So odd - was listening to an account of this in an Audiobook just yesterday - "Why Nothing Works" by Marc Dunkelman. Was essentially making the point that this sort of thing would be several magnitudes of difficulty harder to pull off today, and certainly wouldn't happen within that timeframe.
Just a brief note to say: loved original Pebble, always a regret that my younger poorer self didn't buy one way back when, so bit the bullet straight away yesterday and am signed up for the first batch of the black Core 2 Duo in July.
Two features which I think it would be useful to give more prominence to especially as you move from pre-order stage to general sale stage:
Strap is replaceable in both models
Both models count steps
Would be high priority things for me! Look forward to seeing how this develops and best of luck.
It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive.
There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with colleagues in chamber, communicating with their own office/staff, the list is fairly long and reasonably legitimate.
Nobody loves this, and I suspect that's the point. I expect this same tech is about to be rolled out en masse to surveil workers everywhere (if it hasn't already been).
I further suspect that by applying this to the people in charge of creating regulations, the artist is trying to drive new regulations.
The STOCK Act mostly only had the effect of creating some inconveniences for lawmakers (e.g., their families could still trade based on their guidance), and even that was only the case for a year as Senator Reid's House bill S.716 effectively gutted the STOCK Act and restored the status quo, was passed by unanimous consent after 14 seconds of discussion, and was signed into law by President Obama:
As far as I can tell, most of the politicians aren't doing insider trading. They are trading on public knowledge (laws being introduced) but that people don't really pay attention to. Maybe I am wrong?
Insider trading laws are formulated around prosecuting persons that have a contractual duty to the company that act on company-internal information before its published to stockholders. Politicians do have unpublished information about laws and regulations that will affect companies in the future, but they don't have any specific duty to the company, and the information is not exactly company-internal, so it doesn't count as insider trading by technical definition.
I've ever seen a proposed reformulation of these laws that would redraw the lines clearly enough to prevent abuse by politicians but not impede legitimate cases. Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds.
> Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds.
I think that still has issues. Requiring blind trusts seems safer.
There is another problem, which is family members. If you ban the politician, but allow their spouse, kids, etc to trade freely then you didn't actual solve any problems.
Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. politely ask the person what I could have done in my presentation to make it more engaging.
I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.
I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.
Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to.
If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said.
There's a difference between "eyes glued to phone" and "eyes looking at phone occasionally and then returning to the room". Too often, people see the latter, and it's like looking at a second hand on a clock. They take the initial glance, it looks longer than it really is, and so "eyes glued to phone" is their takeaway.
> I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.
That manager would be flabbergasted when I answer the question. Unfortunately her takeaway would probably be "he could answer that while still not paying full attention? how can I make him pay full attention!" despite the fact that what she would call "full attention" would make my brain more likely to drift.
> If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said.
This really makes no sense to me. It's well known that human cannot multitask beyond system 1 / system 2 in parallel, so you must be much better at micro time-sharing than pretty much everybody.
That's your problem there. Most of these soundbites come from studies that would have listed an enormous amount of limitations and had further limitations that weren't explicitly listed. It is common for people with certain conditions to be excluded from studies.
I don't personally identify with the GP, but I certainly remember more if I have a mental picture to hang the facts on - sometimes this might involve looking up a circuit diagram, a map, or an equation. It doesn't mean I'm not paying attention, but it means I'm scrambling to find a peg to hang that information on before it slips out of my mind. I might also be jotting down some notes for asking later - presumably you wouldn't express the same incredulity towards somebody using pen and paper instead?
I do this, and it definitely helps me with recall, much to the detriment of upper management that think I'm just not paying attention and wasting time.
Modern computers do far less actual multitasking than most users realize. Yet we still call it "multitasking". Sufficiently fine-grained task switching is indistinguishable from actual multitasking. Also, is it really even task switching if I'm concurrently reviewing information directly related to the discussion topic?
If you were in a position of managerial power over me, and you saw me doing this very thing to maximize my engagement with the topic and task at hand, what would your response be? Would you "make me put my phone away"? Would you cause a distraction by interrupting the discussion to focus on my focus management tools?
Consider a similar tasks that are practiced by thousands of professionals daily: Live translation, flying a plane while talking to ATC, playing music while talking. Some people find these things nearly impossible, but with enough practice it's definitely possible.
> Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out.
This is not like work meetings: 99% of meaningful policy work is happening behind closed doors. The publicly-televised sessions is where people give speeches for the cameras and then cast votes with (typically) pre-negotiated outcomes. So, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be upset if someone is browsing Reddit while an opposition politician is saying their piece.
> If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards
A tip from the book The Charisma Myth: when you notice someone on their phone, just pause what you were saying, the sudden silence usually brings people back. If you also look at them when pausing, it will be very clear what’s going on without you even saying a word
This works both during presentations and conversations
I have a friend who this does not work on. In his worse moments he will continue on his phone like nothing happened and not even bring it back up later / forget that we were even talking about something if I were to bring it up later. Super annoying.
I'm not sure if it's this way in your friend's case, but some people will do this on purpose. Usually it is remembered by people that do this intentionally, but sometimes you're just listening and don't want to become part of the conversation. Being put on the spot for people like that is often very negative, and is more likely to get them to forget what was going on, and instead concentrate on how uncomfortable they were made to feel.
>I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.
Fully get it, and that manager was quite right to do what they did. I occasionally bring my phone to meetings, but it's because I run a company and sometimes I'll have interesting data that might be relevant at a given point in a discussion. It's more to help move the meeting or conversation along in a helpful manner. I generally bring pre-meeting notes in digital format, and then a pen/paper to actually take physical notes when I'm talking to people. People generally don't find it rude if I look down to write something important down versus looking at a hpone.
I'd like to be able to do this as well, but I might get pushback as most of the people I meet with are significantly younger than me (I'm 35 and do sales to health/wellness establishments, most of the time I'm dealing with 20-somethings).
>I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.
Agree 100%, however, in the context of biz meetings, there could be reasons for it. Perhaps I'm hard of hearing and want to record the conversation, for note-taking purposes, or perhaps, there's an interesting data point I might have in my digital notes that might back you up even more in a meeting. I'm just playing devil's advocate in a situation that is quite realistic. I personally hate when people are on their phones in meetings or otherwise important interactions.
I see your point, but many times people use their phone to look up data. It's where I keep many documents.
Would you be happier if they were reading some piece of paper in front of them? That looks very official and serious, but their brain could be drifting away to anywhere else.
How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.
A lot of politicians are against surveillance too, they just get outnumbered. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume the parent comment is for surveillance legislation, especially if they're someone who frequents HN and are therefore more likely to be technically literate.
if the majority of them are for privacy, there is absolutely no reason for them to vote against it
That's not how politics works. Most politicians belong to political parties, and sometimes you have to vote against your personal conviction and with your party, especially if you actually want to get stuff done long term. Compromising by voting with your party and against your convictions on one issue to ensure that you get their support on another issue you consider more important is what politics is all about.
I'm not saying this person is FOR surveillance, I'm saying a visceral example of its impact - especially on those who make decisions around it that impact everyone - is a powerful piece of art. I suspect most surveillance debates are theoretical and making politicians feel potential impacts is a very valuable experience.
No need to worry, politicians will make it illegal to monitor politicians in this way. Only workers will ever need to deal with always-on surveillance like this.
Honestly, how much such of hearings, etc. are a waste of time, and you could better serve your constituents and country/community by doing some work? Do you have time to pay full attention in all these situations?
Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they don't like it, it's probably good.
Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of politics/politicians too of course...
Too many people seem to be confusing prior product critical commentary being invalid with all product critical commentary being invalid.
Apple Vision Pro won't do much as a product - it'll struggle for even minimal adaption and will be eventually all but withdrawn within 24 months. The patents etc may eventually lead to a compelling product.
But I'd be very confident I could look back at this comment and be proven correct.
iPad commentary on launch always felt wide of the mark - use case was clear. iPhone was limited at launch but you could see the path forward. Vision Pro feels like it could never be 'evolved' into a mass market product - though maybe the patents could be taken and become something useful, albeit different.
Would you be willing to bet a token amount, say the current base cost of a Vision Pro ($3500), that in 48 months (giving you some buffer here) Apple has fully withdrawn support for the Vision line and does not release a new model? That’s the real test of confidence. I personally think you’re way off the mark and am willing to put money on the line. Are you?
I too would like to participate in this bet on your side.
I read their first paragraph and thought to myself that it was a reasonable stance, only to then be followed up with ridiculous stuff that straight up slides off the other end of the spectrum.
Gotta admire the confidence though, however misplaced it might be.
That was my initial reaction as well. Having said that I thought the same about the Watch and I turned out to be wrong about that. I still don't want one but all that means is I'm an outlier.
Irish company Manna have been doing this in two Irish suburbs for a number of years now. They're worth checking out - their CEO Bobby Healy often tweets interesting stuff around payloads, journeys per day, route maps etc. I've worked with them a little and think they're building something really interesting.
One thing that’s bothering me - the story text says it’s 32 bn kilometres from earth but looking it up it appears to be about 19 bn kilometres. Which is it?
I can definitely see a gap in the market for this now.
The present Twitter alternatives (Mastodon, Bluesky, Spoutible) are just too hobbyist or finicky.
Meta will presumably bring an ease-of-use to this service and, crucially, scale from minute 1. They're the building blocks of Twitter's current incumbency position, and Meta/Threads can replicate them straight out the gate.
That is a huge advantage.
On the other side of the ledger, the utility of Twitter keeps sliding. Not sure how many Hacker News users are Twitter users or what the crossover is, but the whole blue tick 'thing' has reduced the utility in one key surprising way: high quality replies under popular accounts are impossible to find. It's like if you could buy upvotes on Hacker News to get to the top almost. Secondarily to that is the stuff over the last few days with very low rate limits on how many tweets you can view - if you can't use a social network, it tends to stop being useful.
While I wouldn't say Threads is a slam dunk guaranteed success, I would say it's the most probable contender of all the ones out there.
Spurious enough comparison given there were phones, a developed phone market which was 150m+ globally even at that stage, and demonstrated clear use cases for an iphone (an ipod, a phone and an internet browser combined).
Yep it iterated and yep app store really rocket charged it beyond where it was envisaged on day one. But it was also an existing market, albeit one that was at the foothills of its potential.
AR/VR too is at the foothills of its potential. But the fundamental problem is: even when its potential is realised, it'll still just be relatively niche and relatively fringe. This stuff simply is not going to be mainstream in a serious way. And without being mainstream, there is no real revenue stream of utility for a company of Apple's size.
I have no idea why people are doing such backflips to come up with potential use cases but most of them just aren't runners. This will sell to an extent for Apple but it'll be a rounding error on their balance sheet at best - even in future versions - though I imagine a lot of the tech will end up elsewhere, so it won't be a complete lost cause for Apple.
The potential is to replace computers. In its current version, it is basically an iPad on your face. Look a little forward and it is a laptop on your face. Imagine that the price came down to $1500-2000 in a couple years, now you can buy an Apple Vision instead of a laptop. And you wouldn't need to buy a TV either. So this does have device consolidation potential like the iPhone did and it can tap into an existing market like the iPhone tapped into the phone markets.
I think previous AR/VR devices didn't quite have the right sweetspot of hardware features (too low resolution, tied to one spot, extra controllers), but this one looks like it might just do it. What it doesn't have is a low enough cost, so it will be a slow start. I'm also still curious if there will be a "killer app" that encourages people to get into it, but the long-term vision of spatial computing is itself enough of a killer feature. I just wonder how long that will take.
> Imagine that the price came down to $1500-2000 in a couple years, now you can buy an Apple Vision instead of a laptop. And you wouldn't need to buy a TV either.
I can compile code on my laptop - can I do that on a vision?
I can plug a xbox on my TV, or watch it with 4 people. Can I do that with a vision?
I think this replacing TVs is a really hard sell, except in remarkably niche people. Sitting on the couch together playing Nintendo just can’t be replaced, and apple surely doesn’t want to allow third party inputs, they want an internal app ecosystem, which Nintendo and PlayStation won’t ever do. (Xbox maybe). Laptop replacement, I can buy though. But only some fraction of those, nothing large, and certainly no larger than iPhone market share percentages.
Was going to reply along these lines. I was fortunate to live with someone who was working on the James Webb and telling me excitedly about it — back in 2006! Surely even with the various upgrades/spec changes/delays, things have moved sufficiently that whatever is started even today will be a marked upgrade.
In any event, many many areas to aim at, and relatively limited funding unfortunately.
