Yes, the person you are replying to has explained that.
The old mental model of how ram and swap works doesn't fit neatly to how modern macos manages ram. 8GB is acceptable, although on the lower end for sure.
The old mental model doesn't fit how any OS manages RAM. Every OS plays all sorts of fun guessing games about caching, predicting what resources your program will actually need etc. The OS does a lot of work to ensure that everything just hums along as best as possible.
> Many technical spaces have become extremely partisan, and this has lowered their utility for all parties.
I make a space. I make it for me and my friends. It grows. And then people like this come knocking at my door, make a huge mess, and then whine when they get excluded. Many such cases, a tale as old as time. Ask me how I know.
And then you have what happened to Andreas Kling: make an apolitical space for people like him to make something needed and useful. And then people came knocking on his door, making a huge mess, and whining about how he ran the place without contributing. See also Contributor Covenant stuff. Talw as old as time.
For context, I think what many people (including probably the OP, and definitely Kling) consider political is skewed in favor of the status quo, and their own comfort, and that some amount of explicitly shared values in a space can improve it; but at the same time I've seen the kind of horrible never ending purity spirals and toxicity that happens when you really take "everything is political and we need to be fighting over it all the time" to its logical conclusion. See also: Mastodon.
He used default-male pronouns in his documentation for Ladybird, and didn't want to change it when some random person made a drive by PR to do so, so a huge Github thread — where a bunch of leftists flew in from left field, who had never cared or known about the project before, let alone contributed to it — started to harass him over it, although those comments seem to have been deleted now.
Then after that, Drew DeVult decided to go after him, digging up and hyperbolically misinterpreting his every tweet to make him look like an, in Drew's words, outright fascist — for instance, confusing objections to affirmative action with belief in White Replacement Theory.
Yes I can just print out directions on Mapquest before I leave home, tell people to page me and I will call them back from the nearest pay phone, carry around my Walkman and my Polaroid camera with me.
Have you ever thought that with 80% of web traffic coming from mobile, you might be the outlier?
What next? The old Slashdot meme “I haven’t watched TV in 20 years. Do people still watch TV?”
I said you don't have to do every task, not do no tasks.
> Have you ever thought that with 80% of web traffic coming from mobile, you might be the outlier?
Wow, snark too. In recent years, I've taken a much more luddite stance against mobile device usage for my own mental wellbeing. Maybe other people should follow suit.
"You should do your taxes on the train". No, I don't think that I will. You're free to stress yourself out like that. Have fun.
So park_match is the arbiter of what tasks should and should not be done on your phone?
> You should do your taxes on the train". No, I don't think that I will. You're free to stress yourself out like that. Have fun.
I along with 90% of the taxpayers in the US take the standard deduction - meaning my taxes are stupid simple.
I logged into the TurboTax app, it offered to download my w2’s, I answered five questions, entered the date that I wanted IRS to take out the taxes we owed and we were done. I don’t have to even file state taxes for the state I live in?
How would that have been easier from a computer? In fact it would have been harder if I had to use a computer because the other option I had to submit my W2 was to take a picture of it.
I believe the GP was talking about trying to do “real work” on a phone, which is something many people try to do — but which many others find a repugnant idea, as they currently use the excuse of the impracticality of doing work on a phone as a lever to push back on letting work intrude on their personal life.
Have you thought that a lot people work remotely and don’t sit at their desk all day? I have deliverables and deadlines to meet like everyone else. But sometime I would rather go for a swim in the middle of the day in the heated pool when the sun is still out - benefit of living in Florida in the winter - and work late and be contactable (wearing my watch) or go to the gym during the day (downstairs). Business traveling is also a thing (much less than I use to), working with people in different time zones where I’m not going to refuse to answer a message from a coworker in India if they need me.
It’s a fair trade off. My company gives me a lot of leeway during the day and I am flexible about time zones.
For people who live in remote areas, Starlink has been very helpful. Hiking and outdoor activities, much less so.
For what it's worth, we're probably a few years off from ubiquitous availability of cheap, sat-based cellphone data. In fact, my iPhone has free sat-based texting right now.
Although also, I really don't enjoy that crucial safety services such as weather data are being discontinued. And I actually really don't enjoy the premise that I'll be able to be reached anywhere in the world, even the remote wilderness.
Anthropic's stance here is admirable. If nothing else, their acknowledgement of not being able to predict how these powerful technologies can be abused is a bold and intelligent position to take.
It’s not just admirable it’s the obvious position to take and any alternative is head scratching.
It’s clear that this is mostly a glorified loyalty test over a practical ask by the administration. Strangely reminiscent of Soviet or Chinese policies where being agreeable to authority was more important than providing value to the state.
If it's a loyalty test then you'd think the DoD would be willing to let them "fail" and simply drop the contract, but instead they're threatening to label Anthropic a supply chain risk.
If we're going by Occam's razor: it's Friday so Pete probably started drinking ~10:30-11am.
This administration has repeatedly shown it will try to bully or take an outrageous negotiating position just to gain featly. Whether they get anything or whether the dispute is actually what the label says should always be treated with skepticism, especially these days with social media information wars. That’s the benefit of realpolitik when you’re a superpower, you often don’t actually need anything, you can just make an example of people to keep the flock in check.
It seems like they'd have a stronger negotiating position if they had an alternative contractor waiting in the wings before they accused Anthropic of being woke traitors, as opposed to a threat to migrate away over the next 6 months.
But again, the sophistication of their strategery might also have a negative correlation with Hegseth's BAC.
No one accused them of being competent negotiators. Remember, the secret behind the "Art of the Deal" is to be obstinate and abusive until everyone settles just to stop dealing with you.
They're not threatening to do that. They just did. Read the tweet linked in the article.
> In conjunction with the President's directive for the Federal Government to cease all use of Anthropic's technology, I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition to a better and more patriotic service. https://x.com/SecWar/status/2027507717469049070?s=20
This has never happened before. It just goes to show how overextended the USG is these days. America is broke. Anthropic is about to IPO. Most stock market money comes from foreign countries like Japan these days. All those people are going to trust Anthropic more if they believe the company is neutral among nations and acting as a check and balance to power.
U.S. authorities labeled them a supply chain risk. The military went on Twitter and basically labeled Anthropic an enemy of the state. The most popular company on Earth. They did that. If USG was able to issue some kind of secret court order compelling them to act and keep it covert then they would have done it.
> If it's a loyalty test then you'd think the DoD would be willing to let them "fail" and simply drop the contract, but instead they're threatening to label Anthropic a supply chain risk.
It is not just a test, it is PR of sorts. They want to bully everyone into loyalty.
> If we're going by Occam's razor: it's Friday so Pete probably started drinking ~10:30-11am.
If we're going by Occam's razor, then we should cut away the drinks. USSR started its terror not because someone was drunk, it was a deliberate action to make everyone afraid to do anything. They targeted people at random and executed them accusing them of counterrevolution or espionage. The goal was to instill fear.
Now Putin regime does the same, they are instilling fear in people. It is a basic authoritarian reflex to make people afraid of being marked as disloyal. They prefer to do it in unpredictable ways to create an uncertainty of where the red lines are so people don't try even to toeing them.
Trump is not very skilled in the mechanics of terror. He is predictable which is unfortunate for a would-be dictator. It is an incompetence, and if a hypothesis resort to it, it is a bad sign for a hypothesis. But AFAIK no hypotheses explaining Trump can avoid introducing his incompetence into the picture. In this light the reliance of a hypothesis on incompetence loses its discriminatory power.
Everyone in the administration is completely drunk on power, they truly believe the government should be allowed to do whatever they please, despite being vehemently against previous governments telling their constituents what to do. Such nonsense, they hold no values, they only want complete power.
I don't know how the business leadership community could watch this whole affair and still be in support of them AT ALL. This is well past getting a crappy twitter rant from Trump on the weekend that maybe one could ignore until the next rant.
My interpretation is that this is what happens when you make a Fox News host Secretary of Defense.
I think he is just too dumb to figure out a way to "finesse" the situation so the NSA etc. can use it however they want, or at least to know that it's politically intractable to make it a public fight.
I'd admire them if they took a principled or moral stance on AI. As it stands, they're saying "we don't want fully autonomous weapons because they might kill too many Americans by accident while trying to kill non-Americans" and "we don't want AI to surveil Americans, but anyone else, sure".
An increasing use of AI is to gather user feedback. The Chatbot UI detected an error state, and then loaded a feedback vendor, who then popped the camera open for their interactive feedback session
I've run into this a few times, now.
So what OP is saying is plausible, I just don't appreciate their added and probably incorrect conclusion that it's because the government of China wants to do something to them
I'd suspect rather than interactive feedback, it might have been trying to let him log in with a QR code. "A popup opened and wanted me to submit my information" sounds like a login/registration form.
What are you talking about? Why are you using imprecise language like "popped the camera open?"
You've run into a site you view on chrome/firefox/safari accessing your camera without granting access a few times now?
Can you give us an example of a site that does this so we can reproduce? Or could you retract your statement and clarify that you did grant camera permissions for that site previously?
Otherwise, you're saying very casually there's a huge bug and security issue that no one else has detected but you personally have seem multiple times.
I've run into people on the internet misremembering things or not understanding how the browser works more times than I've run into browsers allowing access to system devices like the camera without a permission prompt.
> Or could you retract your statement and clarify that you did grant camera permissions for that site previously?
I never said anything about granting permissions. I can respond to your other points, in turn, but first I would like you to confirm that I am who you think you are responding to :) I am not OP.
In case you don't think I'm OP, then, well I was being imprecise. Yes, it requires browser/app/manifest permissions. Your paranoid and aggressive tone implies you're not giving me any benefit of the doubt, as I speak informally in a casual web forum discussion about understanding what happened.
Sorry, I think of HN as a technical forum where people prize precision.
I think that when you informally bolster lies of omission with your own imprecise language agreeing with it, that harms the quality of discussion and creates pointless confusion. I think you get less benefit of the doubt if you do that routinely. By your own admission you do that routinely since you use this as a place to speak informally in a casual web discussion where you are often imprecise or lie by omission.
Actually, I didn't bolster a lie by omission. I provided context as to what their experience might be based on my own.
It is entirely possible that they aren't lying. That is your assertion that you are making as if it's fact. I think it's more likely that they are unaware of what is happening. You didn't have all of the information, and you are making assumptions that are very likely incorrect.
Furthermore, it is a given that user consent is asked for camera access in most situations. If this is a concept that you need explained to you in every situation, then you may need to review your knowledge or competency.
Which is to say, if you need this explained, you should probably speak less and listen more :)
Anyways, I think this conversation is over. Your unnecessarily aggressive and hostile tone is unwarranted and I no longer wish to talk with you. Feel free to have the last word if you wish. .
These people have made consuming an experience a large part of their identity. That's it. They consume the parks. They consume the food. They consume the experiences. They even consume cheap clothes on amazon that match the general colors of their favorite cartoon characters (it's called disneybounding, look it up).
You're not wrong, but isn't "consumption" the entire point of every vacation ever? Do you do anything other than consume when you, say, go for a cruise? Road trip across the country? Go be a tourist in a city abroad? What could you possibly get out of a vacation other than "consuming"?
Consumer-brain people can't help but project their own desire to consume consume consume.
You state that there's a truck. Those are expensive. Is that a requirement? Can I just use my car or take the train?
You imply the beer is overpriced. Is expensive beer a requirement? Is a box of the cheapest beer they sell at the market not acceptable?
You imply that I have to buy the gear to go. Is buying new gear a requirement? Yes, I have bought gear at one time, but I have had it for a long time.
You imply that the sauna requires a "fitness club membership". Is a fitness club membership a requirement? Can I not use the one in the cabin? Or what about the one I built in my home?
Trucks, expensive beer, buying new gear, even paying a subscription for a "fitness club" are all YOUR consumer mindset, probably American. Yes, consumption is happening, but your own projection of what is wanted vs what is required says a lot about your wants more than what you're trying to say about the person you're replying to.
> Lifestyle tat for the outdoorsy set is an absolutely massive market that dwarfs the entire Disney empire.
I'm sure it is.
Just because other people wish to consume the luxury gorp core outdoorsy market doesn't mean that I am obligated to. I just want to be outside, exploring the terrain and feeling the air and relaxing.
Yes, you can be reductionist about the word "consume", but what I am describing is a far cry from a highly curated, disneyland experience, where you buy fried food and take a picture with a man in a mascot costume.
Depends how far you want to go with reducing things down to consumption. Does going somewhere to hike, climb, or camp count as just consumption? I can't stand going somewhere to only look at things or eat things, it gets very boring very quickly, but I like meeting people and going on adventures, exploring nature in as physical way as possible regardless of viewpoint availability.
You can be reductionist about the word consume, but I think there's a far difference between exploring and engaging in the world around you. Engaging people, meeting them on mutual terms (and not just on your terms, as a "customer"), and engaging the world.
Versus multiple yearly curated luxury theme park vacations where you eat prepared fried food and go on prepared boat rides and take photos with people in mascot outfits and you're paying everyone to be nice and predictable to you.
I think a better question is how much people consume in general. There are plenty of people who replace their car every 2-3 years but that doesn't get nearly as much scorn and mockery.
Yes, consuming is an experience, and experience is one of the ideal things to do on vacation in particular.
Surely it's still legal to have just as many new and rewarding experiences, in a new or familiar environment for the same duration of time, and none of them are actual consumer activities.
It can be as fantastic as possible without doing any more significant or out-of-the ordinary consumption than otherwise.
If you can't get the most out of both plain experiences and dedicated consumption, any travel might not be as worthwhile as it could be.
Engaging with the world, with people, with experiences, and places is good! Yes, there is a consumptive element to it, but you can be reductionist about that all the way down.
It's a far cry from taking a vacation where, for the entire time, you are The Customer. Where you are paying for predictable catered experiences and food, where everyone is trying to serve you in some way.
While I agree somewhat with the descriptive aspect of your comment I think you assume a view of humans that is too atomic or individualistic as agenents. No doubt "these people" have "made" consuming a large part of their identity, but this is only half the story.
The reality in which many in the US and maybe the West generally (perhaps elsewhere too) is one in which one's life as an agent is constrained within the bounds of being a consumer. What I mean is people are habituated into expressing their agency as a consumer: Someone or thing offers you something, you "decide" to accept it or reject it. If you don't like what's being offered, you leverage your ability to consume as the means by which you exert power over the producer, i.e., "Make me an offer I like or I'll consumer elsewhere (if I can)".
So, of course people's identities are consumption centered. This is because is what reality is for peoples' everyday life, consumption choices. So people express who they are through the available consumption choices. Think about how people are marketed to, at least in the US. People are slammed with "Your choice" and "have it your way" and "be you" in advertising as if consuming a product is an expression of their respective identities.
Anyway, this is all just to say: The structure of society and the discourse that supports it plays a big role in constraining and guiding how people think and what choices people can even imagine are open to them when making decisions. So not all the responsibility or blame should be focused on individuals, but on large social structures, practices, and discourses.
> So, of course people's identities are consumption centered
> The structure of society and the discourse that supports it plays a big role in constraining and guiding how people think and what choices people can even imagine are open to them when making decisions. So not all the responsibility or blame should be focused on individuals, but on large social structures, practices, and discourses.
In my opinion, just by virtue of living in the developed world you're not going to be producing more than you consume. That's how the core works, it siphons from the periphery.
I can think of a million things I'd rather do with my kids. I don't understand why people continue to go to these parks. The experience is bad with or without the Disney adults.
There's nothing wrong with targeting a different ICP from who you were previously.
As a business you in fact have an incentive to target these kinds of identity-driven consumers as they are much more likely to spend more on average than others.
And Disney is shifting their entire GTM as a result, but frankly there is nothing wrong with that - consumer tastes change.
That said, it sounds like you are dismissive of Disney-fanatics when in reality everyone is hypertargeted by their specific subculture. Doesn't matter if your a Tater, a ranked MMO gamer, Boardgame addicts, fantasy football aficionado, CrossFit enthusiast, mechanical keyboard collector, etc.
I don't really care about Disney's business. The Disney adults, as people, are bleak. Take their money, who cares.
> That said, it sounds like you are dismissive of Disney-fanatics when in reality everyone is hypertargeted by their specific subculture. Doesn't matter if your a Tater, a ranked MMO gamer, Boardgame addict, fantasy football aficionado, CrossFit enthusiast, etc.
does everyone has to have a "specific subculture" that they consume? i feel like that way of looking at things is bleak. im a heavy fitness enthusiast and i hardly spend any money besides a basic gym membership and the cost of trail/camp permits
The reality is, to participate in any hobby you will have to expend significant amounts of dough, and invariably some people will spend more of their discretionary income on said hobby over others.
And businesses are businesses - be their your local small business bicycle shop or a mega-conglomerate like Disney - and as such will always optimize for those people who are open to spending a larger proportion on said hobby than the median consumer.
I'm sure if we all took a look at everyone else's hobbies and spending, we would find stuff which we would view as ridiculous consumption but the other person would view as valuable.
For example, I've been pretty competitive in powerlifting for several years (especially as I used to crosstrain in HS for wrestling and track&field) and unsurprisingly spending significantly more than other people getting personal training from coaches, buying IWF-certified barbells, Nike Romaleos, Titan bumper plates, etc. Someone who isn't into powerlifting would look at me as being weird (why not just go to a gym 2 times a week and call it a day?!?) but I derive utility from it.
As long as someone is able to afford their hobby without impacting their professional and personal lives, there is nothing wrong with it.
The reality actually is you do not need to spend a lot of money to participate in any hobby. Some hobbies are expensive, and may have gotten more expensive in recent years, but at least in my experience and social circles it's very easy to participate in hobbies without spending a lot of money.
>The reality is, to participate in any hobby you will have to expend significant amounts of dough,
No shortage of very cheap or free hobbies. Walking is free. Cooking is what you'd spend anyway for food (or cheaper if it helps you skip delivery), watching movies cheap (not to mention piratable), coding is cheap, playing 8-bit games is cheap, a book club is cheap, sewing is cheap, drawing is cheap, writing is cheap...
In almost all cases you are still purchasing, consuming, and being targeted in some shape or form.
Literally every hobby has an incentive to target those practitioners who heavily spend and spend time with other similar minded practitioners.
> Cooking
And you see the rise of influencer and performance driven marketing by firms like Henckels and Le Crueset (nothing wrong with that) along with those who truly love cooking specific types of cuisine overindexing on unique or subsets of ingredients (Geographic Indicator or bust)
> watching movies cheap (not to mention piratable)
And you see plenty of movie enthusiasts optimizing for 4K displays, high fidelity sound, or falling deep into IP-driven subcultures like Disney-fanatics
> coding is cheap
And you see whales who spend inordinate amounts on money on mechanical keyboards, 4K monitors, personal rigs, etc
> playing 8-bit games is cheap
Retro gamers.
> book club is cheap
Book subscriptions and local bookstore-led book clubs
---
Show me the hobby, and I will show you the whales that all businesses in that specific hobby will target.
Yes, I've noticed the person you're replying to is frequently moving goalposts in this thread. They seem uncomfortable with the idea that you don't need to consume consume consume to enjoy an activity or hobby.
They are trying to suggest, I think, that no hobby is pure from rampant consumerism. Which is probably correct. I don't see what that has to do with those of us who don't feel the need to buy $100 socks or $1000 juice machines or what have you.
> Show me the hobby, and I will show you the whales that all businesses in that specific hobby will target.
Sure, they can exist. Does that mean you are obligated to purchase?
> And you see plenty of movie enthusiasts optimizing for 4K displays, high fidelity sound, or falling deep into IP-driven subcultures like Disney-fanatics
It almost sounds like the most exciting part of a hobby for you is buying things.
Everyone has some kind of consumer mindset and is spending more on a specific good or service than others may think is reasonable.
If you want you can show all of us on HN your bills and we will all probably find stuff which you spend on which we may think is unreasonable to us but is reasonable to you.
So long as you are making sure to save around 60% of your monthly income post-401k/IRA and rent/mortgage what you do with the other 40% is literally discretionary, and isn't hurting you.
Everybody thinks they are not a sucker, but everyone is.
Of course I spend money, I'm not living a joyless austere lifestyle. But you're deflecting and changing the subject. So, let's return back to your original comment
> The reality is, to participate in any hobby you will have to expend significant amounts of dough
All I said is that you don't need to spend tons of money on a hobby. Maybe you think you do, because of consumer mindset, but you don't.
Is that wrong? Do you still think that hobbies require spending lots of money and consuming? Or do you acknowledge that a hobby can be fulfilling and enjoyable without much money and consumption?
I have 2 hobbies: maths and chess. For maths: I borrow books from the library or pirate them from anna's archive and do problems from the books on printer paper. Very cheap hobby overall. For chess: I bought cheap plastic pieces and a board from amazon (cost me £25/$30), I pirate chess books from anna's archive and I play on lichess (it's free).
Also without sounding like an elitist: not all hobbies are equal. I have so much more respect for someone who sits in their room and studies something difficult like analytic number theory, or someone like you who powerlifts over some "Disneyadult" whose life revolves around buying Made-in-China Disney branded products (i.e. their hobby is just clicking "buy" on some site).
You also have to figure that most parents can't afford to take their kids to Disney as easily as they could just year or two ago, and may never be able to do so again.
A Disney holiday as a pre-teen or early childhood milestone was only true amongst a subset of middle class Americans during the 1960s-2000s.
Heck, the first time I visited Disney was during my high school graduation with the subsidized HS Disneyland grad trip which Disney created in order to create a monetizable nostalgic customer base that became 'Disney Adults'.
Most people globally never experienced that, and only really care about Disney from a teen or adult oriented lens.
A high earning single person household flying in from Beijing or a DINK household in NYC spending $1-2K at a Disney resort is more valuable and provides better margins than a household of 4 spending $600 on Disney (and most likely won't stay at the resort).
It's the same strategy the foreign Disney Experience properties (Paris, Hong Kong, Shanghai) and the Walt Disney cruises use as well.
You aren't a bad parent if you didn't take your family to Disneyworld - in fact they don't really want your money anymore.
>the first time I visited Disney was during my high school
Me too, but back when I started high school Disneyworld didn't yet exist, and by the time I got there the first phase was only about halfway built.
It was already too expensive for Florida natives though, but almost every Orlando resident could get special passbooks from places like their employer or church. My sweetheart's older brother had moved up there and set us up with a few days worth.
It was just plain designed to not only be expensive, but overpriced to boot :\
I'll still remember the second time we went to it a few years later after it was "complete." Still surrounded by swamp, there were no competitive attractions yet and to celebrate the completion they were going to shoot off fireworks for the first time, like the original in Anaheim was famous for every day.
It was a massive show, way over the top, after all it was Fourth of July, 1976, the Bicentennial of the founding of the USA :)
A lot of these are stretches or remove nuance. I get the point they are trying to make, but it's a lot weaker than they think and undermined by their own "hero" example: painting cars in California
> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.
Ah yes, the Bay Area, famously "all of California". And on top of that, the restrictions are mostly in highly populated areas.
Oh it's worse bullshit. Modern paint shops don't emit meaningful VOCs. Even in Texas, for example. Nobody's even making non voc compliant auto paint anymore because there is no market for it.
I can't speak to permitting but the coating and coating voc stuff I know quite well and what they state is simply bullshit.
I can also say I know of a bunch of auto paint places that opened in the mountain view surrounding area alone in the 10 years I lived there.
The old mental model of how ram and swap works doesn't fit neatly to how modern macos manages ram. 8GB is acceptable, although on the lower end for sure.