Hah, I'm curious if this is legally possible. I've never seen that on any non-ThinkPad laptop.
I recall Dell had laptops in the past at some point that had blue trackpoint-like nubs
Readit Newsnoooooooph commented on Framework Laptop 16 frame.work/ro/en/laptop16... · Posted by u/susanthenerd
noooooooph commented on Show HN: Index – New Open Source browser agent github.com/lmnr-ai/index... · Posted by u/skull8888888
That’s a very cynical view.
Do the biggest companies not create the most value for the world?
Consider this. If the most successful companies are simply cheating customers, then most consumers are stupid; handing offer their hard-earned money for bad deals and to be exploited.
But most people are not stupid, and most people highly value their money. So, they only buy something because they want what the seller is offering even more than their money. This means that companies create great value because they offer something that people really want.
This assumes there are compelling alternatives in the market that I can choose from. In reality, there are only a few entrenched players in any established market that work hard to limit competition. So yes, even if I'd like to choose not to hand over my hard-earned money to Evil Corp #93, I can only do the "stupid" thing and watch myself and my environment get exploited.
Because universities don't have an alternative. There are two things to realize about this situation:
1. It occurs because academia is a planned, quasi-socialist economy in which there are no market signals anywhere. However even if you get rid of market economics you still need some way to allocate resources. Weird academia-specific hacks like impact factors are the result: they're basically a form of whuffie-like currency, and are used to replace price signals.
2. Academics could change it because they have tremendous freedom and nobody forces them to organize this way, but they never will, because academia is dominated by people who are very sympathetic to Marxist pseudo-economics [1]. Indeed that's how it justifies its own existence: the value of academia to society is framed in terms of negative assumptions about what market-oriented capitalist research can or will do.
It's easy to illustrate the latter point in this case. The author identifies that their system is screwed up and then blames "chokepoint capitalism". Ah yes. A near totally government funded system has an absurd structure because of too much capitalism.
Wrong. Corporate research doesn't have this set of problems at all. The journal system exists exactly because without capitalism academics have to come up with some alternative, and in a centrally planned economy there's no incentive for that alternative to make sense or be any good. So they've drifted into this situation where third parties sell them an alternative ideologically acceptable pseudo-currency called reputation metrics, because they weren't even capable of setting up their own, and flail around mis-diagnosing their situation. Want to get rid of journals? Sure, no problem. Go work for a private sector R&D lab where papers get published on their website and your career ladder is based on the actual market impact of your work, not the impact-factor of where you publish it.
[1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1...
What an abysmal take. Academia is arguably the one place in modern society where the human drive for curiosity does not need to be tied to some notion of utility. It would be terrible to corrupt this with the introduction of a market. Saying that the problem with academia is a matter of assessing “market impact” is missing the point entirely. First and foremost, academia should be about advancing our understanding of the world around us. Figuring out potential applications of this knowledge is a secondary goal, best left to engineers and researchers at companies whose role it is to extract profit from scientific knowledge.