I believe that while smaller planes will naturally pitch up as speed increases, jumbo jets are much more lumpant even with the correct flaps. That's the terrifying thing in my understanding: the plane basically had no manual pitch due to incorrect config values, and were barely gliding off the ground from minimal natural lift. Meanwhile the two potatoes at the helm were fiddling with the config values instead of pulling on the yoke.
"In the end, the most important connection between the Metaverse and the physical world will be you: right now you are in the Metaverse, reading this Article; perhaps you will linger on Twitter or get started with your remote work. And then you’ll stand up from your computer, or take off your headset, eat dinner and tuck in your kids, aware that their bifurcated future will be fundamentally different from your unitary past."
How is this different than me in 2001 using ICQ to chat with my friends/classmates about life/schoolwork, using Yahoo to read news, using forums to consume content and learn new things, and going out to dinner with my family/girlfriend IRL?
It's not, really, but it is more pervasive. In 2001 the internet was a thing, and one with great potential even if massively economically overvalued at the time (dot-com bust), but primarily relegated to those with a baseline interest in technology. Dial up was still used in a very large way. But in 2001 we were on the precipice of the explosion of web 2.0 and better hardware, namely smartphones, and that's when things really took off.
I think the difference here is the overall human approach to digital and physical lives. In 2001 the line between the two was clear and distinct. Now, for many, those lines blurred, and have blurred hard. Almost to the point to where their online manifestation has become their physical manifestation. Look at the language carryover from online to meatspace. More than once have I heard someone say "el oh el". And not in a sarcastic way. It's only a matter of time before desired physical characteristics bleed over. (Pretty sure it would be pretty easy to make an argument that it already has.)
It opened to a wider and wider audience. If you were a telephone operator in the early 1920s-1940s, you would have been messaging other operators over lines already. If you were on ARPANet you could have done it in the '60s-'70s. In the '80s you could have done it with acoustic couplers, modems, and BBSes. Then came the internet. Then came the web on desktop computers. Then the web on mobile.
I can tell you where I grew up (a poorer area), always-on internet access was very much seen as a luxury until the late 2000s. Many of my classmates used the internet at school rather than at home. Now kids in the same (still poor) area couldn't think of not having internet on their phones.
He made the case that the connection to the blockchain would be only as a unique individual identifier, rather than like you use your phone for signal/whatsapp. Not sure if it's sad (all the hype for that) or funny
To be fair, late 90s/early 2000s Internet was pretty much run for tech-savvy/nerd-types. Kind of hard to imagine now, but it was considered quite eccentric to have an Internet-habit back then.
I was only aware of a few households that owned a computer in the late 90s/early 00s. And only one had reliable dialup.
My closest friend got DSL in 2000-ish. But again, it was because his dad worked from home occasionally. No one else in my large extended family or friendgroup was online in any significant way.
Among my peers at school, I think most of them had heard of AIM by that point, but most didn't have screennames.
Ok, fair point, 2001 is early. But you only need to give it a few years for that to change, and didn't need some fundamental new thing from there, it "just" became more widely accessible.
I personally think this move, and to a larger extent the current trends we're seeing in our industry has much more to do with revenue, profits and share price than it does with the product or any social consequences.
Everyone who uses Twitter has seen the little ! triangle saying a tweet has "misinformation". Or read about people suspended for discussing
- Possible therapies for COVID like ivermectin or HCQ
- Claims that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was swung via fraud
- Hunter Biden's laptop [edit: had D. Trump here but that's covered by above]
I'm fairly confident that you have, yet have decided to be obtuse. If you haven't then maybe you aren't the right person to opine about censorship on Twitter.
This is about as "us vs. them" as it gets, which is to say that it's about as political of a statement as it gets.
I don't think any of this fight is about the actual issue of social media's impact, but perhaps I was naive to ever even think that it was about those issues to begin with.
I absolutely detest the polarization happening right now. I will however say that I deleted Facebook and Instagram about a year ago because I found myself comparing myself to my female peers to the point I was insecure, feeling inadequate, and becoming materialistic despite my highly successful medical career, stable personal life and abundance of positive happenings in my life. I think it can definitely affect women especially but anyone is at risk. Once I deleted I have felt much more secure and less preoccupied with these issues.
> The only self-restriction is by people that don't have the conviction to stand by their ideas, or actually have not thought through their perspective to adequate level of introspection and evidence that can survive free and open discourse. Instead it's much easier to exclaim victimhood and censorship and not bother examining ideas beyond a gut feeling.
The whole point of intellectual exchange and growth is from the idea of freely sharing ideas regardless of how "thought through" they are. How do you ever go about sharpening a knife if you aren't encouraged to bring a dull one to the grinder?
Have YOU "thought through" your theory/argument/belief/ideology here?
Hoarding access to resources has /always/ been the name of the game.