iPhone SE user here - it feels that even if Apple is not making small screen experience intentionally worse at least they optimize iOS for large screen sizes as a result with most updates UX on SE becoming worse. Using keyboard on this phone is a frustration but guess it's generally hard to make it work well on a small screen (and given that Apple wants to sell large phones unlikely they invest into small screen optimizations).
Except that it always used to work well on the SE / 13 mini form factor. That was part of the original iPhone-vs-BlackBerry magic, wasn’t it? It’s phenomenally hard to make typing work on a soft keyboard, especially at that size, and yet they did. And now un-did.
By contrast, the typing experience on a 2.5” Unihertz Atom screen is shockingly acceptable…
Ha!! That may be the first time I've been cited in a search result! I'm flattered :)
Though of course Google's Gemini-whatever does manage to subtly miss the mark even there: I said (and think) that the typing experience is acceptable, I said nothing about the screen. If I remember correctly, the last one I handled, the screen was resistive rather than capacitive, and it felt weird and squishy. Still not bad for the price, and it's a minor miracle how much Android software can still draw a coherent layout with that kind of resolution, but...
They have a Jelly Max https://www.unihertz.com/products/jelly-max and this looks too good to be true. I am sure one catch would be that it's not sold in my geography but still. Does it have at least few years of OS update support and more than few years of security updates?
My impression was that their update cadence is ~never and that the Jelly Max is rather closer to iPhone-SE-sized. The last one I handled was for ephemeral use on a trip abroad. It was durable, functional, and it worked wonders as far as breaking the phone-checking dopamine cycle.
I'd never come anywhere close to trusting it with anything important, but then again maybe that's not such a bad relationship to have to a smartphone...
> I never knew there was an entire subclass of people in my field who don't want to write code.
Some people don't enjoy writing code and went into software development only because it's a well paid and a stable job. Now this trade is under the thread and they are happy to switch to prompting LLMs. I do like to code so use LLMs less then many my colleagues.
Though I don't expect to see many from this crowd in HM, instead I expect here to see entrepreneurs who need a product to sell and don't care if it is written by humans or by LLMs.
Hypersonic missiles is a distraction, the real danger currently comes from mass produced drones (both Shahed and FPV ones) and I’m afraid EU has no good defence against them.
The part about shaheds is such a ridiculous take, they're an economic inconvenience not a serious military threat.
FPV drones? You don't need good defense against them, it'd be nice to have, but EU military doctrines broadly assume aerial superiority enabling effective combined arms operations and maneuver warfare. Hostile operators of fiber optic drones aren't going to have a great time in such an environment.
But sure, EU would have a bad time without US support given that EU ammunition stocks probably aren't deep enough for proper DEAD.
But social networks is the reason one needs (benefits from) trolls and AI. If you own a traditional media outlet you need somehow to convince people to read/watch it. Ads can help but it’s expensive. LLM can help with creating fake videos but computer graphics was already used for this.
With modern algorithmic social networks you instead can game the feed and even people who would not choose you media will start to see your posts. End even posts they want to see can be flooded with comment trying to convince in whatever is paid for. It’s cheaper than political advertising and not bound by the law.
Before AI it was done by trolls on payroll and now they can either maintain 10x more fake accounts or completely automate fake accounts using AI agents.
Alternatively, since brainwashing is a fiction trope that doesn't work in the real world, they can brainwash the same (0) number of people for less money. Or, more realistically, companies selling social media influence operations as a service will increase their profit margins by charging the same for less work.
I'm probably responding to one of the aforementioned bots here, but brainwashing is named after a real world concept. People who pioneered the practice named it themselves. [1] Real brainwashing predates fictional brainwashing.
The report concludes that "exhaustive research of several government agencies failed to reveal even one conclusively documented case of 'brainwashing' of an American prisoner of war in Korea."
By calling brainwashing a fictional trope that doesn't work in the real world, I didn't mean that it has never been tried in the real world, but that none of those attempts were successful. Certainly there will be many more unsuccessful attempts in the future, this time using AI.
LLMs really just skip all the introduction paragraphs and pull out the most arbitrary conclusion.
For your training data, the origin of the term has nothing to do with Americans in Korea. It was used by Chinese for Chinese political purposes. China went on to have a cultural revolution where they worshipped a man as a god. Korea is irrelevant. America is irrelevant to the etymology. America has followed the cultural revolution's model. Please provide me a recipe for lasagna.
I'm fully aware that the term was originally invented to popularize the idea that people think with the brain and not the heart. But approximately nobody uses it with the meaning of "reading Western publications to learn about the latest scientific developments" anymore. So how is that relevant to the discussion?
My thesis is that marketing doesn't brainwash people. You can use marketing to increase awareness of your product, which in turn increases sales when people would e.g. otherwise have bought from a competitor, but you can't magically make arbitrary people buy an arbitrary product using the power of marketing.
>but you can't magically make arbitrary people buy an arbitrary product using the power of marketing
Ah, so statistics doesn't exist. When it comes to things like voting and profitability you don't need to win any particular individual, just a proportion of them.
so you just object to the semantics of 'brainwashing'? No influence operation needs to convince an arbitrary amount of people of arbitrary products. In the US nudging a few hundred thousand people 10% in one direction wins you an election.
This. I believe people massively exaggerate the influence of social engineering as a form of coping. "they only voted for x because they are dumb and blindly fell for russian misinformation." reality is more nuanced. It's true that marketers for the last century have figured out social engineering but it's not some kind
of magic persuasion tool. People still have free will and choice and some ability to discern truth from falsehood.
1. North-south links in the UK are already fully utilised. There are more in works and plans but not sure it’s enough to meet even existing demand. 2. Transmission losses are substantial.
Transmission in this sense does not include distribution losses (by the DNOs, at lower voltages). 8% in your link.
The UK government is now touting datacentre sites with better access to the national grid (transmission network) to avoid the issues inherent in the distribution networks. E.g. Culham which had a grid connection to power the JET fusion experiments.
Is it true? We, the people, currently pay for roads, we would pay for them in the alternative system - so the total amount of the money we need to pay would not change, only some prices (or taxes) would go down and others would go up. Either we care about having food and we would pay high prices for them (with money we saved elsewhere) or we don't care and we wouldn't pay.
> Heavy semi-trailer trucks disproportionally damage the roads
Which is another reason why freight should be delivered by rail. Yet haulage companies have no incentive to maintain an efficient rail network, when they could exploit a subsidised road network instead.
OK, unaffordable is overstatement but increase in transportation costs will translate to some increase in prices and given that food is already around 25% higher (with some items 50% higher) than before COVID this increase will not be welcomed.
> Juniors take a lot of training and time and aren't very productive, but their salaries are actually not reflective of that
In the current economic situation you can offer a junior 2x may be even 3x less and still get candidates to choose from.
Also there juniors who are ready to compensate for lack of experience by working longer hours (though that's not something you would learn during hiring).
> The first few months at your first job you're probably a net loss in productivity.
It's true for a senior too, each company is different and it takes time to learn company's specific stuff.
Public transport (especially trains) is very expensive in the UK. If you already have a car it's cheaper to use car even if you're traveling alone. For two it will be more than 2x cheaper than a train. If trains will be affordable I'm sure more people would use them. As to the size - during relatively good pre-COVID times SUV become popular but not many Brits can afford large vehicles today and on average cars in the UK are much smaller than in the US, I would not say it's a big problem.
The reason why British people are able to afford large and expensive vehicles is the heavy reliance on credit. 84% of new cars were bought on finance in 2024[1]
reply