I saw the new one, it seemed like a cheezy generic attempt at he MCU playbook. Faux Ironman and bots, obviously fake CGI (why? WHY???) over and over including the "star" of the movie.

Oh, and at least they skipped the gender politics (kinda) and only threw in mockery of other political topics. Eh. The movie wasn't really that good and seemed very formulaic.

Even with Natural Language (we are not there IMO) interactions it's still easier, faster, and arguably less distracting to turn a knob 2 clicks and make the AC blow harder. Basic interaction works best with basic (physical) controls you can manipulate by feel and never look away from the road.

Semi-complex interaction, like asking GPS for a gas station along your route in the next 20 miles is a decent use case. A human would probably pick a better option, but this falls under 'close enough' and can be faster/easier than doing it manually without any significant distraction.

Once you get to complex operations like scrolling around maps, find adjustments to things, etc. you're back to manual control being far superior to voice control (even if it's on a touch screen) because explaining those actions is too complex to do accurately.

The manufacturers want it. Multiple physical buttons are (apparently) expensive in the context of all the added wiring, etc. vs a single touch-screen that can 'do it all'.

BUT with all the focus on distracted driving the last decade or two, it seems awfully counter-productive to make people look at a screen to find the buttons to adjust climate control. In many ways, it's easier to hold your phone up and thumb thru things (so the road is still in center-view instead of hiding it in your lap like people do now) than look over to the touch screen and try to tap the right spots at arms-length.

Common controls like climate, traction, shifting, signals, and probably basic media control should all have physical buttons. Then just give me a screen for CarPlay/Android Auto and the remaining car controls. There's really no point in any kind of GPS/infotainment in cars anymore other than a pricey, bundled, upsell to pad profit margins. Even grandma has a smartphone.

Until it's my personal, private "AI" that's doing the 'thinking' about things...which doesn't share back to anyone...I've really limited interest in every cloud provider directly snooping all my data. E2EE is frankly the name of the game, and if you design your apps to access the decrypted in-flight data for 'monitoring' purposes then you've effectively built in the back-door the EU mandated recently.

In a perfect world E2EE should be available for all services - especially with things like cloud storage - and allow for a robust private key/BYOKey approach. Too bad that takes away from all the data mining that actually pays for the services.

Playing it out, you do get to that point. It might be an opt-in function to start but then the "let's do more" crowd gets the idea to background record everything in case if flags nudity and then you can auto-upload that to ... where ever police FYI something something.

Never mind they'll bury in the TOS that every call becomes 'anonymized training data' even if you don't use the service. There's a point where every interaction is scrutinized by some AI or algorithm and we're no longer adults but baby-sat humans. Most cloud storage providers are already scanning all your data/uploads for anything with a verboten hash.

It's a good argument for using BOYKey encryption for ALL your data and interactions. Too bad that's not consumer-ready, largely because it would prevent big brother from snooping on everything to sell more ads. Honestly if someone created a universal API with BOYK encryption to sit between your device and other providers...they'd probably make a killing.

That's ... not really accurate or how an IPO/opening cross works. The point is immediate liquidity for the listing company while the initial investors hold the bag and more slowly sell shares according to market demand. Read on for details:

IPO price is decided between the company and the underwriters. Too high and there's risk to the underwriters/investors losing money facilitating the IPO. Too low and the company leaves money on the table. This process guarantees the company an immediate cash return of a specific dollar amount in return for the shares tendered.

Then you have the opening cross match that determines the initial *market* price based on pre-open, pending orders aka demand. Those orders get processed, the stock priced, and trading commences in a fraction of a second. A point of clarity: all tendered shares are NOT immediately available on the open market.

A company will price as high as they can, within the range that underwriting will allow for. It's not risk-free money for investors either - they can't just dump all their shares on the market post-IPO without tanking the price. There's a lot that goes into how deciding how many shares are held vs sold, when, and at what price. You may have underwriting that will help support pricing on an IPO with open large buy orders - to prevent a stock from falling below certain price targets. In the end it means those 'insiders' get paid to hold a much bigger nut when a company goes public.

There's a direct listing IPO, but it's much less common for reasons not worth getting into.

Reference: I work for one of the stock markets.

The M1 was a major change and a big win for Apple sales, true. Impressive? Certainly and it WAS a 'courage' moment for Apple. Revolutionary? I'll agree to disagree since ARM isn't exactly new and...4 generations in the rest of the industry is happily marching down it's own path still.

I agree that Apple tends to make big leaps on occasion ... but now their platforms are all mature and they're hurting for the next one. Look at the failed AVP.

I guess it does take some courage to outright defy a court order, but the really stupid kind. Apple knows it's riding a gravy train and there's many billions on the line - there's literally no amount of lawyering and even campaigning for legislation that wouldn't be worth it for them to overturn this. They may find that the maximum fines available to the courts are simply payable in perpetuity.

What's really at stake though is Apple's continued growth. Tech has stagnated. There last 3 or 4 iPhones have been largely identical. The M1/2/3/4/etc. progression is just incremental. There's no killer app for the masses that needs an "AI-Enabled" computer which can't be done faster in the cloud anyhow.

If Apple has to take this hit, and they SHOULD, there's really nowhere for them to make up the lost revenue.

Ugh, sorry to hear it! This is one of those things where the healthcare industry can't even get out of it's own way. Sometimes it's better todo things on the downlow than hope you check exactly the right boxes for some generic formula.

While most diets yo-yo because once the good behaviors stop, the bad ones often return worse as a 'reward'...GLP-1 drugs have the possibility of developing new behaviors and patterns. If you genuinely get used to eating less because clearing your plate is uncomfortable, you can develop new habits not out of sheer force of will but instead out of positive reinforcement. (i.e. not feeling sick from eating too much)

For many they break the compulsion aspect of eating, drinking, smoking, etc. and give you time to develop new habits that aren't destructive. I'd suggest giving it a try - worst case you maintain low-dose after weight loss. Seems like a pretty reasonable option for long-term health too.

Psh, like they'd spend good money on actual sugar.

HFCS though? I put that shit on (in) everything!

Tell me more about how little you understand the topic you're definitively posting about.

If you didn't pay stupid prices for these drugs, it's actually cheaper to take them and eat less. My dose costs ~$10/week and I definitely save more than that by eating and snacking less. Skipping a single appetizer or a couple snacks puts me net-positive.

If you're paying $100s/week then no...but the long term savings in healthcare is still strongly net-positive.

Muscle loss is likely due to diet changes, not the drugs. If you aren't getting enough protein you'll lose muscle even if strength training. For me, I focus my calorie intake on protein and let the carbs/fat happen as they do. A protein shake for a meal is perfectly satisfying/filling and the couple fries I have with dinner are more than enough carbs. I likely hover on the edge of ketosis but to no ill effect.

OTOH if you eat snacks, get full, and skip a proper meal with proteins then you'll be severely deficient and ... yeah lose muscle.

I've gained muscle on Tirzepatide.

I don't get people saying GLP-1 or GLP-1+GIP drugs make you shit yourself. Anyone claiming that clearly hasn't taken them.

The OPPOSITE effect is fairly common: constipation is a genuine risk and needs to be monitored or diet adjusted to avoid.