It's that, but it's also that AI is not visibly providing any tangible benefit for most people. It'd be one thing if you had to tolerate a datacenter at the edge of town, but at least now you have a robot to fold your clean clothes. Instead, you get the threat of losing your job, the privilege of dealing with AI customer service chatbots, and higher energy costs.
I think most datacenter criticisms are actually coming from people who were going to oppose them anyway. Though a lot of their criticisms are valid, too.
Our small team (~6 devs) is still using Claude Code because we're still on the cost-per-seat-month plan. If we were being pressed to pay per token, we'd be re-evaluating for sure.
This stuff happened years ago, right? Something tells me that discussion has already happened, and they went with Google.
Besides: Apple is a "real" company that will definitely still be around in five years. They've already fumbled Siri multiple times. IMO Google was certainly the right choice for actually executing well on Apple's own terms for the foreseeable future.
It's anecdotal but the kind of people I know that bought Mac Minis for this purpose are what I'd call "light techies." They definitely know how to use an iPhone or a Mac but would struggle on the CLI of a Linux box.
Anyone who wanted the OpenClaw use case that is comfortable with Linux probably already has several Linux machines (including a few Raspberry Pis) on-hand.
I'm doing both. I've only got so many years remaining and very few of these things "only" work if you've also optimized your diet and exercise. I do acknowledge that diet and exercise have a bigger impact than any supplement, but they're not mutually exclusive.
- Essential Capsules - it's like a multivitamin except with better stuff. I've seen mixed evidence that multivitamins actually provide much benefit if you're already taking C and D. This fills the same kind of gap except with a lot more beneficial stuff in it
- Omega-3 - it's like fish oil except from algae, so it has fewer heavy metals. Fish oil is well understood to be a good supplement for the Omega 3, but it can be tricky to source and often contains elevated levels of heavy metals
- Longevity mix - daily shake with a bunch of different stuff for sleep / metabolism / healthy aging / performance / recovery / etc. I'm already drinking protein shakes and such each morning so it seemed like a fairly cheap way to get a little more good stuff
- Snake oil (yes it's called that) - it's just extra virgin olive oil that is very carefully sourced. Apparently olive oil is one of those things that is often mislabeled and mischaracterized as something it's not when sold en masse. Extra virgin olive oil is also one of those supplements that has good evidence for daily limited consumption, and I trust it more with someone's name on it who has something to lose if it were found to be mislabeled
You're welcome to peruse his site [1] if you want more specific details. Each one goes in-depth on what the key ingredients are and why they're in there.
I buy a lot of his supplements. They're competitively priced for what they are, and what's in them is based on the studies and science they dig up. Not all of them will be cost-effective for whatever benefit you're trying to gain, but that's the case with all supplements.
Campaigns already have strong limits. They get around it by giving money to PACs, which can spend money opposing other candidates or talking about issues in particular.
Should there be limits on spending on messaging opposing a certain candidate? Or supporting / opposing a specific policy? It's going to be pretty tough to draw a line there that doesn't sound a lot like solidifying and entrenching the powers that already exist. And it usually includes an ugly way of determining what speech is "political" and what is not.
Normal people just reuse a few variations of the same password across all of their accounts. Federated identity isn't bulletproof but it beats the heck out of reusing the same password.
We only learned how to do a lot of those things because we gathered and analyzed data to find out how best to do them! "Eat healthy meals" means something completely different today than 10, 20, or 50 years ago. How you exercise matters a lot. Smoking wasn't always considered unhealthy, nor was drinking. These "simple rules" and what they actually mean have been refined quite a bit.
You figure out this stuff by gathering and analyzing data. Whether or not this specific implementation will result in more meaningful actionable steps, I guess we'll see.
> What on earth do you think that load of garble means? "50-100 years further along" is absurd.
It seems straightforward. Imagine where medical care was 50-100 years ago, and then imagine they had all the data, resources, and practices we have today. In that case, they would have been 50-100 years further ahead than they were.
> Why do you think "more data" is necessarily meaningful, in a health context?
I think the only way to find out what data is meaningful is to collect and analyze more of it. That does not imply that all data is equally worth collecting.
I think if we already had everyone wearing commercially available continuous glucose monitors and gathered and analyzed that data, we'd already have diagnosed and solved a lot of our most common health problems.
Obviously not all data is useful or meaningful, but even with the tech we already have, there's a ton of it that we're just not collecting or using.
I think most datacenter criticisms are actually coming from people who were going to oppose them anyway. Though a lot of their criticisms are valid, too.