> Apple tells its customers what's hot and then shoves it down their throats
I don't really understand this. Is it shoving when something is actually popular? The iPod was legitimately extremely popular. Did Apple decide it was hot and then somehow force people to buy 450 million of them?
I mean I'm just curious what products you're thinking of when you say "shoves it down their throats"
Is the iPod your only example? That was a quarter century ago.
What's hot about less ports, no headphone jack, no SD card, a tax when buying apps for your phone, planned obsolescence, antagonistic behavior towards app and software developers, an unchanged aluminum rectangle, thinner devices that look cool at the cost of performance and efficiency, heaviest laptops and phones on the market, phones made out of glass front and back, the touchbar, the notch, etc.?
Huh, I always thought it was the other way around (whether people liked it or not): ditching floppy disks, ditching cdroms, prioritizing BT over wired earphones, etc. I am glad, though, that they were forced to stick with USB-C if I'm not mistaken.
This is very much what apple wants you to believe; they have very good PR.
In actual fact, though, apple is a very effective fifth or sixth mover, and has been for a very long time. They watch everyone else fuck it up and get it wrong a bunch of times, and then throw scads of cash at threading the needle.
Bluetooth sucks, needing to charge headphones sucks. I'm still bitter :p
> I am glad, though, that they were forced to stick with USB-C if I'm not mistaken.
Now I have a boatload of apple chargers which will all be made into landfill for the good of the planet when i next upgrade my phone. Thank you so much.
Apple went USB-C on chargers starting in March 2016 (with USB-C to lightning cables on the iPad Pro). They started shipping them with phones that fall.
USB-A chargers are so brutally slow, but you can use a USB-A to C cable if you really want to spend 3+ hours charging a modern phone.
The switch prompted cables to go into the landfill. The USB-A chargers should have been there half a decade ago.
other people have a load of USB-C charging cables and are frustrated with having to buy Lightning ones and clutter their bags with more wires than necessary.
although Lightning was better-designed for being routinely used (pins on the outside of the wire end rather than inside the device, easy to clean and no protruding pieces in the device to damage/snap off), and the ideal scenario would have been making it an open standard
It's short term annoyance for a long term greater good. I'm not oblivious - but of course the impact on me is simply negative (and I'm not going to leave the walled garden anyway so what were we ever achieving really)
> cautious that this is the type of reasoning which propels the anti-vax movement
I hear you but there are two fundamentally different things:
1. Distrust of / disbelief in science
2. Doctors not incentivized to spend more than a few minutes on any given patients
There are many many anecdotes related to the second, many here in this thread. I have my own as well.
I can talk to ChatGPT/whatever at any time, for any amount of time, and present in *EXHAUSTIVE* detail every single datapoint I have about my illness/problem/whatever.
If I was a billionaire I assume I could pay a super-smart, highly-experienced human doctor to accommodate the same.
But short of that, we have GPs who have no incentive to spend any time on you. That doesn't mean they're bad people. I'm sure the vast majority have absolutely the best of intentions. But it's simply infeasible, economically or otherwise, for them to give you the time necessary to actually solve your problem.
I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't know nearly enough about the insurance and health industries to imagine what kind of structure could address this. But I am guessing that this might be what is meant by "outcome-based medicine," i.e., your job isn't done until the patient actually gets the desired outcome.
Right now my GP has every incentive to say "meh" and send me home after a 3-minute visit. As a result I more or less stopped bothering making doctor appointments for certain things.
> The world is probably better off that we don’t need another 12 ways to develop a CRUD app or learn the framework of the month from gatekeepers with a bad attitude
Are you saying that because you don't like web apps or the frameworks that people use to make them, there shouldn't be a way for people to publicly ask questions about programming?
Exactly, the prevalence of the word "work" in this conversation is such a telling indicator of what 'western' culture-at-large has been taught to focus on
Thinking is not besides the point, it is the entire point.
You seem to be defining "thinking" as an interchangeable black box, and as long as something fits that slot and "gets results", it's fine.
But it's the code-writing that's the interchangeable black box, not the thinking. The actual work of software development is not writing code, it's solving problems.
With a problem-space-navigation model, I'd agree that there are different strategies that can find a path from A to B, and what we call cognition is one way (more like a collection of techniques) to find a path. I mean, you can in principle brute-force this until you get the desired result.
But that's not the only thing that thinking does. Thinking responds to changing constraints, unexpected effects, new information, and shifting requirements. Thinking observes its own outputs and its own actions. Thinking uses underlying models to reason from first principles. These strategies are domain-independent, too.
And that's not even addressing all the other work involved in reality: deciding what the product should do when the design is underspecified. Asking the client/manager/etc what they want it to do in cases X, Y and Z. Offering suggestions and proposals and explaining tradeoffs.
Now I imagine there could be some other processes we haven't conceived of that can do these things but do them differently than human brains do. But if there were we'd probably just still call it 'thinking.'
reply