> and there is no way they could monitor conversations in the car for commercial purposes (at least in Western countries).
Why not? You can consent to having your audio recorded. They can even offer a higher “private” price and a lower “ad supported” price. I write “private” because I assume the microphones will always be listening no matter which price you pay.
I guess that's semantics. If you opt in then yes I guess they could do anything. I think the point was that enshitification would occur if they forced you to do that.
You could opt in to have blood or plasma taken on every ride if you so wanted I guess.
As a plasma donor you can earn $30-$70 per session for 800 ml. Let's call it $50. A session takes about 90 minutes, or 533 ml/hour, and you make $33/hour
Waymo charges $0.50 - $1.00 per mile. Let's use the high end.
To break even, your Waymo will need to consume < $33/hour, or < 33 mph. That's not bad!
If you go any faster, you won't be able to extract enough plasma in the same amount of time.
The US doesn't have to. Rybelsus already costs less than a thousand dollars per month, some of which is offset by reduced spending on groceries/restaurants/coffee/alcohol.
This is the even more effective pill that is about to hit the market:
>LLilly recently announced an agreement with the U.S. government to expand access to its obesity medicines and reduce patient costs. Upon FDA approval, self-pay patients living with obesity will be able to access orforglipron through LillyDirect's self-pay pharmacy channel with the lowest dose starting at $149 with additional doses up to $399.
Those numbers are extremely expensive for people on a fixed income (Medicare patients) and the people who are must vulnerable to the shitty US food system (Medicaid). It needs to be free.
>That 5 years difference between men and women keeps being biologically weird
The implication is that the "biological" expectation would be that men and women have the same life expectancy, absent medical intervention and societal standards and whatnot.
But it is possible that, due to having different biologies, men and women simply have different life expectancies. Similar to how men and women have different muscle mass and bone densities and height and yada yada.
Obviously, external factors could also be a factor, but my point is "internal" factors are also in play.
Ironically, the above link is a good discussion on biological differences in morbidity, which was the parent comment’s point, and not what I was trying to show.
I'm ignorant on the matter, but "vastly" seems a bit too much, given that a good chunk of medicine applies to both.
They are different, no doubt, but not the difference between a human and a crab.
5 years life expectancy difference is a lot. As a man, it is frustrating and I want to make sure I get the most out of my life (which I enjoy)
"A lot" is arbitrary, as would be the expectation that men and women would have the same longevity (absent medical intervention).
It seems evident that the taller you are, the less life expectancy you have from the simple fact that the heart has to work harder.
Hence, since men are usually taller than women, it might also be expected for men to die younger.
I am making the following scenario up, but what if a difference in men and women's bodies causes men to process cholesterol differently, and increases the probability of atherosclerosis and/or arteriosclerosis. Perhaps it happens simply because men eat more than women, and this compounds over decades of life, eventually resulting in the difference in average age at death.
Yeah, I personally believe women's longer lifespan mostly stems from a lower caloric intake. Studies have long suggested that reducing caloric intake can be one of the best things you can do for health and extending lifespan. And this has been shown true across many species including: yeast, worms, flies, mice, monkeys, fish, and others.
We also observe that larger animals tend to live longer than smaller animals, but intra-species it tends to be the opposite (e.g. small dogs tend to live slightly longer than large dogs). It also makes some sense biologically speaking, as we now know that most genetic mutations and errors happen during cellular reproduction when DNA is copied, and cellular reproduction rates correlate with nutrient uptake, alongside mutations with age.
Of course too much caloric restriction can be detrimental, but seems to me this could explain much of the difference in life expectancy between men and women. That and perhaps the genetic advantages from having two X chromosomes.
> What this means is that people need to work to keep up, and that asset prices will continue to go up as people try to protect their wealth from inflation.
Poorer people and younger people need to work. People with assets and benefactors can rest easy.
Now.. that is not accurate at all. Some people simply respond differently do different stimuli. And those do change with age and experience. It is not a bad idea.
its hard to argue a point where your autonomy trumps, the very thing giving you a salary. We freedom are you really expecting from an employment such as this. You are working for a big tech that is in the midst of layoffs and scrutiny from all angles. One being there is massive competition that at the sightless mishaps will give an advantage to your competitor and that all starts at the bottom meaning hierarchy. Don't expect shame from these companies either. That is ship sailed along ago.
I'm sorry but there is no shame in our industry, where are people protesting at conferences calling out devs working on instruments of oppression? Why isn't anyone harassing the devs that take it as a badge of honor to work at companies that profit from human misery?
I sincerely mean this when I say thank you. Tech workers have pilfered the commons and ruined too many innocent lives to sit so high on their pedestal.
The argument was that people's collective judgment, given transparency, will result in good decisions.
But we see from the Nov 2024 elections (and others, but most glaringly that one), that that is, sadly, not true.
So the people rejecting Facebook because of Facebook's reputation tells you nothing about whether Facebook is bad, because the people could have just as easily been bad.
The problem is that many people liked what they saw. Reputation was still important, but there were different beliefs about what reputations were desirable.
You lost me with your example. What could the word center mean if the thing that all the other things orbit around in the solar system is not referred to as being in the center?
If all you care about is measurements/predictions relative to Earth, then it makes no sense to transform everything into Sol-centric frame, do the math there, and then untransform results back to Earth-centric frame.
Put another way, there's a reason we use latitude/longitude for terrestrial positioning, instead of Cartesian coordinates with Sol being at (0, 0, 0). For one, it keeps the math time-invariant.
You can do math from any position. If you're on a train you'll do a lot of calculations relative to your train. That doesn't mean things are actually orbiting your train. You would never declare to all of humanity that your train is the 'center' of everything.
They orbit the earth in a different shape that is more complex than an ellipse.
For further reading, I like Early Wittgenstein, but warning, he is a meme for a reason, you will only understand 10%...
Imagine we have a table with black and white splotches. We could use a square fishnet with a fine enough resolution to accurately describe it. But why use a square fishnet? Why not use hexagons? They both can accurately describe it with a fine enough resolution.
All of science is built on this first step of choosing (squares or hexagons).
Maybe something easier than Wittgenstein, there is Waltz Theory of International Politics, specifically chapter 1. But that is more practical/applied than metaphysical. I find this a difficult topic to recommend a wikipedia article, as they are too specific to each type of knowledge and don't explain the general topic. Even the general topic gets a bit lost in the weeds. Maybe Karl Popper too.
> They orbit the earth in a different shape that is more complex than an ellipse.
But they don't. We know they don't. Not unless you use a weird definition of orbit that is very different from the one lotsofpulp was using. And if you do that you're not countering their argument, you're misconstruing it.
We know they do. An orbit is a mathematical object, and elliptical orbits only exist in universes that have exactly two objects with mass in them. Add another object, even far away, and as far as we know[0] we no longer even have a closed-form description of resulting motion patterns.
And our universe has tons of matter with gravitational mass everywhere, few other types of interaction beyond gravity, and a vacuum that just doesn't want to stay empty.
--
[0] - Not sure if this was mathematically proven, or merely remains not disproven.
> Not unless you use a weird definition of orbit that is very different from the one lotsofpulp was using. And if you do that you're not countering their argument, you're misconstruing it.
All of science is like this. Change your frame of reference/theory. Why did we pick one system vs another? Its arbitrary.
Orbits are influenced by gravity and momentum and are always changing as the objects pull on each other and are pulled on. It only appears to be stable because the scale is so immense and our lives are so short in comparison.
> Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) shares more data on smartphone lifespan by brand. According to their research, people who use iPhones keep their devices longer: 61% of Apple smartphone users and 43% of Android users have owned their previous devices for two years or more.
>Notably, 29% of iPhone users held onto their phones for more than three years, compared to 21% of Android users. Additionally, CIRP found that over a third of iPhone buyers (both those who previously used iPhones and Androids) have owned their devices for over three years, while fewer than a third have owned them for less than two years.
Lots of people spend money on luxuries. Nails, leased cars, restaurants, etc. I am not seeing a measurable difference in the occurrence of people spending unnecessarily on phones vs other luxuries, such that Apple could be credited with an abnormal level of success.
Most people are using their devices as long as they can.
Why not? You can consent to having your audio recorded. They can even offer a higher “private” price and a lower “ad supported” price. I write “private” because I assume the microphones will always be listening no matter which price you pay.
reply