This is great, but would never work in the US. With the US work culture, most companies already expect people to get 6 days work done in 5 days. Overtime is expected in many jobs so the idea of working less would be great for employees, but companies would never get on board with it. Hell, they are already walking back WFH, which has been shown to not decrease, and in many cases increase, productivity. Unfortunately, work culture in the US is entirely defined by the companies, who just want more work from everyone.

Why would this not be so? In ICE vehicles, the range extended by making more efficient engines. Are you saying there is no possibility of more efficient batteries? Or more efficient electric engines? OR more efficient charging? That seems silly based on the changes we have seen in the recent past.The biggest issue facing electric vehicles are charging stations, which is starting to increase now, especially with government pushing for more stations.

I've said this before, but I get the strong impression that the "Vision Pro" is intended as a tech demo, making it so that Apple already has apps and technology ready, so that when phones can emit holograms, Apple already has the technology ready to go. The only problem being that the 3D solid holograms that Vision Pro is clearly designed to emulate are physically impossible so the tech it's waiting on will never arrive.

This would explain why the Vision Pro "isn't" a VR headset and why Apple is so keen on insisting it's a "spatial computer." It would explain why the interface is based on hand gestures and not a controller. It would explain the dumb pass-through eye screen on the outside.

The Vision Pro isn't intended to be what it is, it's intended to work as a dev kit for something that will never come.

I find the concern about ad blockers and how people hate ads to be kind of hilarious given that people actively seek out advertising, such as these ads shown during the Super Bowl. I don't get it, I'm not going to watch any of those linked commercials, nor do I really care about any of the companies or products involved.

But the idea that people "hate advertising" is clearly false, because people routinely actively seek it out. The Super Bowl is as much about watching the ads as it is watching the players receive traumatic brain injuries.

What people hate are intrusive ads or ads that interrupt what they're doing or ads that are otherwise low quality, such as the surge in crappy AI generated ads I've seen on places where ads are unavoidable. But people don't mind advertising, at least when it's entertaining and not thrown in the middle of something else they were doing.

I totally agree. I was just trying to generalize more because this is a problem across industries, not just in the insurance industry. They get the extra benefit of more denials, but the same thing is happening across other industries as well.

"And NaviHealth employees face discipline for deviating from the estimates, even though they often don't match prescribing physicians' recommendations or Medicare coverage rules."

This is the real issue. AI can be a useful tool, but it can't be the decider. I have no problem with companies using AI for a first pass to give a recommendation, but then a real person needs to check the results and have the ability to override it because AI is nowhere near reliable and accurate at this point. Unfortunately, companies, in the rush for profits, don't care about that. They just see it can produce results (and in this case results that will save them even more money) so they start cutting staff and relying solely on the AI. The problem with AI isn't really AI, it is companies seeing it as a profit center and just rushing into it and not caring about accuracy.

And go literally one link below that to data model and you'll discover that the core discover mechanism uses IPLD, which is a distributed hash map implemented over IPFS.

Web3 covers more than just blockchain and cryptocurrency. It also covers things like the distributed identity that they use and IPFS. The CEO of Bluesky comes straight from a cryptocurrency company due to her experience with Web3 technologies. The whole mechanism for linking a DID to a backend is Web3.

Just because they don't use a blockchain doesn't mean they aren't leveraging other Web3 technologies.

The code was literally created by a team at Twitter before being spun off into its own company. It was started at Twitter by people who worked for Twitter.

Which is what, exactly? If you have an open source protocol which anyone can implement meaning you don't have control of the client, what revenue streams are available to you? Bluesky at its core is a traditional client/server app which a whole lot of Web3 stuff designed to allow you to "switch providers" meaning that they have to pay for server and storage costs, but can't reasonably use ads to pay for it. Are they going to ask for handouts?

It uses IPFS. Somehow. I don't really understand, just that it stores your "ID" via some Web 3 stuff but other than that is a traditional client/server model where everything is on Bluesky's servers. The "federated" part is mostly theoretical at this point as they haven't opened to federation yet.

If a quasi-open source federated microblogging platform sounds familiar - you're right, this is just Mastodon with some Web 3 glued to it. Previously the only thing that made it "special" was the invite requirement meaning most people can't use it.

With that dropped, there's now no reason to use it. It's just Mastodon with the same problems Mastodon has, but, you know, originally created by Twitter devs. And with some Web 3 stuff bolted on to try and pretend it's "distributed." It's incredibly unclear what tying your "ID" to "Web 3" provides and why it's any better than ActivityPub.

Ironically, the only way to really see if their "you can take your account with you to a new service" claim works would be for Bluesky to collapse, and given that their monetization model is -- selling domains, I guess? -- it seems like we won't have to wait too long once the venture capital dries up for that.

Now compare that raw image to the final picture that gets generated. It won't look anything alike. The biggest difference is likely the lens correction designed to adjust for the distortion caused by the lens itself. Then you have the various filters designed to map that raw sensor data to color data, which can be tweaked to adjust the white point and the overall contrast and brightness of the scene.

The final photo will be based on the raw sensor data, but it won't be the raw sensor data. What most people would call the "picture" a DSLR takes isn't what the sensor sees. It's the sensor data that's been sent through a whole lot of post processing to produce a final image, not entirely unlike what a phone does.

In context "freedom" means a broad selection of information sources that validate my preconceived beliefs and shelter me from unwelcome contradiction by experts.

At the same time, they increased their stock dividend. So they can't afford to keep people and pay them, but they can afford to give away money to stockholders? Yes, it isn't the same amount, but if you need to cut jobs to save money, you shouldn't be giving it away to stockholders.

Supposedly, it will. This is based on reading a statement by Nintendo about how they view it as necessary for their existing online account system to run on any successor platform. Take that as you will, it's certainly not proof.

But traditionally, Nintendo consoles have been backwards compatible with the previous generation. The Switch was the first that wasn't since the GameCube. Prior to the Switch, the GBA, DS, 3DS, Wii, and Wii U all had some form of backwards compatibility with earlier consoles. The Switch is already using an ARM64 chip, and it seems quite likely that any Switch 2 will continue using an ARM64-based chip.

All of which means it's highly likely the Switch 2 will be backwards compatible, because as you point out, it will greatly slow adoption if it isn't.

The answer is false confidence. If you can't see any bolts, there's a glaringly obvious issue there. Loose bolts risk being overlooked as long as they are seen.

This is the true reason the system is failing. There are other stores I have been to where it works great. Five Below went entirely to self scan and it is really easy because you just come up, scan your items, bag them, and then go. There isn't a bagging area that weighs every single item and stops whenever something weighs an eight of an ounce to much. And the self checkout lanes with the belts are even worse. If the belt doesn't like your item, it sometimes sends it down but them at the end alerts and someone has to come and just bypass the alert because there is no information on what actually happened. Stores are making the process so incredibly complex trying to make sure no one can ever steal anything (either on purpose or accidentally) that they make the entire process frustrating. The idea of self checkout was that it was just like a regular checkout except you scanned the stuff instead of an employee, not that there were 1000 hoops to jump through to scan each item.

The problem with the loser paying the winners attorneys fees is that it discourages the little guy form suing the big guy. As you said, corporations will just delay and bury the little guy. It sounds great to say "well when I win the big guy will have to pay my attorneys fees" but what if the little guy loses? Then they are stuck with their own attorney's fees, but also the exorbitant fees of the big corp as well. Even if you have an air tight case, this go wrong and you could lose. Most people are not willing to take the chance of getting stuck with millions in attorney's fees from the other side if they happen to lose the case. I have no idea what the right answer is, but just "loser pays winners fees" is definitely not it.