jemorgan

I’m actually laughing over here, that was pretty good.

Dude the last thing I needed for my “talking to an idiot online” bingo card was “(ignores point) aPpLe fAnBoY”

Two professional 27" 4k dell monitors cost ~$800 combined. You overpaid like a mf if you spend $2000 on a monitor.

Sorry, but you don’t understand the needs of the market that we’re talking about if you think that a pair of ~$400 dell monitors is equivalent to a high-end display. The difference between $800 and $2500 amounts to a few days’ worth of production for my workstation, which is very easily worth the huge difference in color accuracy, screen real estate, and not having a bezel run down the middle of your workspace over the 3-5 years that it’s used.

blah blah blah

I already said that I’m talking about the Vision Pro as a first step in the direction of a fully-realized AR workstation. As it currently stands, it’s got some really cool tech that’s going to be a lot of fun for the guinea pig early adopters that fund the development of the tech I’m personally interested in.

What purpose does a MacBook serve that an office from the 1980’s wasn’t equipped to handle?

AR devices in an office serve the same purpose as existing tools, but there are ways that they can improve efficiency, which is all the justification office tech needs. Shit, my monitor costs 2/3 the price of the Vision Pro, and an ideal piece of AR hardware would be immeasurably better. Meetings in virtual space would negate how much meetings suck remotely. Having unlimited screen real estate would make a huge difference in my line of work. Also, being able to use any area in my home or out of it with as much screen real estate as I want would be huge.

I’m not saying that the Vision Pro does all of those things, but it does some of them, and I’m 100% okay with it being the thing that introduces the benefit of AR to those without imagination.

You are delusional. It’s wild that you’re using sources like Apple’s privacy policy as a source when it directly contradicts what you’re claiming.

The authoritative sources that you listed explicitly state:

• Apple only delivers ads in 3 places (App Store, Apple News, Stocks). Contrast this with Google, which delivers ads on virtually every app on every screen you interact with if you’ve got an Android phone.

• Apple doesn’t share any personal data with third parties for advertising. They also don’t “sell” your data at all. They also don’t buy (or receive) any personal data from third parties to use for marketing. Again, contrast that with Google, whose entire business model is doing each of those things as invasively as possible.

I’m not claiming that Apple is “moral” or “ethical” or anything like that. But Apple’s profits are driven by them selling hardware, which means that if I’m someone who wants to buy hardware, their interests are at least somewhat aligned with mine. On the other hand, Google’s profits are driven by selling ads that are based on the most emotionally charged personal information they can gather. Any service they provide you is just bait for you to chew on so they can build the inventory they sell to advertisers.

Sorry, but you really need to lay of the crack my friend.

You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’.

I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.”

That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation.

If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire.

That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different.

There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about.

How weird. My sample size is now 2, I think I’m ready to draw a conclusion and only consider evidence that confirms it going forward.

Yeah sounds very similar. And weird coincidence, but the guy I’m talking about is also German. Lives in the US now, but his parents don’t speak English, he came here as a kid I believe.

I’ve known a guy for like 20 years, currently in his 60s, who firmly believes that anthropogenic climate change is entirely false.

He has a bachelors degree in physics, a bachelors degree in mathematics, and a Ph.D in economics. He’s written a handful of high level Econ textbooks, he’s worked as a professor off and on at 3 or 4 respected universities here in the US. He was most recently employed at a supply chain consulting firm, making an ungodly amount of money.

By all accounts, he’s an extremely smart, well-educated, well-read guy. But holy shit if that boomer isn’t constantly reposting the most transparently fake anti-science nonsense on his Facebook page. Think, “New research proves that Climate Change is a liberal myth” - The Religious Conservative Storm.

Just demonstrates how it doesn’t matter how educated someone is if they don’t think critically about information that confirms their expectations.