I wonder if Apple will be able to bridge the biggest gap between their hardware and Meta’s: the price gap
The new Ray Ban AR glasses retail at a Meta subsidized $800 - has Apple ever released subsidized hardware?
I remember when the Vision Pro’s BoM got leaked prior to announcement and people calculated out the pre-bulk discount cost at around $2500 (iirc). I saw crazy posts predicting it would get subsidized down to $2k, some saying they’d eat R&D and price it at hw cost, and a few realists claiming $2750-3000 was a more realistic target. It launched at $3500.
If history is any guide, it won’t matter if Apple Glass 1.0 is a generation and a half above whatever Meta is selling if they keep going with the 5x price differential.
Eye of the Temple has some of the coolest VR-specific movement tricks I’ve ever seen.
If you’re getting close to your IRL boundary, it sets up a rolling log as part of a puzzle. To stay on a real forward-moving rolling log, you have to walk backwards to maintain balance. So in context of the game, you’re convincingly moving “forwards” while in reality you’re walking backwards.
Pretty sure I took off the headset and geeked out at everyone in the house first time I realized what was happening.
This isn’t just good news for the oldies. Gen Z in particular seems at first glance to be balding earlier and at higher rates. I had no idea what the heck “Norwood” meant until some young Zoomer guy clued me in.
I‘m talking about cultural proximity. The tragedy of American slavery is that it erased any links of slaves to Africa, so modern black Americans have barely any relationship to Africa, still carrying the pain but losing any cultural or ancestral connections. They were raised and educated in a culture that is mostly a product of Europe. It is wrong thus to compare them to African countries since it gives false impression that they are doing great.
> The tragedy of American slavery is that it erased any links of slaves to Africa, so modern black Americans have barely any relationship to Africa, still carrying the pain but losing any cultural or ancestral connections.
Ancestral connection in the quoted sentence means knowing your ancestors, not genetic lineage. It must have been clear from this thread that I don’t deny genetics.
Pretty sure Trump won the national popular vote this last time around though? And there’s a strong (politically neutral) argument that Clinton could have pulled off an EC win in 2016 if she had taken Trump more seriously - eg: she never once campaigned in Wisconsin [1].
Going back a bit further, and somewhat tying into the topic of the thread, 2016 Trump owes his GOP nomination (and thus indirectly the Presidency) to a Clinton/DNC op designed to weaken the Republican field.[2] That’s not to say that Trump didn’t eventually resonate with the GOP base, but the powerbrokers of the RNC absolutely didn’t want him and yet their counterparts at the DNC were heavily in favor of putting Trump front and center everywhere.
I think there’s a very strong argument Clinton could’ve won the EC in 2016. There was almost no EC bias this year. Trump won the tipping point state, PA, by 1.8, and the popular vote by about 1.5. The country swung 5-6 points right from 2020. But Harris pretty much just parked herself in PA, MI, and WI and kept the swing in those states under 3 points. If she had won, she very well could’ve done so while losing the popular vote.
It also shows that the counterfactuals are misguided. Campaigning makes a bigger difference than the typical margin of the popular vote. Candidates only campaign in the swing states (if they’re smart) so we don’t know what would happen if they were trying to win the popular vote.
-Chinese men once said in a survey that they feel threatened by high achieving women
-Therefore men as a group are most at fault for the decline in marriage and TFR
Has anyone written on this issue dispassionately? The marriage/reproduction rate for the entire developed world is cratering and we get “blessed” with a choice of three explanatory viewpoints: incel, femcel, purely economic factors
I do believe economic factors are the single largest culprit, but there’s obviously more to the story when you look at the U-shaped income/TFR curve or the utter failure of nearly all family-formation economic policies across the globe.
This baby brained “men bad” or “women bad” discourse belongs in the dumpster.
> Has anyone written on this issue dispassionately?
Chris Williamson of the Modern Wisdom podcast has interviewed many public intellectuals from different sides on the subject in a fairly even-handed way.
I'm currently reading Mary Harrington ("Feminism against Progress") and Louise Perry's ("The Case Against the Sexual Revolution") books on the subject, and find them fairly convincing.
> This baby brained “men bad” or “women bad” discourse belongs in the dumpster.
I wish there was a sane and humane way of shutting off the infinite supply of out-of-state (and, increasingly, international) transients. Our homeless programs here in Portland are absolutely overwhelmed with people who arrive here daily from all across the country. Recent arrivals have been either a plurality or an outright majority of our homeless population for many years now.
I’d absolutely choose going all-in on affordable housing over a return to the war on drugs or doubling down on catastrophic decrim. But without limits on in-migration for social programs, the idea seems frustratingly doomed from the start.
Isn't that what you have a Federal Government for in the US? Naturally if just one city starts some programs it can't take on the entire US population of homeless people.
The solution to this in-migration should be clear. These programs need to be offered in every single city in the entire country. People need to pay more taxes to fund social programs. I'm clearly not American ;)
A federal solution is the only solution that has any chance of working. But I don’t see it as working without restrictions on migration, like a residency system of some kind. Not everyone gets to live in affordable Santa Barbara housing, obviously, some people have to live in Toledo or even Gary. Anything that isn’t market must be restricted in some way, even the USSR didn’t let everyone live in Moscow even though most wanted to.
Not sure how the USSR is relevant, in the USSR people had no freedom to choose anything.
But your point is valid. That said there's still probably enough friction in the system such that someone living in a certain place isn't just going to move to Santa Barbara. Moving is expensive and has uncertainties. People coming today to places like Portland or Vancouver, BC, are desperate. If they had some basic support where they're currently living they would be a lot less likely to take those risks.
Yes, but there are people where there is not much more friction than the cost or donation of a greyhound bus ticket, who we are talking about in this story. There is also a trend that people move to where their addiction isn’t going to get them thrown in jail, social services are better, and they won’t freeze to death outside in the winter.
I’m not sure if people would stay put in say great falls MT if the support was better. But even among the well to do housed, they often move from these towns because the economic opportunities are better in larger richer cities. People have freedom of movement in the USA and mostly use it across the economic spectrum.
Remember about a decade ago, when you’d read about YouTube’s algorithm creating an “alt-right pipeline”?
Without making any judgments on the alt-right label, it was absolutely a real thing. Many documented cases showing how a fresh account could go from “Sesame Street, cooking videos, and CNN” on the default feed - and, within ~10 relatively innocuous clicks down the suggested video rabbit hole, the home feed would be full of Alex Jones tier stuff.
TikTok is heavily reminiscent of the old YouTube. Just taking a few steps down the Free Palestine recommendation road will get you into “Happy Birthday, Uncle Adolf” videos (hyperbolic, but only slightly).
I don’t blame certain parties for getting rather nervous over that. But I wish we could have some honesty from elected officials about why TikTok is suddenly such a pressing issue again.
Whatever happens, I hope they’ve learned from YouTube’s earlier mistakes. In trying to break the alt-right pipeline, they ended up breaking the entire recommendation engine for years (tbf it’s a lot better now).
I think the short form content inherent to TikTok - in some ways makes it worse than old YouTube was, because its multitudes of different people making the same or similar points - its more reinforcing.
That said I otherwise agree with you 100% - I saw folks get sucked down you YouTube pipeline then, and I've watched people get sucked down the TikTok one now, I got one person in my life to switch to FB reels, because I would correct the purported facts in each video and they found that annoying.
Agree (even if it is hyperbolic) on the yellow brick road model of radicalization.
The new Ray Ban AR glasses retail at a Meta subsidized $800 - has Apple ever released subsidized hardware?
I remember when the Vision Pro’s BoM got leaked prior to announcement and people calculated out the pre-bulk discount cost at around $2500 (iirc). I saw crazy posts predicting it would get subsidized down to $2k, some saying they’d eat R&D and price it at hw cost, and a few realists claiming $2750-3000 was a more realistic target. It launched at $3500.
If history is any guide, it won’t matter if Apple Glass 1.0 is a generation and a half above whatever Meta is selling if they keep going with the 5x price differential.