And once you look at the problems you mention without taking the easy way out ("They're aliens and should just be excluded from our society"), the question is not so much whether they have the right to do this, but how we, as a society, can provide care to those people.

Also, I can't understand your presumption that "This is tolerated in the name of individualism". The situation your are describing is a public health issue, not a question of lawfulness.

1: https://www.cnil.fr/fr/cookie-walls-la-cnil-publie-des-premi... (in french, sorry)

I think this is more dependent on the user than on the tool. Surely, different tools will attract different users and we can probably measure strong correlation.

I also think this position lacks balance. Your tool is never perfect, sometimes you realize you could improve it, and you should balance implementing the change with the effect it'd have on your habits. Sure, the longer you use your tool, the smaller those changes are, but your usage evolves throughout your life, and it's only natural that your tools do so to.

However, it is quite ironic that while the value of their hardware has sharply increased, their software has become the slop that everyone is complaining about.

I think this idea appeals to many people, also concerning remanence: keeping your system and user data separate to the point that you could virtually mount your /home on any given UNIX host, with the added bonus that if the host is not compatible with your setup, you can always reboot it on your USB stick, run a live ISO on RAM, and retrieve a decent work environment.

I also understand things are different in many places, but I think the argument is too heated right now, maybe everyone needs to take a step back and think in a more "international" way?

Someone in the linked thread suggested a new tag altogether for religious content, that might be a sound decision.

If you require the full scan to be done in a specific order however, indeed, in the worse case, you have to go from one end of the cube to the other between each reads, which incurs a O(n^{1/3}) multiplicative cost. Note that this does not constitute a theoretical lower-bound: it might be possible to detect those jumps and use the time spent in a corner to store a few values that will become useful later. This does look like a fun computational problem, I don't know it's exact worst-case complexity.

I think this situation also shows a strong divide between two visions of Apple end-game (and I think both exist within the company): exposing those APIs makes the Apple ecosystem better as a whole, with its satellite accessories/app developers; while keeping them private gives them an edge as a hardware selling company. Personally, I prefer when Apple embraces its gatekeeper status.

[0]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/translation/transl... [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/speech [2]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/speec...

While I don't know whether I agree with their view, I do see that, once we've used the function abstraction to build a C compiler, and used this C compiler to build a proper OS, there is possibility for such an OS to provide entirely new abstractions, and to forego (almost) completely with functions.

Or maybe I don't understand the meaning of enshittification?

I'm not affiliated with Kagi, nor am I a paid customer.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42944371

By "left out", I mean that there are multiple solutions to the equations of motion which are compatible with the initial values of the situation.

I guess this could also explain why there is such an association in this thread between non-determinism and non-predictability ?

I mean, we all know helping disabled is not the end-game objective of neuralink. And right now, from a very cynical point of view, disabled people constitute a large reservoir of cobayes and free marketing for Neuralink

I don’t know how much has been invested in R&D on Neuralink, but I doubt we have ever invested that much money in any other technology to provide autonomy to the disabled.

And it is not perfectly clear to me that, for the sole prospect of helping paralysed people, Neuralink is the best way to go. It sure is the one that looks the coolest, but it’s going to be very expensive, hard to fix when something goes wrong, and it is also hard to trust. Those issues do not seem to be avoidable

Don’t get me wrong, I admire the huge QoL gain for the three patients. As individuals, they sure benefited from this. Idk if the same is true of the disabled as a social group