Maybe the average technologist, but for anyone who understands Apple's culture and history, your claim is not just inaccurate, but opposite of the truth.
Steve Jobs addressed this exact point during a 2011 keynote [0]:
> It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.
Blocking out the sound and sights of real life with something digital is not what I call a thoughtful commitment to the human experience.
Hardly anyone seems to remember how the iPhone used to be small enough to fit in one hand or in any pocket. As people became increasingly addicted to phones to the point of having them outside the pocket more often than not, bigger phones made more desirable, but Steve Jobs insisted on keeping it small. He said nobody wanted a big phone, but since it was obvious users did want it, I'm wondering if there was another reason. He died, then a few years afterwards, Apple released the larger iPhone 6.
I should rephrase: introduced to Montana. When there were no wolves in Montana, there was no waiting disease in the local deer, moose, and elk population; at least not enough to matter. Now many hunters wont touch meat with their bare skin until it has been tested.
It's simply false that wasting disease "requires wolves" to propagate. This has been known and studied for many years [0][1]. It's been a large problem here in Colorado for decades despite no wolf population (up until the last few months).
If you would like to learn more, I'd encourage you to read Colorado Parks & Wildlife's management report [2] which includes a lot of good sources and background about its history, epidemiology, and current mitigation plans.
I just read a hypothesis from an anthropologist suggesting that the reason California’s indigenous tribes did not practice agriculture like eastern tribes, was due to the abundance of food they could forage year around. Oaks providing a significant part of their diet (which are plentiful in Mendocino) but also other nuts, berries, and tubers found throughout California.
So relative to our modern diet, maybe your point holds, but the California Floristic Province has plenty of plants to sustain humans. IIRC, the indigenous population density was some of the highest in the world.
That's also my understanding. I do wonder if that's a bit of a misunderstanding about not practicing agriculture, though. They did practice forest management with intentional burns. I'm pretty interested in traditional English forest management, and reducing brush and decreasing canopy increased the amount of forest "products" available to people, from building materials (basketry, hut materials, etc) to increased yields from under story vegetation.
It's a bit of a digression, but it's a subject I find interesting and rarely pops up in hacker news. :)
I thought a lot of that is acorns (that need a lot of preparation) and fish, not so much random food growing around the redwoods you could just pick and eat?
(Lived in the area for a long time, but not an expert at all). Did the anthropologist provide any details? I'd love to read their work
The Dawn of Everything has an interesting take on this - they didn't practice agriculture because they wanted to differentiate themselves from other cultures in the area.
This resembling that scene from The Social Network in which Zuckerberg rolls in to a meeting (with Sequoia) late, in pajamas, and tells the VCs to get bent is pretty ironic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque