolution. We're seeing evolution, this time in agents, not biology.
Not saying the agents have their own consciousness, intent, or whatever anthropomorphic descriptor gets used for deflection. Just saying that people will (and no doubt are) crafting agents with defective instructions that will lead to regrettable unforeseen real world consequences. Also saying that other people will (and no doubt are) crafting malicious agents that will lead to predictable and unexpected real world catastrophic consequences.
To the extent we're dependent on reliable, aligned computation to maintain our civilization, to that extent we're in for real trouble.
Gradient descent and reinforcement learning algorithms don't really look much like evolution, unless you squint so hard that everything does (ie, squinted so hard that you've closed your eyes).
I scan and bag while I shop, so self-checkout is just paying. It's barely a shift of work from cashier to me, because I have to pick things up and place them in my bag/basket/trolley anyway, scanning them as I do is barely an increase in work.
You describe mobile handheld scanners that are a form of self-checkout in some stores, but not the norm. Most of the commenters here probably associate self-checkout with a station with touchscreen, scanner and bagging area.
I only use the mobile handheld scanner version. If someone has to go through all my items and scan them at the terminal, it's not going to be me; store clerks can do that much faster than I can.
Not all machines lead to increase in the standard of living, and many things that would improve the standard of living are not done. At some point the argument you have made becomes irrelevant and cliched.
It was implied. Why else would you use that argument in responding to ridgeguy's comment about using human-run checkout lines? What machines would you point to as making the world worse?
In any case, since it bothers you so, you explained the situation yourself: "The self-checkout is there because it is cheaper than a cashier."
It's an error to equate "cheaper" to "increase in standard of living" because the people benefiting from the reduction in cost are usually not the entirety of the community, and it's unfortunate that someone of your caliber accepts such lazy thinking.
Over the last twenty years, automation has increased but the standard of living has gotten worse.
You both miss the crux of the argument, i think. It would be more precise to say that physical machines raise the standard of living that we measure, but abstract machines reduce that which we don't measure. (Viz, finance.)
Compared to a generation ago, we can stuff more crap in our pockets and wardrobes, but housing is precarious and public institutions are weaker. Good luck supporting a family on a bottom-quartile wage.
Sometime in the mid-90s, after I'd read M&C and the two following books, I heard Patrick O’Brian interviewed on the radio as I was driving to work in Sunnyvale. The interview included about 20 minutes of his reading from M&C.
After listening to him read for about 30 seconds, I pulled onto the shoulder of 101 around Ames lab, shut down my car and just listened to him. I'd never before heard someone give voice to the English language in what sounded to me as such a profoundly perfect form. I remember thinking that I'd love to have heard him read Shakespeare.
I appreciate the post. I had no idea he was such a flawed person, and it's illuminating to learn that. But it doesn't affect my happy memory of hearing my native tongue (if I may claim that, even though I'm American) employed with such superlative skill.
Maybe I should look into training an AI in the audio style of Patrick O’Brian and have it read Shakespeare for me.
Such an abrupt, visceral sense of revulsion after an otherwise pleasant anecdote. Like finding a used band-aid at the bottom of your plate of comfy stew.
Gasoline doesn't do that. Perhaps you're thinking of the following?
What it does do is slowly polymerize, becoming useless as an ICE fuel in time, typically in a year or two. This is why backup generators should run on propane, which has no degradation mechanism.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when an AI-piloted F-16 flies for real against a human-piloted one. IIRC, the F-16 maximum maneuvering G-load is 9.5G, LBA (limited by airframe). Maybe that's the meatbag limit, not the airframe - possible to crank it up a bit? Certainly the various CCAs in current flight test will take much higher G loads.
Several years ago, DoD flew an AI against a human in a simulation. In basic fighter maneuvers (no BVR stuff like missiles, just a merge and fur ball), the AI killed the human - always. So G-limits may not matter. Pretty interesting.
What Apple is doing in Rewind is as legal as if you were to take a contemporary transcript of a conversation. That's not illegal.
It's legal even if you're a skilled shorthand transcriber and get every word. That's Rewind, if I've understood it correctly.
reply