Interesting article. The color is nice on the Pro, but could definitely use some improvement.

That aside, the Remarkable Paper Pro is one of the biggest deltas I have ever seen between hardware and software quality. The hardware feels and looks great. I was pretty excited when I unboxed it by it. That all disappeared rapidly as I started using it. Their entire user experience is terrible, and just shockingly unuseful. I don't understand who it's designed for, because it doesn't seem to do anything well.

This is one of those topics where everyone is going to insert their personal bête noire as the cause. "Tech, the economy, culture, immigrants, loss of religion, corruption, polarization, capitalism, socialism!". I actually really like threads like this, since it's a good way to get a pulse on what the different discontentment topics are at any given time.

All of the boogeymen you mentioned are strands of a singular issue, a singular phenomenon.

losing the gold standard 1971?

when the ruling principles are growth, consumption, and profit, the ability to invent money tends to be quite appealing.

What is that singular phenomenon? What can result in blaming both capitalism and socialism, for example?

Man, what does that say about the human race if we're only able to be happy under the dubious eye of a supranatural daddy?

I think it says we need more time in the evolutionary oven. With how fast tech and education have accelerated we're running Ubuntu 24 on the Enigma machine.

Yeah, that seems to be a better conclusion - that we're not built with enough sophistication to deal with everything we're currently dealing with. But I think that's also due to the fact that the things we're dealing with are intentionally built to take advantage of our weaknesses. You can't out evolve technology.

Does it matter? Based upon the poster I responded to, it appears to be only the belief that's important, not the being.

If such being does exist, then how could it possibly not matter? If there's an architect and we are the architect's creation, then how could our belief alone be the important thing?

That's immaterial to the discussion. The comment I replied to simply stated: "Displacing God as the center of life." They aren't arguing that god matters, it's our displacement of them.

So, on the existence of god, we have two possiblities: God does exist, god doesn't exist.

1. If god doesn't exist, then we're unhappy because we're displacing a false god as the center of life.

2. If god does exist, then we're unhappy because we're displacing a real god as the center of life.

In that discussion, god's existence in fact doesn't matter, it leads to the same outcome.

But that framing only really works if we assume a Abrahamic world view.

Other cultures don't and didn't relate to their deities in the same way. Do we then have to assume they all suffered lower life satisfaction than a 11th century German peasant because of their detachment from a singular god the creator? Why didn't they strive for the relationship you're describing?

Trying to put God with a capital G at the center of our lives as some innate need doesn't make sense from a historical context.

That’s not what we’d have to assume.

I don’t know about religions in the general sense, and you’re right to point out that I very much have the “Abrahamic world view”, though my case is much much more specific than that but that’s not relevant here.

What we might more safely assume is that the Creator is revealed through history and a group to whom it he’s not revealed might pursue him more ignorantly (I appreciate the language might sound offensive or condescending but that’s not the intention) but in that pursuit they’re still better off than someone who willfully rejects him.

This I believe is relevant to the post, as these societies have not gone from one god to another, but to none.

That's a lot of assumptions, and really only make sense if you're trying to put your own beliefs as the "correct" choice. Somehow, all these other cultures got it wrong, but the ones who believe one single god, they got it right.

> This I believe is relevant to the post, as these societies have not gone from one god to another, but to none.

I don't know what you mean by this. Particular God's importance rose and fell out of fashion in ancient societies.

I totally agreed with you, right up until the last paragraph. Reddit is among the worst communities on the internet.

You aren't wrong. There is no real use for this for most people. It's a silly toy that somehow caught the AI hype cycle.

The thing is, that's totally fine! It's ok for things to be silly toys that aren't very efficient. People are enjoying it, and people are interacting with opensource software. Those are good things.

I do think that eventually this model will be something useful, and this is a great source of experimentation.

> How's the $100K H1B fee that was announced to distract from the Trump Gold Card announcement [0] going? The HN hive mind said it would bring back the jobs and those of us who warned [1][2] it would incentivize offshoring were hounded.

Yep, offshoring needs to be heavily penalized as well.

> ChatGPT has become a safety-critical system.

It's really really not. "Safety-critical system" has a meaning, and a chat bot doesn't qualify. Treating the whole world as if it needs to be wrapped in bubble-wrap is extremely unhealthy and it generally just used as an excuse for creeping authoritarianism.

It feels like OpenAI is moving into the extraction phase far too soon. They are making their product less appealing to end users with ads and aggressive user-data gathering (which is what this really is). Usually you have to be very secure in your position as a market segment owner before you start with the anti-consumer moves, but they are rapidly losing market share, and they have essentially no moat. Is the goal just to speed-run an IPO before they lose their position?

Yeah, this is all far far too invasive. The goal is obviously to gather as much data on you as possible under whatever pretense users are most likely to accept. "Think of the children", as always. This will then be used to sell advertising to you, or outright sell it to data brokers.

New boss, same as the old boss.

> The problem with "let the parents decide" is that if all other kids in the neighborhood have phones and are on social media then unless you want your kid to grow up with no friends you don't have a choice but to let your kid also use social media.

Sorry, no, this is just abdicating your responsibility as a parent. "It's hard" isn't an excuse for throwing your hands up and handing your responsibility over to the state.

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think it's anything other than governments trying to destroy online anonymity. "Think of the children" is a cliche for a reason.

CSAM is not an overstated problem. If anything the amount of child abuse behavior online is an epidemic. The world's richest man sells a CSAM generator, the most popular game for kids under 12, Roblox, is besieged with predators.

Are governments good at regulating technology? Generally no. Is there a real problem that needs to be regulated: Oh my God, yes.