And I have to say, the lightning connector itself is better than the usb-c connect in my opinion. I get that having the pins on the male* plug is a theoretical advantage in durability but that has not been my experience with usb-c connector durability on either end.
EDIT: usb-c has pins on the male plug. Which is what I meant. So female -> male.
I wonder if gamma ray memory corruption will induce a sort of mutation and selection effect on non-ecc-memory hosts which will make the worms effectively evolve.
The SpaceX S-1 contradicts your claim by including an optimistic "TAA" (total addressable market) figure for "the space industry". Which falls heavily short of your claim. While the SpaceX claimed total TTA is mostly (like 80%) AI-powered "enterprise applications" which don't exist and are not related to space data centers or whatever.
I mean, look at ycombinator's latest "call for startups". Its honestly mind-boggling. Couple years ago I used to look at like every 6 months to see where venture interests lie. But now, on every "industry", its just "use ai to make more money in [industry]". The most egregious of them is the call for the "1 person unicorn" company that they believe can exist and somehow that's a call for a startup. Like, "We want to invest in companies that make a bunch of money for us". Yea, very insightful.
What this is saying is again, that MCP is not a protocol. Which is the point of MCP, making it essentially worthless because it doesn't define actual behavioral rules, it can only describe existing rules informally.
This is because defining a formal system, that can do everything MCP promises to enable, is a logical impossibility.
MCP is not a protocol. It doesn't protocolize anything of use. It's just "here's some symbols, do with them whatever you want.", leaving it there but then advertising that as a feature of its universality. It provides almost just as much of a protocol as TCP, but rebuild on 5 OSI layers, again.
It's not a security issue, it's a ontological issue.
> But when everything is colorful, nothing stands out. Everything being colorful is as monotonous as everything being, well, monotone.
This is meaningless.
"When many things are different, everything is the same".
Its a sentence that seems meaningful, but actually is not. It's just abstraction without generalizing.
"000000000000000000000000000" is a sequence just as something as "H90F3iJsjo$(4Opla1zSKX@)!2k" because in the second sequence they're different and in the first they're all the same? Great, you just discovered sets and the axiom of choice.
We are literally discussing the difference within the sets! Obviously the second sequence is more diverse.
First, I thought your argument was going somewhere but then it took this turn.
I would agree with the first part and then argue that before the synthetics-revolution things were mostly just shades of browns(which is a type of dark unsaturated orange). Except for the upper classes who could afford the expensive colors. Now that color is cheap and normalized, it lost (some) of its allure. Not being able to signal your wealth anymore.
Now adding just a conjecture of mine; Now that 'clean' is still somewhat more expensive(upper classes still being able to afford more cleanliness by using other peoples labor), minimal textures(not literal textures but design-wise) are more attractive because it displays your wealth. Plain-white being the easiest to see blemishes on. With black being easier look unblemished. Also, 'tasteful' color arrangements will still signal your class somewhat due to requiring cultural knowledge.