Got it, so you don't actually have a rationale, you just have an opinion.

How do you figure?

"Just fix the old version."

The cry of every software user who doesn't like change.

Wait, the new version *is* the fixed old version?

Maybe the biggest mistake was using the number "5" to describe the new version. If they had called it GPT-4o.1, maybe there wouldn't be such a backlash.

The whole concept of net neutrality, was based on the premise that internet bandwidth was a scarce resource, and should be protected from tampering.

In today's world of gigabit and 5G internet, it's rarely a problem for you to be able to establish a connection to whatever resource you want, wherever it is. Your video stream consumes less than 5 MBps, and even 4K is only about 25 MBps. When the median broadband speed is 289 MBps in the US https://www.statista.com/stati... the need for specific protections against internet traffic management, just isn't what it used to be.

Not only that, but it's kind of a moot issue, in a world with gigabit and 5G internet. Internet bandwidth just isn't that scarce, to require rules preventing ISPs from implementing traffic control.

That amendment was proposed by James Madison in 1789, and went nowhere.

Today, limiting the size of districts to 50,000 people, would result in 6,600 districts in the US, a massive change from the current 435.

Here's a solution that would be more practical: Require that the perimeter of each district, be no more than 5x the longest distance across the area. This would prevent a lot of gerrymandering where you have oddly-shaped districts or extremely long, skinny districts, designed to encircle specific voting blocks. By limiting the perimeter-to-diameter ratio, districts would be forced to be geographically intact, limiting the ability of politicians to create designer districts.

Oh wait, California wants to gerrymander too! https://thehill.com/homenews/c... Pretty soon, the other blue states will fall in line. You know they are ALL looking at doing this.

It's not just a red state thing. It's a political thing.

I've been living without knowing these things for the past 59 years. Can't say I *want* to constantly track these things.

If I'm doing a workout, the Google Fit app on my smartphone does just fine.

As for phone calls, texting, directions, and emails, my phone already does this stuff, and does it better, and it's literally no farther away from me than a watch would be, if I had one.

I'm glad you like your smartwatch, but to me, it's more of a toy than a tool. And I don't want that blob on my arm constantly.

A questionnaire is not needed to accurately measure stress. The body produces certain stress hormones in response to feelings of stress. These could theoretically be measured. Measuring stress does not require responding to questions. The watch simply doesn't (or can't) measure those hormones.

You do sound very angry indeed. My tone was sad, not angry. You can tell this by reading my post, which contained the word "sad" 3 times.

I'm not naive. I know that those in power are in it for the money / power / sex -- in other words, in it only for themselves. The fact that powerful people choose the wrong things to go after in life, doesn't make it less wrong.

I can't control the powerful people, I can only control myself. As for me, I choose to focus on family, friends, and loved ones. Money is a tool to do that for me, but not my primary object. I invite you to look at life that way too. You will be amazed how dramatically it will change your life for the better, even if powerful people continue to live only for themselves.

Indeed. For those of us who pay off our cards every month and pay no interest or annual fees, it's all upside. And I'll bet that 2% cash back I get from my credit cards, beats the "perks" you get from the airline cards.

It is how the financial game is played in general. Those who make poor financial decisions, tend to subsidize those who make good decisions.

Here's the thing. Even if stablecoin takes off, airlines aren't going to give you all those perks when you pay with stablecoin. They'll require you to use one of those credit cards to get the perks. So despite the competition from other forms of payment that are cheaper, they *want* you to use those cards, and they'll throw in whatever "benefits" they have to, to get you to keep doing it.

It is dumb, but it's the world we live in, so might as well play the game.

If you're not using a cash back card (or a rewards card of some kind) you're forfeiting money you could otherwise have. And the going cashback rate these days is 2%, not just 1%.

It's true that, in inflation-adjusted dollars, flights today are far cheaper than they were even 30 years ago. A typical flight back then was $300-500, same as today. But those dollars are worth a lot less today. So it's not surprising that airlines are having a hard time making ends meet.

Not at all. Those "free" flights aren't what make the airlines money, those are a cost. What they earn money on, is annual fees, plus a portion of swipe fees and interest when people use the cards.

It's a racket. It's kind of like how arcades give out tickets that you can use to buy trinkets at the arcade's store. If you just wanted the trinket, you could have bought it for far less by getting it on Amazon.