Readit NewsI love how many just ended up here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44864134
1. Unrestricted access to an absolutely huge library of movies, music and TV shows, nearly unlimited. Certainly not limited by opaque "licensing deals" between various companies.
2. Highest resolution/bitrate/quality that was available at the time of the work's original release.
3. No arbitrary device/OS limitations.
4. Can watch/listen/download from any location on earth with sufficient bandwidth.
I didn't even mention that it's free or that there are no ads, because that's pretty much the least important attribute to me. If any company came out with a service that offered those four points, I'd probably be willing to pay a lot for it. How much? Who knows, we don't know how much this is worth because nobody is even trying to offer it.
Cost was/is a non-factor.
Wow! 12-year-old me was noodling around on a computer that my dad brought home from work because it would have otherwise ended up in landfill. We had very little money for computers back then, and I was thrilled when my parents gave me a budget to buy parts to build my own from scratch when I was about to go off to college (I'd saved up a bit myself, but not nearly enough).
I think your experience is pretty privileged, and not at all common.
Information on programming also wasn't as readily available as it is now. I used to go the book stores and use pencil and paper and copy out solutions since $50+ for a book was way more money than I could spend.
Everything today is crazy inexpensive for the value.
Note: I only 'mirror' 2-3 times in a conversation. I've found over using it makes it have less impact. But that's just me.
Weirdly, as somebody non interested in these common topics it also feels like it’s up to you to figure out a topic of common interest and it really isn’t.
About sports also, most people super “into” sports don’t do any. Which is ironic because a conversation about technique is something I’ll gladly have.
Also, some aspects of the stereotype are true: we're violent as fuck, but perhaps that's true of all h. sapiens sapiens.
Rejecting or accepting based on ideology is wrong. And given we lack the technical ability to fully understand global warming, there is no objective truth here.
No. Scientist seek to understand and change their beliefs as the facts become clear - the scientific method. Science is self correcting. Some people attack science for self-correcting, but that's literally the point of science.
Priests OTOH do not look to self-correct. Religion is built on myths, and without those myths it will no longer exist. The only ones relying on myths are those still denying climate change.
Think of the model as an investment.
Exactly, or a factory.