Sure but I don't mind the current outcome. I want my laptop to be small and light and if the tradeoff is the ram and battery have to be glued, I'd take it.
> Pebble proves that a simple, shallow, and linear menu system works great!
Hard to say this is true when Garmin watches are far more successful than Pebble. That aside, the forerunner is a sports watch first where you want lots of physical buttons that don't get bothered by sweat. The better Garmin comparison is the Venu series which only have two buttons https://www.garmin.com/en-US/c/wearables-smartwatches/?serie....
I doubt most consumers would care if you could sideload apps on their iOS device or play PlayStation and Nintendo games on their Xbox. In fact most consumers would be all for it!
They buy these things because they find there's already enough value there.
> they only collapse when nearly everyone is finally convinced they never will
I get that rationale in some bubbles as that means people are not parking their money as cash where they can buy the dip and support the market (tell me if I'm widely off). But I think this case is different because there's actually VAST sums of money being spent in AI by some very big players who will need an return.
This is fair but it's also assuming that today's AI has reached its potential which frankly I don't think any of us know. There's a lot of investment being spent in compute and research from a lot of different players and we could definitely make some breakthroughs. I doubt many of us would've predicted even the progress we've had in the last few years before chatGPT came out.
I think the bubble will be defined on whether these investments pan out in the next two years or if we just have small incremental progress like gpt4 to gpt5, not what products are made with today's llm. It remains to be seen.
> It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.
Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles.
High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.
That's a little reductive. I grew up in San Diego and went to school in LA and had the same experience with taxis - never took them. But now I use ubers in those cities whenever I'm there.
The US has tons of cities like this that I imagine would have issues with taxis - all parts of the bay area peninsula / east bay, cities in Texas, Denver, etc. Most cities are not like the NYC/Boston and even in places in Chicago, unless you lived downtown likely didn't see taxis driving around.
Well I can disagree with you and can tell you that more money would solve my money problems, particularly with my housing and being able to buy / rent a bigger place.
You're making big assumptions here regarding students desires to attend stanford. Ignoring everything else though, having two elite universities that cater to merit is better than one just for the sake of doubling the number of students.
> But social mobility for serious kids is much easier in the United States than elsewhere.
This is an unrelated point, is your contention that the US is better off with unserious students? Social mobility / wealth accumulation for the masses does suck in other countries but it's great that people are still seriously motivated by schools. It's a big reason those students immigrant to the US and companies here hire those people in masses.
It's not a big deal but the cars allowed on Uber has worsened. I remember trying to sign up as a driver a few years ago with a 2009 Corolla and being denied because the car was too old and now see cars from then allowed today. Maybe that's the cost of scaling but I find it worse. Also no more Uber pool.
Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.
> This is unlike how capital assets are valued for any other industry!
Is your dismay that it's unfair compared to other industries or that the policy doesn't reflect reality that software is a capital asset that has a lifetime longer than 6 years for many companies?
This seems like a small correction if they wanted to reacquire and clearly the market isn't valuing BD all that high.
Why do you think it's one of Sundar's biggest mistake?