None use the file system in anything like the way their unix underpinning would have files be understood or organised for users. Hard to even know where your files are without asking the app to deal with them one by one. Predated phones and even Spotlight doesn’t do a good job of showing/knowing where your files are.

Yeah because Apple has broken that idea over and over and over. The anti-unix unix.

Yeah. It’s a German model.

But in Ed Zitron’s world, he is unequivocally correct and literally everyone else in AI and tech and who is investing is wrong. It’s an important data point he has to forcibly overlook that millions of people building and doing more and inventing more things than he is aren’t agreeing with him.

Methinks Ed doth protest too much, as someone who loves talking down to others.

Saying journalists who comment on anything to do with business or markets shouldn’t participate in markets is nonsensical. But makes sense for you because it seems like you believe nobody should participate in markets.

Money in play or not, Ed is very much participating in the market. And also causing others to participate in the market differently to how they would have without him. At this point he is more polemicist than journalist.

If one’s analysis of fundamentals really does point to valuations becoming completely detached and unrealistic, then it is actually sensible to short the market, and indeed, one of the functions of the market is to collectivise intelligence and wisdom about pricing, and shorting stock is a valid mechanism for doing this. People are happy even, to lend stock to shorters for a small premium, who are then free to sell and buy back when their analysis proves to have been justified.

The issue with Ed is that his analysis wasn’t proven justified two years ago, one year ago, or today. So a large part of his analysis is simply missing, because the main thing he’s commenting on boils down to prices in the market.

I for one would be respecting him much more if he revealed short positions and gave timeframes. If he is correct then he stands to become phenomenally wealthy. The issue right now is that he isn’t correct, and when the bubble does pop he’s going to be insufferable with his told-you-so-ing.

Even that day, AI will still be getting used just as much as the day before and its use and capabilities will only be improving. I can’t imagine Ed will be saying “ok these valuations are now actually sensible, you should buy now” if the house of cards comes crashing down… which for me might happen around the time OpenAI and Anthropic have to publicly report earnings (or complete absence of earnings) after they IPO.

It’s just last century’s Objectivism with an even more smoke-and-mirrors name.

Effective altruism should have been effectively killed by SBF’s take on consequentialism - that basically the ends justify the means, and the means are all fine because one has egotistically (and narcissistically) omnipotently computed the optimal end result therefore the steps between now and that end are all justified. The problem is the world is a complex messy place, and reason is the slave of the passions, so in the real world it just seems to result in fraud and manipulation and can justify basically any kind of behaviour while making the doer believe they’re acting morally.

It sounds like participation in markets isn’t right for you so don’t do it.

“Being right at the wrong time is as good as being wrong” - Howard Marx

Maybe in your suburban sprawl where multiple telephones and multiple cars per household are essential necessities because it’s a 90 minute walk to a shop or a friend’s then one would have unlimited local calls but in huge parts of the rest of the world unlimited calling simply wasn’t a thing.

I can’t imagine you get invited to many dinner parties.

If you’re the person who is out, then you don’t have a landline to call. Or then have to make the decision while out to go and find a payphone and have correct change and put in money to make a call to see if the person is in, while the clock is frantically ticking on the call.

Like if you’re equidistant between your house and your friends house, it is also simpler to walk to theirs and find them rather than walk home, call them, check they’re in, and then walk to theirs anyway.

Also if you weren’t the person who paid the phone bill, it was often presented to you as a more parsimonious solution to use your feet rather than the telephone.

Another example is if you made a plan to meet somewhere at a specific time and the person didn’t turn up. You would have no clue about where they were or what happened even if you found a payphone and called their house and it rang out. You were still s.o.l. for the rest of the day so dealt with it.