The problem with this mindset is that too often companies introduce something that consumers don't really want and instead of moving on and trying something else, the new gadget gets shoved down everyone's throat. The same is true and far more noticeable on the software side. I find myself constantly wishing that companies would release new versions that are faster, more efficient, and have fewer bugs instead of cramming new features in and then trying to make me use them even when I don't want to. Apple has enough gadgets to refine for the next decade before they need to introduce something else.

You are right, I didn't know or didn't remember those.

NASA's Mars lander airbag technology.

I believe they meant introducing new types of gadgets, not just make existing ones faster or more efficient.

Software development is too broad to really be called a trade. Almost everything is connected to a computer these days and there's no way to teach all of it in four years. The best a CS program can do is to teach students how to solve problems and translate those into languages that computers can operate on, provide them with a fundamental understanding of the computational model and its limitations, and expose them to different tools and best practices that will make them better at solving those problems.

Almost anything that they learn outside of that (and maybe even some of the things related to the aforementioned concepts) will be out of date within a few decades of their graduation if it already isn't by the time they're out of school. Most of the people still posting here would have gone to school before or around the time that the Internet was taking off and becoming ubiquitous, before mobile app development existed, and for some even before desktop PCs were in most households. The landscape completely changed for us, but the skills we learned allowed us to solve these new problems or invent new languages to make those tasks easier.

What we have is too much of a moving platform to be considered a trade.

Most people aren't disciplined enough to stop themselves if they're even aware of the problem in the first place. The screens are incredibly effective mechanism for delivering little dopamine hits that the human brain craves. Human attention to these mechanisms selects for the most suitable and developers constantly try to build a better dark pattern to keep the eyeballs on their app instead of someone else's.

Alcohol has been a part of human society for thousands of years and it's still a problem for us. Some people can use it responsibly and others can't. I would imagine that's due to evolution slowly filtering out the genes that couldn't handle it in moderation. This is an entirely new drug that humans have far less experience with though. Television may share some similarities, but what smartphones have on offer is an entirely different beast.

The scary part is that it will probably get worse before it gets better.

Cut and paste probably are t a stretch for most people. Most preschools or other forms of education involve art and crafts activities. Cutting shapes out of construction paper and gluing them onto another sheet of paper is something that most kids have done before they deal with the kinds of software programs that use the metaphor.

Most people know what files are, but the idea of a file system isn't one that they grasp. Phones have made this a lot worse as they tend to hide the notion of directories from the user.

Also did you mean to type CR as in carriage return? I'm assuming so based on context. You're probably right on this one. I'm old enough to have used a typewriter, but I wouldn't expect most people born in the last 40 years that know much about they operated.

Right. You are applying legalese word precision assumptions to throwaway online comments. I don't think that's going to work well.

No, the one that answered:

"You know what he means, ahole. If this were truly a problem the jet fuel would be rationed and private aircraft would be at the bottom of the priority list"

The entire point of rationing would be to REMOVE the pure market forces that would deal out the limited commodity to those with the largest wallets and replace it with a scheme that benefits the most people, instead of the most money.

If you actually knew better, you'd have posted it, not just made a vague assertion.

Yes, and the only ships running on nuclear reactors are military ships. As I said: No civilian use-case.

Finding Nemo is one of the funniest movies. I can never again hear whale sounds without thinking of that flick, among other memorable scenes.

This is one AC that deserves to be modded up. I already commented, so I can't.

You are aware of what happened Oct 7, 2023, right?

Actually, islamic fundamentalists qualify for that statement in absolutely every way. So at the absolute minimum you'll have to concede that there are two fascist sides.

For sufficiently gracious definitions of "working". Iran was quite busy building up conventional weapons including delivery systems that could be re-purposed for nukes as well as moving towards nuclear weapons. There is no civilian use for 60% enriched uranium. Moreover, the number "60%" is misleading. The work to enrich isn't linear. When you have 60%, you're not 60% of the way from raw to weapons-grade, you're 95% of the way.

To put into context just how insane any claim that they had 60% for any peaceful purposes is: Most nuclear reactors use uranium enriched to 3% to 5%. 60% isn't "a bit more than usual". It's a fuckton more than any non-weapons use can reasonably explain.

Iran didn't need a reason. We all know the reason they already had: Wiping out Israel.