Most TV commercials are using 30-year-old songs. Add to that streaming series (think Stranger Things), movies, public spaces, internet radio, actual radio, and hundreds of other licensing opportunities await.
Immediate distrust of the article… The author might be parroting company marketing, unable to discern that a lot of this is much less complex than it seems.
> I am based in The Times’s Washington bureau, and much of my focus is on the dealings of U.S. cybersecurity and intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their counterparts abroad, chiefly in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
> My remit spans nation-state hacking conflict, digital espionage, online influence operations, election meddling, government surveillance, malicious use of A.I. tools and other related topics.
> Before joining The Times, I worked at The Wall Street Journal, where I spent eight years covering cyber conflict and intelligence. My recent work at The Journal included a series of articles revealing a major Chinese intrusion of America’s telecommunications networks that breached the F.B.I.’s wiretap systems and has been described as one of the worst U.S. counterintelligence failures in history. I have also worked at Reuters and National Journal, where I began my career in Washington chronicling congressional efforts to reform surveillance practices at the N.S.A. in the wake of the 2013 Edward Snowden disclosures.
> My work has been internationally recognized, including by the White House Correspondents’ Association, the Gerald Loeb Awards, the Society of Publishers in Asia and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing.
nytimes reporters have recently been very disappoiting and starting to feel like they're people who managed to become relevant long time ago, but haven't kept up with recent changes and are just parroting things others have said instead of unique thoughts.
OP posited that the author didn't know what he's talking about. I pointed out that the author has far more knowledge and experience in the field than rando internet griefers on HN who immediately reach for "shoot the messenger" when they read something that doesn't neatly fit into their pre-conceived worldview, instead of perhaps learning things from other people.
But at least your trope acknowledges that he's an authority on the subject.
Lack of imagination doesn't mean this isn't innovation.
It's the ability to convey more information in less space.
Top-of-my-head notion: The cursor spins (or changes in another way) to reflect CPU use, or bandwidth use, instead of taking up space elsewhere on the screen.
The same was said about Compiz, but it turned out to be a passing gimmick that looked flashy but didn’t really add anything. Sure you could always make up reasons why it’s useful, I remember the same about Compiz, but… is it really? I could be proven wrong, of course, but it hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
It’s a solution in search of a problem. OP should have presented it with a real use case or benefit, not just flashy graphics, if it’s meant to be anything other than a fun oddity (which, to be fair, is perfectly fine).
Imagine donating all your money to charity too, do you do that? The thing about comparing spending is that there is always more one can spend, and there is always more one can give away.
Sure. And there is always a better way to spend seventy-six thousand dollars. I suggested what I consider to be a better way. If you think carefully about it, you might even agree.
To be clear, I am claiming that it is objectively better to spend a vast amount of money on charity rather than on a suit. I am not "dictating" anything, I am stating an opinion.
I was also thinking this, but I think shaming people for spending money the way they want is counterproductive. Same as with veganism, claiming the moral high ground (even implicitly) can be very galling, even to people who would otherwise agree. I think it's cool if people want to spend their money to help others. If they want to spend it on a nice suit instead, it's not my cup of tea but there are much more harmful ways to spend it.
So $76,100 for a suit and a calculator. Imagine how many lives could be changed if that cash were used to, say, install toilets in rural India.
Elon Musk could, quite literally, feed the world with his net worth. But he chooses not to. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't what it's like to own a $75,000 suit, but I do know the tailor.
If you want to walk your talk, sell the computer you're using right now and give the money to the poor. Then surf HN from the public library.
You're not the only one. There are millions of people out there who have no appreciation for art, craft, skill, quality, or finesse.
They're very base people who go through life seeing only price tags, and tallying worth only in dollar figures. They act like life is a video game and money is the score.
It's a shallow life, devoid of the appreciation of all the wonderful things available, and in my estimation, barely living. It's just existing as a robot does.
Why spend vacation in Fiji when there are sunsets in Fresno, too?
I do think the mention of consumerism is apt. In my own encounters with those that seem to take pride in their inability to distinguish certain nuances, it does come off as a mental block borne of not wanting to feel like they are missing out on expensive things.
I think it cuts both ways though — there are those who will exaggerate or outright fabricate subtle differences in order to justify their expensive purchases, and also those that will deny real differences because they think everyone is just doing the first thing.
One can also look at distinguishing what is important to what is unimportant to a particular person. Personally, I look towards functionality over aesthetics. That isn't to say that I will completely disregard aesthetics, but I have certainly gone with those black bricks called ThinkPads over MacBooks in the past.
You are right about it cutting both ways though. I remember laptop shopping with a colleague in the past. They were trying to replace a barely functional laptop that they purchased because of its "design" with something they could get work done on. Unfortunately, they refused to acknowledge that functionality is an element of design. The whole experience was one of frustration.
This calculator appears to fit into a similar category. I'm sure it is a perfectly fine calculator, functionally speaking, if you are performing basic financial calculations. It isn't going to cut it if your working outside of that domain. When you consider that a calculator that is a tenth (or even a hundredth) of the price is going to offer a similar experience, I'm not even sure I would regard the nuances in its design a good thing. Yes, it says something about it's owner. I'm just not sure it says the right thing.
Yeah, frankly I'd have more money and be happier when watching a lot of movies if I couldn't tell the difference between OLED black levels and projector/LCD ones.
I didn't ask for it and I don't want it, hah.
I feel no need to convince others that they should try to find the difference.
I'm happy that, say, cheap wine doesn't give me the same mental-twitch.
But I should add (contrary to the rebuttal my provocative take attracted) that I am in fact very finely tuned to esthetics. As a photographer I'm obsessed with getting everything right (composition, light, texture, color, details) and routinely delete everything that doesn't make the cut.
It just seems obvious to me that in consumer products, most of the differences are pretty small in substantive terms. Big economic interests are at stake in amplifying them, and conjuring up demand through marketing, and generally manipulating us.
The example I had in mind was actually audio equipment. Like, clearly the high end stuff gets into diminishing returns to a point somewhere between absurdity and mysticism. But I’ve also had a friend that was completely convinced that vinyl sounds the same as spotify, and that anyone who thought otherwise was just a pretentious poseur.
> But I’ve also had a friend that was completely convinced that vinyl sounds the same as spotify, and that anyone who thought otherwise was just a pretentious poseur.
This is a great example because the ambiguity could go either way (e.g. spotify lossless FLAC vs vinyl will set off picky people on each side).
Sometimes different is just different, and each will be better to some.
Years ago I looked into this when ripping some CDs, because the question has of course been tested under controlled conditions. From memory, the general finding is that most people are incapable of distinguishing audio quality over 128kbps, and even self-declared audiophiles have trouble at 256. So I picked 192.
I have almost exactly the opposite reaction. By not caring so much about the minute details of physical things, or having the very best croissants or whatever, frees you up to enjoy anything or focus on interactions with people, ideas, anything else.
Being able to enjoy/tolerate a cup of coffee from my cheap machine at home saves me €2 and 30 minutes of my day. I’m happy that I am not a connoisseur.
And what’s wrong with that? You’re rarely or never disappointed while enjoying most things. I’d say it results in a life well lived rather than nitpicking every single little detail.
And that blissful ignorance is the upside! But I would say it is a life not well lived; a life without contemplation, with appreciation of only that which is superficial and accessible.
We're beginning to go round in circles here, but I'll just rhetorically ask: does contemplation and appreciation of, say, art or poetry or nature, count in order to "live a life well", or must it be only consumer goods?
You didn't have to give them an ID because they knew exactly where the phone was going.
I had my first phone installed back when you had to walk down to the phone company office and sit at a desk and fill out a form. Then a week later, a guy showed up at your home and put the wires in.
When I had my second line installed, it was after the Bell breakup, but again they didn't ask for ID, but I had to give them a $50 deposit to be used against phone rental and per-minute service.
At least in my country (Poland) you should be able to make a pretty bug fuss and resulting in them fixing it, if indeed one of ego services made you leak all your data to Google.
The other problem with this is that there are few CAPTCHA alternatives.
CF turnstile is one, but of course that means Cloudflare owns even more of the web.
HCaptcha is inaccessible and actively discriminatory against individuals with disabilities and refuses to change, to the point that I suspect the only way that they will do anything is to file a class-action against them and sue them into the ground.
And I... Can't think of anything else. Other than to just get rid of Captchas entirely.
You could just have a custom one that asks domain-specific questions (and ones which will trip up LLMs are not hard to come by.) I've seen a few forums ask such questions for registration, long before the rise of LLMs.
There are other captcha alternatives like Turnstile, for example Private Captcha, Altcha etc. - they are owned by mostly “small” independent companies, they are not visual captchas (proof-of-work based) and very accesssible.
Compliance is what makes all that shit possible. Sadly most people are compliant and made so by gradually increasing their dependency on "commodities" which really are anchors to a shit lake.
Suddenly I have been made aware that, having lost my paddle on Shit Creek, I will eventually be taken downstream to Shit Lake (where it appears I will inevitably drop anchor).
Oh just wait, the AI phone service on their side will be more than happy to complete your device attestation key challenge by touch tone. We have to make sure you are still you after all!
But in all seriousness, many services are making it difficult through to impossible to communicate outside of their web or app platforms. Call centres are expensive and messy, and it's now apparently acceptable as a society to treat customers/clients/whatever as adversaries so they can get away with making it hard to communicate with them.
I was unable to book a doctors meeting through the clinic's website, so I declared "screw tech" and called their call center, which still worked better. The app just searched for the "first available spot" and never found anything. If they axe the call center I'm going to have to go to their place.
> Are you comfortable with anybody being able to ring up the hospital and say "yo, it's majorchord, how are my gonnorhea results?"
No, that's why we have safety protocols in place. When you call a doctor they ask you for your birthdate or sometimes also a PIN/password on your account to protect your data.
How would that still be considered a breach of privacy?
Alright. I didn't know that. "Just call them" did not sound like it included any kind of authentication procedure.
But giving birthdate (available to anyone via a single query in a public database) and (sometimes?! - what?!) PIN over the phone wouldn't really be considered good enough here. Birthdate is, as I said, public knowledge. And a phone is too insecure a medium for transmitting a password.
I'm not super interested in an long argument about whether it's reasonable that this isn't considered secure or not. I'm just letting you know what reality looks like. And the reality is that "just call them" is not a solution, because such information will simply not be handed out over the phone.
Kimmel does the Trump-Epstein Files (TM), but as we've been repeatedly told, he's not funny and has abysmal ratings and should be fired. He's so bad, he's put his entire parent company's broadcast license up for review. You realize how bad you must be for that to happen?
I'd agree with your ranking while putting Fallon below Kimmel. It is funny to watch each of their stand up routines on YT the next day to compare how often they all have very similar jokes. They, along with John Oliver, like to do supercuts of things where everyone is reading the same script, yet I've never seen them do the same thing to themselves. The only thing different is they are not reading the same script. Sometimes, the jokes literally write themselves and not a coordinated effort.
Streaming music is only the tip of the iceberg.
Most TV commercials are using 30-year-old songs. Add to that streaming series (think Stranger Things), movies, public spaces, internet radio, actual radio, and hundreds of other licensing opportunities await.
reply