No, I mean if we’re talking about comparing US and Chinese consumer chips on most phone activities in 2025, you aren’t likely to notice a major difference.

If you want to compare mobile camera systems, that’s a separate comparison. I like Google camera software/processing a lot, but Chinese companies have been innovating tremendously with their mobile camera stacks. I’m way more interested in the Huawei 14/15 ultra offerings for example.

Yeah this view is pretty dated. Like it or not, China has caught up and started leading in several industries over the last 10 years. They have the capacity, skills, and domestic demand for competitive high quality products. Their domestic chip from SIMV is only a few years behind at “5nm” which was the 2021 standard. I’m still playing modern games on a 8 year old i7. Most consumers who use their phones for social media probably wouldn’t notice much difference between a 2021 phone vs 2025 phone besides a better camera and software.

This is an unhelpful and condescending comment. It dismisses the meaningful activities people engage in online as “not life”: self expression, creating art and community, working, socializing, enjoying entertainment, and learning new things. It proposes a false dichotomy wherein not-online is utopic with universally accessible activities and, especially, an absence of the very same people who make online spaces toxic hellholes. They are present in “real spaces” too. These are not mutually exclusive things. You are likely to find that pro-social activists online are often try to be pro-social activists in person as well.

That being said, I agree that people get terminally online and that balancing digital and physical lives are important. Managing attention and mental health are important, especially when content about important and meaningful topics turn into viral and incessant feeds that are geared to overwhelm human brains that weren’t evolved to handle such constant cognitive/emotional stress.

Take care out there folks.

checks history notes

“You misunderstood my bigotry as hurtful.” Not “I understand my views were bigoted and therefore hurtful.”

The hyper-positivity and enthusiasm is because his content is aimed at kids as much as it is adults. A lot of kid-oriented science content I remember, from tv shows/documentaries to guest speakers, to science-centre guides had that affect.

The bar set for self-driving cars: Can it recognize and respond correctly to a deliberate optical illusion?

The bar set for humans: https://youtu.be/ks11nuGGupI

For the record, I do want the bar for self-driving safety to be high. I also want human drivers to be better… Because even not-entirely-safe self-driving cars may still be safer than humans at a certain point.

Also, fuck Tesla.

Whoosh. They’re not mutually exclusive.

An analogy is a comparison. I was comparing a case of labeling something I see as obviously terrorism to a case of labeling something obviously killing. I wasn’t making a comparison to say Tesla is equivalent to OBL.

Sure we can debate the definition of terrorism, which I’m open to being wrong about. When you say “calculated” I understand that as premeditated with some thought towards planning the action. Hypothetically say we have someone who regularly carries a gun, and is walking around during Pride parade. Say he’s historically anti-queer/DEI, what ever stereotype. Say for whatever reason he gets angry enough, something’s happened and it’s the last straw and he wants to put an end to the leftist agenda and starts shooting at the crowds, while spouting his political ideology. It’s a caricature, but has all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack except on the point not being “calculated”, it’s a spur of the moment, unplanned attack. I’d still call that terrorism.

Another point though, I think many of the people who have been vandalizing Tesla did calculate their actions. Especially the arson cases must have involved some degree of thought/planning. And part of that thought is the political stance that Musk is wrong and billionaires like Musk should be afraid of the people.

I wasn’t comparing Tesla to Osama Bin Laden? I was making an analogy to clarify my point of calling an obvious spade a spade. Terrorism doesn’t have to be calculated, it just has to be politically motivated. I happen to agree with the political motivations and stance of the violence in this case. That doesn’t change what it is.

Well that’s my point, we should be arguing the legitimacy of the action, not whether or not it constitutes terrorism, which it obviously is.

Totally agree.

This is coming from someone who doesn’t necessarily disagree with burning down Tesla dealerships.

1. Define terrorism

2. Explain how burning down Tesla dealerships to resist Elon’s political takeover is not terrorism

I hate Elon and I don’t even disagree with targeting Tesla. But let’s be real. Mass targeted vandalism and especially arson are clearly forms of violence. The victims of this violence are civilians and the purpose of the violence is to achieve political goals through instilling fear.

Agree with the actions or not, that’s terrorism.

If people started targeting and burning down costcos for being woke/DEI, that would be terrorism for the exact same reason, not because the ideology is different.

People need to stop pussyfooting around the label and accept that words mean certain things. The issue is not whether or not it’s terrorism. The argument should be whether or not the actions are justifiable.

It’s like whinging about whether or not we say “Osama Bin Laden was killed” or if the person who shot him is a “killer” because killing in general is bad/wrong.

Now the government response of categorizing certain people vs others as terrorists matters. What it means for people resisting Trump matters. But those are different arguments.

More than that, it was bipartisan with Republican contribution

I disagree that it’s an issue. I believe vast majority of people understand what a tax is, even if they feel taxes are shitty and respond with blame-y frustration. All words will be misunderstood by some people. Sometimes more and sometimes fewer. If we kept changing the name of things because a vocal minority of people can’t read a dictionary, then we will end up with a handful of generic words that don’t actually mean anything. I believe a better solution is to envest in education more broadly.

Not every kid has the privilege of being born to parents who give a shit or are even in their lives for one reason or another.

Still my original point was not about what the actual good pragmatic solutions are to reducing accessibility (a spectrum from can’t avoid it to mildly inconvenient to highly inaccessible to banned). It was about recognizing the problem at all.

Because we live in a society and things that impact society impact you, as a member of society. It’s the same reason why we have age restrictions for alcohol, porn stores, and cigarettes. It’s also why we have laws about seatbelts, labour, and certain non-toxic but excessively unhealthy ingredients. Even if you take giving a shit about others out of the equation, the self-interested view knows that what happens to others’ kids now can and do become your individual problem down the road.

Enforcing age restriction is not a ban. I think as an adult it’s entirely your perogative to watch your dwarf porn. However your framing of “making everything kid friendly” is a bit misleading and disingenuous. It’s quite the same as complaining everyone is always trying to make things kid friendly because they check your ID at the liquor store. Would it be more convenient if you could just grab and go? Sure. But the social harm without it clearly outweighs the inconvenience.

The fickle problem with the internet porn is still privacy and data security, but that’s a separate issue.

The privacy and security issues of this are pretty obvious. However I do think that the easy accessibility and ubiquity of porn and highly sexualized content for children and tweens is a serious problem that people who make fun of porn restriction efforts fail to address or even acknowledge.

Certainly a lot of the responsibility falls on guardians, but it’s hard to moderate when you’re up against the giant machines of social media. They need help to limit exposure. And this isn’t some prudish “oh no protect the children from the titty and the peen” attitude. I don’t think most people feel comfortable with the idea of 10-year olds sharing videos of aggressive gang banging or throat fucking like it’s a normal thing. And obviously this isn’t exclusive to porn. Plenty of explicit and gruesomely violent content out there to be worried about. But the internet footprint of porn dwarfs everything else put together.

It sounds like it’s just not the show you’re expecting. It’s not trying to be ER or Scrubs. It’s Sherlock Holmes. It’s like watching Mindhunter and criticizing it for not being more like Cops where they solve the case because they catch the suspect in the act of trying to shove the evidence up their butt.