As someone who has no idea what either of these things are, this reads like a satirical headline. I get an email like this about my company's myriad platforms nearly daily
Obviously nobody can know what would have happened if X civilization continued, but the eastern empire did last for nearly 1000 years after the end of the western empire*. They continued to hold the flame of academic and scientific advancement while the western empire fell into the "dark ages". The east existed in some official form until the renaissance came about, so really it's hard to say there was a period in the last 2000 years where the continuous advancement of knowledge wasn't occurring.
I think it's fair to claim that the total empire's (west+east at their peak) major contributions to technology were likely due to an incredible amount of economic resources and the ability for more people to specialize in roles that served advancement, and we definitely didn't see that kind of economic scale for a long time after the west's decline began.
* It's fascinating to read about peoples' thoughts on what actually constitutes the end of "Roman Civilization". Some people have made assertions that it lasted until the Bolshevik uprising in the early 20th century due to a lineage that existed between the roles of Tsar and Caesar.
I don't know why I torture myself with these kinds of presentations anymore. Aside from the obvious "It's all AI" complaint, it feels like every problem they describe as needing a solution is fundamentally basic human reasoning that they are hoping we'll replace with a non-deterministic interaction with our phones. Splitting a tab by taking a picture and letting AI split it for you? Get out a fucking calculator. Is that really a scenario they think will excite people? Their portrayal of a world where we depend on computers for such simple thoughts is not a positive one.
LMGTFY was an intentionally rude tongue-in-cheek response when someone was asking a question that could easily be answered by a simple search. This is about asking more complex questions that don't necessarily have a single objective answer.
I feel like there's this idea that progress is good because of economic output, but there's this much squishier and more subjective concept of how much a change impacts our satisfaction with life. I think cars have produced a lot of good in the world, but I also live in the US where we've paved so much of the world that people don't feel like being outside on their feet very much anymore. I think it's had some negative impacts on how we interact as humans.
I feel the same way about AI. Does it make me more productive? Sure. Does it make me suddenly hate the career I used to love? Definitely. Every day I'm told to move faster and to love this cool thing that takes away the math and low-level problem solving that I used to get so much enjoyment from and instead makes me a manager of a chatbot. Any attempt at moderation in the presence of upper management is met with clear threats to my job. Even better, my company (and so many others) are finding unlimited budgets for AI while putting off any sort of raises for the humans involved.
I tend to avoid placing the blame on individuals (parents in this case) when the problem being described is so widespread. People act as rationally as they can, so if it's that common, it's a systemic failure. Scolding the masses is a fool's errand.
>Students can be trusted to obey a simple "no phones in class" rule.
I'm honestly not educated on the topic right now since I haven't been in school for 15 years and have some time left before my daughter starts, but is this rule really not in place in most schools? How could any school justify not having this rule at the very least, regardless of how well-enforced it is?
I always assumed it was a lack of enforcement due to understaffing that was the problem
Given the experience I've had with MO's legislature, I don't have a lot of trust in them to do anything that directly reflects the majority desire. Ultimately they have clearly shown a preference towards Republican dogma than democratic norms, so I fully expect the income tax removal to go through regardless of the balance sheet.
> Also, I would be wary bragging about buying your goods in Oregon, you technically may owe WA use tax
In my experience, this is well-known around Vancouver and elicits nothing but eye rolls when mentioned. If there is any enforcement whatsoever for that rule (a big if), it's clearly toothless and people don't worry much about it. A Best Buy opened a couple miles north of the river in the late 2000s and didn't make it much more than a year because another one existed in Jantzen Beach, immediately across the state line. The Vancouver location amounted to a showroom before people decided if they wanted to drive the extra 15 minutes.
If that means curbing the comparatively high consumption taxes in WA, then it's for the best. The lowest income brackets pay an outrageous percentage of their income to taxes compared to the upper brackets because of them.
I grew up in WA and as much as I enjoyed the lack of income tax, it's factual that until recently they held the title of #1 most regressive state tax system nationwide (recently bumped to #2 by FL). Income taxes are much better distributed among income brackets than consumption taxes are. I grew up just over the river from Portland, where there is no state sales tax; we got to enjoy the best of both worlds by crossing the state line to OR for large purchases and living in WA.
Ironically, my home for the last decade (MO) has recently moved forward with a bill eliminating the statewide income tax in favor of a higher sales tax. This is in a state where the two largest cities are situated on the borders of other states, so it's essentially a guarantee that this will backfire.
I think any effect on Samsung, positive or negative, would be negligible. It would help their PR slightly, but mostly among a relatively small part of their customer base.
On the negative side, it would probably have a minor impact on the number of new phones sold if old ones were able to be "refurbished" in this way. Again, probably not significant, but if it's even a penny cash flow negative, why invest their resources in it?
Overall the only significant gain to be made is the announcement because it can be spun and quoted to the average consumer as Samsung being more eco-friendly. It's akin to enabling consumerism, and consumers generally don't go to check if companies were telling the truth about this stuff.
While I agree with you that the issue is far worse with larger vehicles, I do find that backing up in my wife's 2011 camry (without a backup camera) feels significantly less safe than I feel backing up my 2017 accord with a backup camera. I'm all for fixing the structural issue you are referring to, but I think the requirement for those cameras is sane in an age where the added cost to the manufacturer is miniscule.
I find it surprising that more people aren't dismayed at how many advertisements we are being exposed to daily. I think that once you're used to it, you don't feel much concern about it, but when you manage to cut a lot of them out (e.g. I have a pi-hole filtering a large portion of ads in my whole home) it becomes extremely upsetting to be dropped back into a place where they are everywhere.
Few things upset me as much as driving around a beautiful place and having billboards plastered up and down the highway. A few states have come to their senses and banned them.
The issue as a whole is that it genuinely is eroding the human experience. Being alive in a world where your eyesight is real estate to be filled with images that are meant to leave you with negative emotions with the intent of taking your money from you is bleak.
I worry that such a tax would create a self-reinforcing monopolistic effect by making it harder for smaller companies to do it, thus enriching those that can afford to do it. Even if there's a threshold under which it's not taxed, it still benefits big corporations.