It is extremely disheartening to see one of our many bureaucrats come to an anoymous international forum for input on an American domestic policy issue. A domestic policy issue that should be exclusively taken care of by the elected legislature rather than an unelected bureaucracy.
I hope that all of the comments in this thread are fully discarded by all who hold actual power at the FCC; the opinions of the international community are not relevant.
Individuals should certainly follow that advice. Unelected bureaucrats shaping domestic industry with their extra-legislative regulatory power should not.
The FCC exists solely to serve American interests - nobody else's. There is an enormous problem with unelected government officials flagrantly ignoring either the constitution or the will of the people - often both - in the United States. Coming to an anonymous international forum for advice on exercising regulatory power which arguably shouldn't exist in the first place is a spit in the face to every person that this bureaucrat is meant to serve.
(I wrote this whole comment to you only to find out just now that you deleted the original comment. Sorry, I had to convey it somehow. LOL)
I understand your confusion about using "entropy" outside a thermodynamics context, and you're absolutely correct to point out that the term "entropy" originated in the field of thermodynamics. However, the concept has been extended metaphorically in other fields to describe systems of complexity and order. It's in this latter, metaphorical sense that I'm using the term.
Now, let's apply this to living systems. Organisms are highly ordered, containing complex structures at various scales from cells to organs. They can maintain and even increase their internal order, or decrease their "entropy," by consuming energy from their environment (like food). This is the "detour into lower entropy" I was talking about.
While this seems to contradict the second law of thermodynamics, remember that organisms are not closed systems – they constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment. The increase in order within the organism is more than offset by the increase in disorder in the environment, resulting in an overall increase in entropy in the universe. This is completely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
What I find fascinating is that life can maintain this high degree of organization for such a long period of time, despite the natural tendency towards disorder. This is not to say that the process is unexplained; science has a lot to say about how this happens, but rather that it's a remarkable (and seemingly unique) characteristic of life. Does this make more sense? I hope this clarifies the concept a bit.
These two municipalities may have similar populations, but this statement is not really fair. Evansville is the only major population center for anyone within a ~75-100 miles from it in most directions. It is absolutely a rural "city"; businesses in Evansville have a significant number of their employees commuting from ~500-5000 person towns in Southern Illinois, Western Kentucky, and Southwestern Indiana.
It is significantly more rural than Santa Barbara and I can't imagine comparing the two locations unless you have never visited the American Midwest.
Okay, I did exaggerate a bit, but it's not that unfair. Ventura is only 30 miles away to the East (or South if you are asking for directions), which is a lot less remote than Evansville, but going up the coast the other way, Santa Maria is pretty far away.
It's arguably an unfair comparison because everything to the south of Santa Barbara is ocean, and there's mountains/national forest to the north, both of which are arguably different from what people think when you say "rural" (demographics notwithstanding).
I'll cop to having never lived in SW Indiana and while I did live in Indiana, I rarely made it past Holiday World to the south-west. There is probably also some bias, because Evansville is a rather large city for Indiana (3rd most populous), but Santa Barbara isn't so much for California.
I will also admit that my girlfriend at the time I relocated wouldn't move to Santa Barbara because there were too many people (she also felt that way about Fort Wayne; not sure if she had any thoughts about Evansville).
The person you're responding to is responding to a comment asking what is missing from Podman Desktop it to replace Docker Desktop. It is missing nothing for them per their message.
iPhone has been around for 15 years so there almost isn't a person on this planet who doesn't know (a) what it is, (b) what the competition is and (c) whether it's a right fit for them.
So if you're surveying existing users you're talking to people who knew before they purchased the iPhone that it was going to be a suitable fit for them. So of course the survey is going to be highly biased in favour of a positive rating.
It seems very obvious to me that a 99% satisfaction rating for an electronics product is extremely unlikely, even given the factors that you noted. Not impossible like the other poster is indicating, obviously it's impossible to prove that claim, but very unlikely.
If you reflect on it and genuinely believe that 99% seems realistic and even "very likely", well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
People buy things all the time that are not a perfect fit, just the best they are able to get at that time. Or they are forced into it for other reason.
99% is not possible. Nothing on Earth has a 99% satisfaction rating - not even breathing.
While I agree with the general gist of what you're trying to communicate, the person you're responding here did no such thing. Take a step back and re-read; they're just following what you're suggesting to one possible natural conclusion. If you don't believe that's what would happen, you can state that without accusing your partner in this conversation of "reading too deep".
What's the source on that quote? I searched it and this thread is the only result.
Edit: I found the context around it, at least. Seems perfectly reasonable. [1]
"Recently Inc published an interview in which I said we'd noticed a correlation between founders having very strong foreign accents and their companies doing badly.
Some interpreted this statement as xenophobic, or even racist—as if I'd said that having a foreign accent at all was a problem.
But that's not what I said, or what I think. No one in Silicon Valley would think that. A lot of the most successful founders here speak with accents.
The case I was talking about is when founders have accents so strong that people can't understand what they're saying. I.e. the problem is not the cultural signal accents send, but the practical difficulty of getting a startup off the ground when people can't understand you."
They all use Delta Chat. I self-hosted a non-federated Matrix server for ~3 years, but once I found Delta Chat (a little over a year ago) I asked everyone to transition over to using it to stay in contact with me. About 15 people in total, I haven't heard any complaints and it works great.
"Systemic" is a term made up to abdicate responsibility and/or create a bogeyman. It's more comfortable to blame "them" then yourself, either for why you can't succeed or for a societal problem.
Most of those individuals have a rather weak will, they are slaves of desires. At the same time a few individuals with a strong will and predatory mindset know how to push the weak crowd into a loop of addiction. Coca Cola is essentially a drug dealer, they even used an actual hard drug in the past to hook up customers; now they have to resort to milder chemicals to cause addiction. Fashion industry is another example: they use the desire to feel better than others or like others, and skillfully use that to manufacture a loop of addiction.
I hope that all of the comments in this thread are fully discarded by all who hold actual power at the FCC; the opinions of the international community are not relevant.