I guess I wasn't referring to the Internet as a concept, but rather what it actually is. Tell me if you think it's really all great next time you see a kid sitting deadeyed on a swing in a playground staring at a phone. The Internet has made some aspects of our lives better but I think many aspects are now worse. There is a very well-studied connection for example between the rise of social media and increase in suicide and self-harm in youth (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...). So while many African can now speak easily or cheaply with those who've emigrated for example, there are a ton of people across the globe whose lives are now measureably much worse thanks to the Internet. So yeah there are great things about it but also a ton of negatives. it would be hard to argue that about past great inventions, such as Pasteurization, refrigeration, vaccines, the combustion engine (though many negatives became very apparent decades later), flight. My point was just that I think it's been a long time, a very long time, since there has been a new invention or product that has undeniably improved all our lives. In any case I was allowing for Internet to be one invention that has as a lot of pros and cons.

"turbines, shampoos, vaccines, jetliners. American star firms peddle AI chatbots, cloud computers, reusable rockets." I can't help but ask, "which are actually more important?/sociall useful?" I often think about when the last really important, indisputably life-improving big invention was made. I know this is very subjective, but personally, as a 43 year old, the Internet seemed like it was going to improve all of our lives but the last 20 years have shown that it really doesn't. So much tech out of Silicon Valley seems designed to improve efficiency at work... but not really improve our lives.

Yet, so far there are no measurable impacts. See also recent statements by NVIDIA CEO. And no, companies most certainly do not hire to "meet demand" they hire to make as much money as possible.

The Economist doesn't think LLMs have affected (un)employment yet (https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/05/26/why-ai-hasnt-taken-your-job). So there's that. Also, the idea that with more productive employees the company can hire more employees that will generate even more revenue. This may not happen in all cases, as greedy bosses may want to cling to the little extra profits they can wring by firing more people. But overall there's no real reason that the same process that has played out over the last few centuries with every new technology that put some people out of work but employed more on balance will not apply.

Thinking of recent technology advances that have led to increased productivity, telephone, fax, e-mail, internet and later Google etc, it's hard to imagine how these advances haven't been nearly equally available and taken advantage of worldwide. What real difference does it make where they originate? AI seems increasingly becoming a commodity that has been replicated already many times. Why would the world not benefit from this (nearly) equally? Of course the US benefits more by having more money flow in and a richer tech sector, but the benefits of the Google search are by no means limited to America. Kind of the nature of tech jumps is that they're shared. Other than military, security stuff etc but he's not talking about that I assume.

The fact that this doom has not yet materialized due to past technological advances does not mean it will not happen ever in the future. To some extent past changes in tech were slow enough for advanced societies to eventually work the changes into the labor markets. Companies found new uses for newly freed labor, and economies continued growing. But should a change that in prior centuries that unfolded over decades happen, say, in just a few years, who knows how well we will be able to adapt? European countries cope well with higher unemployment, but I'm not sure I'd like to live in a United States that suddenly has 20% unemployment. It's hard to imagine the chaos that might bring.

I assume you're saying this not entirely seriously. Because if you are, implying that so much damage would result from one company pulling out of a market is certainly a scary scenario. I hope that we never depend on one company so much, and if it ever comes to that, anti-trust action will make sure that is rectified. Regardless of how much you like Apple (I own a business repairing their products, own a Mac and an iPhone) no one company should ever wield so much power. It's most certainly not in our best interest. I fear you are not joking though and are just laughing off the implications of what you're saying. That it's funny and cool that a company should be so big it does not have to answer to one of the most important economic areas in the world.

A lot of great ideas just don't catch on because of a lack of media coverage or the right viral vector. I would have at least given it a try if I'd heard of it before it was shutting down. Shame.

If you think irrational violence is a "great idea"... congratulations, you're obviously a real Ultra MAGA moron!

From TFA: "Although longer than the Fehmarnbelt Tunnel, the Channel Tunnel was made using a boring machine, rather than by immersing pre-built tunnel sections." Keyword left out is "immersed", which seems is a different type of tunnel construction technique than was used for the Chunnel.

And that's the problem with so much reporting over the years. Source, among others: https://ourworldindata.org/saf.... For all the fear generated by nuclear, and even several major disasters that have permanently ruined it in the eyes of many, it's hardly killed anyone. It has other problems but they are certainly leser than those of the alternative mainstream energy sources that are currently in use.

Yeah, so now we're regulating things before they even exist I guess...

"Sorry, I'm not an anti-vaxxer but..." yeah, that's how anti-vaxxers sound. It's a baby with the bathwater kind of thing. That when a reasonable thinking human being looks at the statistics, suddenly it actually returns to being about as safe as most other things we're allowed to put in our bodies. Birth control pill causes many times more blood clots in women than these vaccines, for one thing. But that's just picking one random fact. In any case, the most rational argument for me is that there will be a greater increase in deaths from slowing vaccine distribution than the vaccine itself, so at least in a situation where there are not enough vaccines to go around (EU for example) the decision should be clear. What sucks, for you and I, is that they just won't be the same people. But, such is life on a planet with 8 billion people.

So you too think it is more accurate to say that the batteries are attached with glue than to say adhesive tape? It's obviously misleading. And it's an important distinction because adhesive tape is much easier to deal with than actual glue. ADHESIVE is quite simple to deal with, while GLUE would be really difficult.

Do you consider tape to be glue? Words have definitions for a reason. I think when most people think of glue they think of epoxy, superglue, wood glue, etc. (all liquids that help bond two surfaces). These are adhesive strips, essentially double-sided tape. I don't understand your question.