Do you believe that humans improving themselves or their society through technological advancement is always a good thing? Or do you think that glasses are a good technological advancement, but maybe nuclear weapons or a theoretical totalitarian AI-ran government are not good advancements in technology?
> Do you believe that ... improving ... is always a good thing?
"Improving" is good by definition. Otherwise it would be called something else. The questions become what you personally consider to be improvement and what scales and scopes you personally choose to consider when determining whether a change improves things.
I don’t think you fundamentally understand what makes a transhumanist. The differentiating line is not improve vs harm. Everyone wants to improve life with tech save maybe the Amish. It’s human vs not. A transhumanist is willing to entertain technology that enhances (carefully chosen term) some conscious experience even if it replaces our humanity. Others generally don’t take that stance axiomatically. A transhumanist would support replacing our dna with nanobots programmed to do things that keep a body alive if it means we can reduce the replication error rate and avoid cancer. Good outcome, dubious means. A transhumanist wouldn’t debate this and accept the nanobot outcome. Most others would at least debate this tech, even if we ultimately collectively come to the shared conclusion we can humanely replace parts of our DNA to cure cancer. The point is the transhumanist wouldn’t care about retaining our humanity, as evolving into “machines” is an acceptable outcome.
Then we need a moral belief system to determine what improvement is and isn’t. This will eventually lead to a codified set of beliefs that look a lot like religion. And I don’t really like most of the moral statements I’ve heard from self proclaimed transhumanists. That’s why I’m not a one of them, even though I wear glasses.
I don’t think this is accurate at all. Transhumanism is a pretty clearly defined group with specific moral beliefs that not everyone agrees with. It’s like saying if you’ve ever forgiven someone when they did something bad to you, you’re a Christian.
Then unfortunately the internet will remain a luxury for people who aren’t able to afford the cost. The internet is a product, not a charity or human right.
Internet access is already expensive and not available in some places. What kind of cost do you think browser will have 10usd/month subscription? Also there can be free versions of it anyway, google doesn’t have to be the company that does it
My parents used to live in a city where violence and crime was common, and I received all sorts of lessons from them about how I shouldn’t go outside, don’t talk to strangers, always be guarded, etc. But my family had moved to a quiet, crime-free suburb and everything they told me seemed like the complete opposite of what I was experiencing in reality when growing up.
I tried using Apple News+ for a month free trial and ended up cancelling it after trying my hardest to find a use for it for a few weeks. It really does seem like something designed by a bunch of out of touch media people and not anything like a service from Apple.
What I want from a good news service are Ad-free, bias-free articles on things that are current, things that are close to my local area, and things that are of interest to me.
What I found out was that because I don't live in a major city, there was exactly one local news outlet that was available, and no topic category for my area, which is not a small place at all. There were still advertisements for things like hair loss products and other 'yuck-bait' reminiscent of the early 2000s (I think these might come from the article publishers themselves?). Then there's stuff like puzzles, sports, and now food that all seem like complete distractions. Puzzles are not news, Apple already has Apple Arcade for this.
I would find it interesting if Apple created a Recipes app. It's a popular topic, many app developers have put their own spin on the idea, but no one has made the 'perfect app' for it yet. But that isn't what this is at all. It's yet another 'perk' that has nothing to do with the problems of Apple News.
Now I'm using a combination of RSS Feeds and asking ChatGPT the news on specific topics, both of which are superior products to Apple News. I do still like their daily podcast though.
This is so true. The content were plain weird for me. Celebrity gossip and click bait stuff. I used it one day and forgot to even check in the next day. Uninstalled after a week.
GDP is just more people spending more money for more expensive things. It's kind of a failed metric for economic productivity unless you think an $8 Big Mac is twice as productive to the economy than a $4 Big Mac.
> unless you think an $8 Big Mac is twice as productive to the economy than a $4 Big Mac.
It literally straightforwardly is. It provides the same number of calories, to a worker who is twice as productive in the $8-per-big-Mac city as the $4-per-Big-Mac city. Differences in per-capita productivity between supercities and hinterlands are vast.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make with your source. A relatively new company in the Japanese market (BYD) has increased sales in its specialized niche of EVs, beating out a minor competitor that sells only one model of EV as an option to it's brand loyal customers (Toyota, BZ4X). Meanwhile, the EV market as a whole has declined significantly in Japan over the last year.
If both China and the US were a free market that didn't subsidize electric car production and construction, neither country would have any electric car manufacturers.
I mean, I suppose it comes down to "define free market". No market is entirely free, but it's totally conceivable that you could have a non-protectionist market which still subsidises market segments seen as desirable. That is generally ~how the US and EU markets writ large have worked for the past few decades, say (though cars are a bit of a special case, and the US in particular has always been quite keen on protectionism there.)
You are pretty much correct. There is a ton of partisan vitriol that is currently obscuring the facts. My understanding is that Elon Musk is an advisor to the president, but not a government employee. Musk and his crew are given authority to do pretty much whatever they want in terms of cutting employees and programs, so long as Trump signs off on it. Is it legal? Probably, but nothing like this has ever been done before. You can very easily see it as private citizens with no official government power taking away power from more legitimate government employees.
