When we look back in a few years and ask the question: who actually got to pay for the Epstein crimes and coverups, we come to the surprising answer it is the Greenlandes and other innocent societies that got ripped apart by this maniac and his supporters.
It's not a failure of IP6 but a failure of society.
We all thought the internet would become decentralized and that everyone should have an IP and a funky website. But instead social media took over, big tech and a few big discussion sites where we all must fit in a digital life and watch ads and share our data to become a good product for all the others to consume.
Unfortunately, this will not happen. Even if they have it all working:
Above all, Apple wants to show that their hardware is awesome, especially because it really is. Running x86 games or compatibility layers even with great emulation will make that $3000 Mac look half decent at best, against a $1500 gaming laptop. Simply not the story Apple want to tell.
Currently, someone interested in an iPad and needing the power of a MB, will have to buy both.
If they stopped restricting the iPad, those people would only have to buy an iPad.
And as someone without a single interest in an iPad, I would worry that removing the iPad limitations would increase its market-share and lead to Apple reducing even more their interest in the MB, which would be terrible news to me.
I used to understand/agree with this point, but over the past few years i've transitioned to my ipad pro for mobile usage and it has become my daily driver for mobile computing. When i need macos for anything, i typically will use Jump to connect and do something real quick, but that's rare. I'm starting to not understand why i wouldn't just want an ipad pro running a touch friendly (and i mean it would have to be VERY touch friendly) version of macos. again, i would have normally agreed with you, but that line is starting to blur for me...
Besides the obvious right wing interference in politics, star link weaponization in some countries - how can anybody stomach the saving-humanity-agenda while running a major social media unresponsiveliy without caring of moderation, its consequences for real people?
I think the lack of moderation is a feature not a bug. People actually get to express themselves freely, very unlike the sterile feeling you get from mainstream social media, with content engineered for maximum engagement and political correctness for maximum ad revenue.
Because someone's moderation is censorship to someone else. Begging Musk for free speech is another issue in itself though so you better don't bet on X allowing you to speak forever.
Free speech is one of these things that is always used as a trojan for doing ultimate good.
Let us empower anybody to say anything they want AND enforce everybody to have to listen to it.
Anonymous free speech is not free speech. There is no accountability. It should not should not be a human right. Its destroying our societies. The evidence should be clear by now.
Investors in bonds look for a percentage growth, year over year. That's an exponential. A linear growth would be non-investable in the longer run.
From the other side, the US debt is quite linear on a log scale, so also exponential. That suddenly looks scary. But that is really to be expected? Exponential is the natural curve. If it wasn't exponential it would disappear, year over year.
I don’t have the answers but we have a system where, if you loan out money we expect a return that is a percentage of the amount of the loan, rather than say a flat loan fee.
Because population grows exponentially, either up or down, and money is a means of quantifying work and labor at the end of the day. Thus its value rises in the same way
Put another way, there is no number of children per couple C such that a population initially composed of N individuals will always add X>1 number of children per year in perpetuity.
If every person has one kid (or alternately, every couple two), then the growth rate is zero and the population constant. Constant population is exponential (exponent = 0).
If the number per couple is below two, then population declines exponentially. Fewer and fewer people die each year but also fewer are added. Eventually the population hits zero
If the number is more than two, then more and more are added each year
When we look back in a few years and ask the question: who actually got to pay for the Epstein crimes and coverups, we come to the surprising answer it is the Greenlandes and other innocent societies that got ripped apart by this maniac and his supporters.
reply