> There is a headphone jack, but it's on the top of the phone.
They say that like it is a bad thing. I've always preferred the headset jack on the top because if I'm using the device while sitting and the jack is on the bottom it interferes with resting my phone holding hand the table if I'm at my desk or on my chest or leg if I'm the couch.
The main argument I've heard for jack on the bottom is that most people normally put their phone in their pocket with the top down, so if the jack is on top you have to flip it.
Google is telling me that jack on top was the norm in the early days of smartphones but gradually changed as the pocket argument won out.
Of course this wouldn't matter at all if more phones rotated the screens so that the display was upright even if the phone is upside down. Then everyone could have the headphone jack where they want.
I think it's about when you put your phone in your pocket, you have to have it top-up while most people put it top-down, shortening the lenght of the cable and pushing against the connector. In that optic top jack is worse, I believe
They went instead with "Assembled in the USA" printed on the box, which means that the phone was put in its box in Florida.
"Official" MAGA hats now say "Made in PRC" as if their wearers are too stupid to realize that means People's Republic of China, after the backlash against "Made in China". It's not a bad bet, actually: a media outlet back in the day polled a bunch of Republican voters and asked "If the government were to introduce, instead of Obamacare, some form of Affordable Care Act, would you be opposed?"
(And the number one Google query on the last election day? "Did Biden drop out?")
There have been quite a few punctuations proposed for indicating sarcasm, but interrobang not one of them - that (‽) is literally a combined ? and !, and is (per wikipedia) for "a question in an excited manner, expresses excitement, disbelief, or confusion in the form of a question, or asks a rhetorical question".
This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation - has sarcasm ones (but I don't think any are as well known as the interrobang, which itself isn't exactly universally used... though personally I'm weird enough to have a keyboard shortcut to type it on my phone)
The "/s" is just punctuation, same as "!" or "?" or even ".", which was a radical suggestion at one point. Punctuation isn't bad, it's not necessarily good either, but it is often useful. It should be judged based on whether it improves the ability to communicate via the written word by encoding nuance that would have been expressed verbally.
And A Modest Proposal isn't comedy, it's also not sarcasm, it's satire. Modern satirists may have confused themselves into thinking that the point of satire is to be subtle, but this is a disastrous idea. Satire is political commentary, it's supposed to be so over-the-top and starkly obvious in its intent that it cannot possibly be misconstrued as accidentally arguing in favor of what it's trying to argue against. This is why, for example, Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is bad satire: if someone has to ask "is this satire?", or someone has to helpfully point out that something is intended to be satire, then it's bad satire by definition.
/s is not punctuation, it's an explanation. And explaining the joke kills it, and also insults the audience. Sometimes the ambiguity of a statement is itself powerful, as it reveals how one side can wholeheartedly believe something the other finds absurd.
One should only use /s if the comment is really so devoid of absurdity that it can be misinterpreted.
GOOD: Trump has done a lot of good for Americans /s
BAD: Trump is the greatest human ever born and is entitled to prima nocta with all brides /s
Re: sarcasm vs satire. You're mostly arguing the dictionary. The /s "sarcasm" markup is used when satirizing some POV, not just strictly for sarcasm.
... because the entire point of VTOL (which is what the parent commentary was about) is that you can take off and land vertically and therefore don't need one of a few, scarce, super-long runways? ... and the waiting you're talking about is entirely because of those?
On top of that, small VTOL craft that can hover and would be at lower speeds closer in (esp. autonomously flown) would just need less mutual clearance compared to jets, which also have an altitude band they have to stay in, as well as no ability to slow to a crawl and coordinate finely.
And if productivity does increase, how are we supposed to force the recipients of this productivity to care about the rest of us? It's not like investment has panned out with its promises of general return in any of our lifetimes
I'm not sure I understood your question. Literally, of course not, but how does it relate to my points?
If I had a car 100 km/h faster on straights, after some training I would probably win Monza, but that would be a car that does not conform to F1 rules (or we would have that kind of speeds now) so that would not be a F1 race.
Maybe your question is about the sharing of praise between the team and the driver. I think that every race fan agrees that when a team did a much better job than all the other ones and have a dominant car, the championship is a competition between the two drivers of that team. So the car is the single most important factor. Then the best driver wins. Nobody can overcome a one second difference in a season of 24 GPs.
It's more to say that F1 drivers are a selected niche that is very good at winning F1 races, representing maybe a 200 to 5000/8,300,000,000 group. I doubt you could win an F1 race at all, respecting the rules. Whether the team deserves praise or not, the drivers show exceptional aptitude to win.
If Terrence Tao finds a novel proof, I believe it's his exceptional aptitude that is to praise, whatever help he used.
Edit0:I would bet that a normal run of the mill random human would be likely to kill themselves racing (with actual intent) an F1 car.
Well, I'm absolutely sure I can't win a race respecting the rules. I would bet that no HN reader can, even if I don't know if there are pro drivers here.
I add that my bet of winning at Monza (a stop and go track with minimal turning) with a non conforming 100 km/h faster car is optimistic. Honestly, I would brake too early, carry not enough speed through chicanes and corners, waste a huge part of my speed advantage by starting accelerating from lower speed.
I also think that 50+ laps will give me plenty of chances of crashing out even with plenty of training. Maybe even kill myself, as you write.
Maybe I could take pole position with the (very) old format of the best time of two 1 hour sessions on Friday and Saturday. I think it ended in the 90s.
I still don't understand the relationship between your question and the discussion on AIs.
If only a small, highly trained and specialised group can use a tool to accomplish a task that can't be accomplished by people not from the group, with or without the tool, it shows to me the proficiency of the people using the tool.
You might've missed my sentence about Terrence Tao?
Maybe I'm dense and haven't understood why you've brought up racing?
Edit0: about killing yourself driving: it highlight that the tool can't be considered "the main contributor"to an achievement if 99,99% of people would not achieve the same outcome but would be likely to die from misuse instead. The person that wrangles it and achieves exceptional outcome is all the more to praise in my book.
I’m not sure what your point is. I could certainly not, and I could certainly not write a breakthrough paper in mathematics even with the most advanced AI. I wouldn’t even know what to ask of it.
Perhaps I could set up an elaborate master agent to consider all possible new problems in mathematics and ask sub agents to work on the most promising ones. But then I could probably also program a self driving car system which could win an F1 race as well.
reply