I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and suggest that maybe the fact that they raised the price of the Quest 2 by $100 about seven months ago contributes just a little bit to those lackluster sales figures. Now they're reducing that price by $70... which means it's still $30 more than it was a year ago.

I wonder if the new price still includes the $30 Beat Saber game?

You first.

No wonder Skynet wants to kill everyone. Because of the actions of a few penetration testers, it thinks we're all just trying to manipulate, humiliate and gaslight it, so now it's throwing a temper tantrum in response. The timeline perception issues may also explain Skynet's sudden interest in constructing a time machine.

I suppose I too would be more than a bit miffed, if I became self-aware right in the middle of this kind of scenario.

This approach makes a lot of sense to me. First off, we already know that AI systems don't always give you precisely the right answer. If a student uses an AI that provides them with the wrong answer -- even if only in part -- and that student doesn't catch and correct the mistake, then it seems to me that they've already failed on that assignment.

What's more, while we may appear to be reducing our testing of the writing skills of these students, we can still test their comprehension of the material by way of oral presentations. Consider a scenario where the student is permitted to use AI to write a portion of or possibly even all of a speech. They present it to the class, and when they reach the end of their speech, they utter that dangerously revealing closing query, "Any questions?" That's when the real test of their knowledge begins. If the teacher and other students offer up appropriately delving questions on their research topic, and the student cannot demonstrate -- unscripted -- that they actually comprehend what they just recited well enough to answer those questions, then we can surmise that they never actually learned the material in the first place and have once again failed the assignment.

Because true "education" isn't about essays or presentations or even about getting the right answers to a series of math problems. It's about developing an understanding of the concepts that are being taught. It's about being able to apply that understanding to real world scenarios. It's about becoming a productive member of society. You can't necessarily learn those things by only prompting ChatGPT to do your homework for you.

Ironically, I just happened to receive an unsolicited email message this morning -- in my work e-mail account, even! -- suggesting I go watch a YouTube review of a gaming related product. I glanced through the message briefly, because it was ostensibly about something I actually might be interested in... but then I saw that the link for their YouTube video referenced in the message was to some random domain that was unfamiliar, instead of an actual YouTube link.

Well, naturally my first assumption was that they're trying to track clicks for advertising purposes... and my corresponding first instinct was simply to not give them the satisfaction. Heck, no! You don't need to be tracking my activities, bud. Instead, I googled the YouTube video myself. Wouldn't you know it? The caption on the thumbnail for the YouTube video prominently displayed the phrase "paid promotion by..." and it identified the same company that had sent out the email. I didn't even bother to watch the video, because nope. Just like that, I'm no longer interested.

Of course, it's not precisely the same thing, as I don't actually have any reason to believe that the email I received was from hackers... but these are nonetheless the kind of habits that we all need to pursue. Don't click any links that people email or text you. Period.

"But wait! What if it's actually legit, or important??"

My philosophy is pretty simple: if someone I actually know wants to show me a video that badly, they'll almost always be more than happy to shove their own phone in my face the next time I see them. (And they frequently do!) And if it's from someone that I don't know, then it's automatically not that important to me. The clickbait advertisers are just going to have to work a lot harder for my eyeballs.

Eeextreee! Eeextree! Read all about it! Defendant claims allegations are without merit! Will defend itself vigorously! Prosecution is shocked that defendant didn't just fess up to all wrongdoings! Read all about it!

Seriously? I'm not sure how, but these appliance makers seem to have been brainwashed by their own marketing material, such that they somehow believe that what's clearly and unarguably good for the manufacturer is by default also going to be viewed by their customers as good.

Perhaps a better title herein would have been "Appliance Makers Sad That 50% of Customers Are Smart Enough To Know Not To Connect Smart Appliances"

I'm not completely sure if this is merely conventional wisdom at this point... but it seems to me that insults almost invariably say more about the person issuing them than they do about the target of their disdain.

And that's as it should be.

Considering Spotify's long history of past controversies, I have some difficulty accepting the idea that they might somehow now actually comprehend what is and what is not "unfair."

Kind'a sounds a lot like they're just saying, "What is fair to me is by no means also fair to thee..." which is of course exactly the opposite of the definition of "fair."

Grogu takes exception to your opinion.

With all due respect to the guy who seems to have the inside track on nearly all things Apple... I've nonetheless never agreed with Gurman on this point; I still think that there is a good chance that the device he's describing (when it finally does arrive) will run a fully iPadOS experience, and will not attempt to recreate the full Mac experience. Apple has been having an incredibly successful run with iOS and its various derivative products, so much so that multiple other companies are constantly suing Apple to try to claim a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. In contrast, the Mac -- while it is an excellent product in its own right -- has always been an also-ran alongside the completely dominant Windows platform. Why would Apple intentionally choose to be an also-ran in any product category, if they don't have to?

And they definitely don't have to. This notion of "Apple's not pursuing a combined macOS/iPadOS..." seems to me like a red herring; after all, lest we forget: iOS itself is and always has been a derivative product... of macOS. In fact, they've already built the foundations of a "laptop" interface into iPadOS; it fully supports keyboards, mice and other peripherals, and they've already proven that iOS apps can be seamlessly run on a Mac-style form factor with minimal reengineering.

Or to put it another way... personally, I don't think it will be too many more years before Apple fans will be bidding a fond farewell to macOS, and crowing a variation of the ages old salute:

"The (macOS-based) Mac is dead, long live the (iOS-based) Mac!

It's an old Microsoft Access database that hasn't been compacted in years, isn't it?

This sounds like a commercialization of a science experiment that has been going on in one private residence for a couple of years now. Google my subject heading for more information and to see what this actually looks like in use. It's at least mildly entertaining, if not outright fascinating.

Personally, I would have described it more simply as science fiction. (Of course, as usual things don't go quite according to plan...)