It's the same article, published on multiple sites. Is there a reason (eg: only one site has the rights) to prefer Huffpo? My inclination would be the other way.
This would be easier if the internet were optimized around enlightenment values (for lack of a better phrase) instead of the values of a tabloid newspaper.
The Rio had slow transfer speed (USB), hardly any storage (less than one CD), big ugly form factor... and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t rechargeable. My buddy at the time bought one. It did not impress.
The tech for the first iPod (Firewire and a 5GB hdd) made it essentially a different category of device.
I can’t remember any portable MP3 playing device before iPod that wasn’t a joke. Are you thinking of a particular product that was comparable? I’m curious.
We seem to agree about the level of risk. It's no more my place to tell you how comfortable you should feel with that risk, than it would be for me to tell you what genre of music should be your favorite. That's just personal preference.
You don't think it might be better to assume all this data will leak or be hacked? You most likely have decades of life ahead of you, and once a file is free on the net, it's there forever.
Google has done away with most of its original competitive advantages. Its biggest advantages now are its name recognition and its size. If Google had started off with paid search results and what-you-search-for-is-not-what-you-get we'd probably all still be using Altavista.
I’m guessing once “customer education” fails Boeing, they’ll make a few minor alterations and sell the thing under a different name. Hello “Boeing SFTY9000” or something.
Why isn’t the Schrödinger's cat thing sufficient? I don’t know much about quantum physics, but if we find situations where matter has odds of behaving a certain way, that seems like evidence. How do we explain events not always having a predictable outcome unless all possible outcomes occur somewhere?
> what you're describing sounds more like a multi-dimensional (above the ones we're aware of) universe rather than a multiverse.
We’re aware of the possibility that we might do something, or could have done something. Does that count as an awareness of higher dimensions?
I don’t know enough about physics to understand how a multi-dimensional (above 4D) universe is different than a multiverse. I assumed they were one and the same concept.
Shouldn’t the default position be that a multiverse exist? A multiverse is what logic suggests (starting with “a point in motion is a line” and moving up to higher dimensions)
Everything past Snow Leopard. Lion was a disaster, and there is literally no feature I use that I prefer in any Mac OS created since then. What's more, the OS has become uglier and buggier.
Edit: actually, I like the addition of Finder > Cut, and Finder > Rename. So, hey, there is something!
Many of Feynman's capers and eccentricities are covered in the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" It's a collection of his essays. I've actually noticed the title pop up a few times before in the comments here in HN. It's a fun read.
I think of the Internet today as being in the “gathering” stage. All our data is just being slurped up, hanging around on the servers of a few dozen companies. It’s alarming, to be sure, but just you wait! A few years from now - when computers are faster and storage is cheaper - we’ll enter the “disseminating” stage.
That’s the stage we’ll enter as soon as an entire internet’s worth of content becomes easily transferable.
That’s when all your private information from 2019 (your medical history, gmail messages, bank details, your search and browsing and shopping history, your private photos, etc) will leak to the public.
It’s just a question of time because any morsel of data only needs to leak once to be henceforth online forever. It will be a complete nightmare.