I have a Pixel 7 and live it, but I'll also say Moto phones imh are the most underrated phones on the market. Such a solid user experience for a relatively low price point.
I think you're spot on. Admittedly, I can't see Apple's downfall either, but that's largely because they're so dominant in the right-now. But history is littered with examples of huge companies that fail to adapt just like Kodak: Pan Am Airlines, Blockbuster Video to name a couple. These were giants in their field and have vanished. What often happens with companies like this is some other disruption occurs that undermines what made the incumbent special - in the case of Pan Am, it was Southwest, who innovated the customer experience and cost to fly rather than the focusing on flight tech itself; they did this by capitalizing on the deregulation of airlines; in the case of Blockbuster, well, we all know what happened there. I think the underlying root cause of the failure is when companies get large enough, they become too risk averse partly resulting from corporate inertia.
The one thing that Steve Jobs did well was recognize when adaptation was necessary. I'm not so confident that the bean-counter Tim Cook has that same ability and vision. Apple has to be careful. Personally, for all of Google's faults I've long preferred Android phones. They're not "open", but they're *more* open than Apple's walled garden.
Not being an iPhone user, could one just not jailbreak their phone, or is that not really an option anymore with newer iPhones?
I'm pretty sure it was you that had the thought experiment on WBD podcast about the libertarian island where the owner is merely protecting his or her property rights, which always degenerates into a state. It stuck with me.
Agreed. Google Play isn't as bad as the Apple App Store, but it is still a defacto monopoly. At least one can install outside apps - which is what you need to do to run Nostros. Unfortunately, most phone users understandably are not comfortable doing this sort of thing, and for good reason.
I can hardly remember when The Beaverton was satire...
Oh I see, thanks for the explanation. Thus far most of what I'm hearing is that they're not securities, whereas your point is that if we assume that they are, they've been given no mechanism to register as such, which is a totally fair argument. To be clear, looking back at the FTX, Luna, etc debacle, the SEC is not blameless in the least for all this - they claim to be interested in consumer protection but have done zero in this space in that respect. I think Jack Mallers said it best that the SEC can either do their job and provide regulatory clarity and protect consumers like they say or they can stfu and let the market figure it out.
Again, agree with this post too. I find it amusing that so many crypto-apologists are throwing their arms in the air and saying things like: "crypto is different, maybe the law is outdated". I dunno, I read the criteria for the Howey Test and have a hard time seeing anything terribly outdated in the wording. It's pretty clear its intention.
I can certainly appreciate the disdain some have for regulatory oversight, lord knows there's plenty of regulations that have questionable benefit, and in some cases a net harm. I tend to lean libertarian with this sort of thing in that regulation should be limited to no further than protecting the public from a health/safety and/or a consumer standpoint.
An example I can think of in my jurisdiction:
There were city bylaws in place that limited liquor store 1) proximity to schools, and 2) proximity to each other. The first one is well-intentioned and likely a net good in that it protects children from any alcohol related crime or social issues in the vicinity. The second is, bluntly, anticompetitive and likely is a net harm for the consumer - in fact I know of at least one example where a liquor store chain set up a shell of a store to block the nearby Costco from opening one. Fortunately the second one has since been repealed.
With respect to the SEC action, in my mind this is legal action done to crack down on scammers. Do I like or agree with everything the SEC does? Hardly. But I feel like the motivation behind this action is pretty clear - some of these tokens and exchanges have violated securities laws.
I shudder to say this, but I don't think Litecoin or Dogecoin would qualify as securities.
For now. In my mind, any token that had an ICO could also potentially pass the Howey test.
Happy birthday. I'm in my mid 40s so you are getting older, but you still have tons to look forward to. Enjoy it!
To preface all of this, I'm definitely not dismissive of the risks of AI. There are most certainly risks. Unfortunately for us right now it's far too early to make a reasonable or informed assessment. I also think the precautionary principle (PP) is flawed in that the logical conclusion of the PP is that all progress halts. This notion generally is bad for humanity, and it's also a classic example of the status quo bias.
Having said all that, whenever a new thing becomes prevalent, I try to stay calm (not always easy) and reflect on some lessons in history. Let's look first at the automobile: when the first automobiles became prevalent, many at the time believed that the common risks would be engines exploding or brakes failing. We know now that these things are exceptionally rare, and in fact, the probability of these things happening is vanishingly close to zero. The people of the time could never have predicting risks that have psychological impacts such as traffic jams or road rage. They also likely could not have foreseen the health risks associated with the burning of leaded gasoline (though thankfully this is no more).
Though this next example is not tech, we can also look at the invention/popularization of the teddy bear. In the early 1900s, there were legit fears in that the newfangled fluffy toy would ruin young girls' developing maternal instincts and spell our collective reproductive downfall (source: Jason Feifer podcast "Build For Tomorrow", episode Teddy Bears are History's Most Subversive Toy). Of course, looking back, this is an absurd fear as the global population went from roughly 1.6B to 6.1B over the course of the 20th century.
If we look, we can find countless examples of bad predictions of what new tech would bring. It was believed that early sound recording tech would bring the end of music and worse (also talked about in Feifer's podcast, I highly recommend it).
Ultimately, my point here is - we don't know what the actual risks of AI will turn out to be. Of course we don't know. The best we can do is make reasoned guesses, keep an open mind, take the lessons as we receive them, and forgive ourselves when we're wrong (because we will be).
Thoughts?
I personally think it depends on where in the spectrum of censorship you are looking. Outright, blatant bans and censorship? I'm thinking the odds are low, say in the single digit percentage likelihood. Shadow bans and "misinformation warnings"? I'm thinking much higher, say will into the double digit percentages of likelihood.
💯. Exploring ideas one doesn't agree with makes one a better thinker and also helps to build empathy. Gotta say I respect your well thought-out posts a great deal.
Ugh. Dang it. Typo. Reposting.