No thanks. "I tried to reach you yesterday". "Oh sorry, I happened to walk by an opera house." PLEASE, less, not more automatisms. Everything has a tendency to produce false positives.
> "Oh sorry, I happened to walk by an opera house."
It would be unfortunate for them to phone you precisely in the small period where DND was turned on as you walked past the opera house (even a large one would be, what, under two minutes of walking?) and not try you again.
(Because if you have instant location-based DND, yes, it might turn on as you walk by an opera house but equally it would turn off when you were past the opera house. Normally, though, I'd expect location-based DND to only kick in after a certain period of time in the same location - say 10 minutes.)
Sure, the coffee shop might be a problem (since I'm guessing that'd be more than 10 minutes.) You could always turn it off (and a smart system wouldn't turn it back on 10 minutes later unless you leave and come back.)
Apple and Google know the geolocation of every WiFi network in the US at this point. They could use signal strength as an additional measure if GPS is not accurate enough (though I'm pretty sure it is).
Thats the way it is when you just started working. 25 years ago, when I started to work, it took me 10!!! years to finally earn enough to have a monthly surplus of a low three digit figure. I finally saving money in earnest roughly 8 years ago. So it took me roughly 15 years to earn enough to finally be able to save some money. Back then, doomsaying wasn't a thing yet, so all I did was hang in there, and, never really complain. Sure, things haven't gotten easier, but really, what GenZ is doing these days is professional complaining, thats all.
> what GenZ is doing these days is professional complaining
We are watching machines rapidly match and surpass humans at countless skills that were considered uniquely human mere months ago - skills that demanded a lot of creativity and insight. Some of our oldest fields of study (e.g., mathematics) are turning into a game of who can spend the most tokens.
I think the humans are entitled to complain a little.
But if you're having it worse than your parents' generation, you are more likely to complain. And as a corollary, if you are having it better than your kids' generation, then you are not entitled to complain about their complaining.
> Sure, things haven't gotten easier, but really, what GenZ is doing these days is professional complaining, thats all.
They have gotten measurably worse. Housing is the most obvious example, it takes more and more yearly incomes to buy an average house.
On top of that, every generation including and after the Millennials got force fed the propaganda of "you need an academic degree to be worth a dime" and companies went hard on that as well (because companies don't need to pay for training, unlike a classic apprenticeship/training system)... and now AI is displacing knowledge workers en masse, because machines can digest and reinterpret knowledge far, far faster and at much larger scale than even the most autistic superhuman.
Why is this so heavily downvoted? Is HN just full of old people that can't digest the fact that the world hasn't really gotten better, when it comes to housing and jobs at the very least?
> What even is the point of cities in a world without work
Transportation, silly? Even if I didn't have work, I'd still want to reside in a city, maybe even the same city I am currently in. 10 minutes walking distance to the center. 3 tram-lines in 5-minutes walking distance. A supermarket 400m away. All things I didn't have in the rural area where I grew up.
Well, regarding manual labour. Putting aisde the "is working with AI drying out your brain" discussion... Quite frankly, even fast touch-typists like me will never outpace an LLM write a few obvious functions... Isn't that also more or less the same thing as being freed of manual labour. How much of the thinking/design process your outsource to your LLM is a totally different discussion. See vibe-coding vs "pair" programming. But all that aside, I very much feel like LLMs are pretty much saving me a lot of manual typing.
Child abuse is practiced by the parents who end up deciding to use such a thing. Please don't shift responsibilities away from those who have them. If a parent makes such a decision, they are prone to also do other bad things to their children.
If somebody was marketing cigarettes for children, I don't think "only bad parents would buy these anyway" absolves the company for knowingly setting this situation up and profiting off it.
Every day I see a celebrity in an ad for gambling and they all have the same defence "well, if people choose to gamble if they have a problem, then that's on them". Everyone knows it will destroy lives. But they say "that's on them for buying what I'm selling".
People are walking around perpetuating the moral compass of a heroin dealer like it's normal. You are responsible for your mark on the world and your fellow human beings. Yes, even if you only did the bad thing to get the money.
You could appy the same hyperbole to alcohol. Yet America learnt 100 years ago that prohibition isn't really s solution. As much as you might hate it, there isn't really a way around people being responsible for their actions to a certain degree. Besides, comparing technology to heroin on a site like HN is pretty hilarious.
Gin is supposedly very calming for toddlers. Stressed parents used it a lot back in the day. I hear if you're fancy, cognac is even better. You gotta be a real hypocrite to drink a beer on fridays but not let your toddler have any, right?
Some things are difficult to regulate, even as we know they are harmful and difficult to control for adults due to their addictive nature.
You don't have to think about it very hard to realize that kids, who have not yet learned to emotionally regulate themselves, will be even more vulnerable to these things if we push it on them.
Thanks for underlining my point. Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion. No need to regulate the gin industry just because there are hopelessly bad parents in the world.
but the fact that " Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion" seems so absolutely self-evident to you has been brought about by a century of regulations, public education and resulting stigma/taboo. believe it or not, but giving (small amounts) of alcohol to toddlers and even infants (by way of drinking a shot before breastfeeding) was actually a shockingly widespread practice across many countries over 100 years ago. it took real effort by governments to get people to stop doing that and get us to a point where we are now - where such behaviour is self-evidently bad to anyone in their right mind and we've collectively agreed that it's in everyone's best interest that the state takes children of parents who do this to them into custody.
it is not unthinkable that future generations, perhaps not even that far into the future will regard and regulate tablet/phone/[smart device] usage by toddlers in the exact same way.
"over 100 years ago", you wish. The last case I was personally told about was from the 1980s. Yet, regulations and/or taboo didn't help that child. A hopelessly negligent and stupid mother is just that, case closed. And that is pretty much my point. No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors. And pretending the responsibility is with evil large corporations or the government is only clouding the truth, namely that parents are responsible for their children and what they consume. I am sooo fed up with all these excuses. And I have reasons. My mother wasn't and still isn't the most rational person. And no amount of regulations would have protected me from her mental health issues. It wasn't the fault of the car industry that my mother told me at the age of 14 that she wants me to go with her on a car trip visiting my grandmother because she would prefer me also dying in case she had an accident. No amount of industry regulations would have protected me from the schock I had when I heard that sentence. Openly talking about the responsibilities of parents and not hiding obvious stupidity would have perhaps helped a bit.
> No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors.
More people need to be talking about this. The children of parents who abdicate their responsibilities of parenting are going to become the adults we deal with on a daily basis. I think the scope of the issue is not perceptible until you get to know how much damage a person with all the power can bring onto their child. That kind of thing is lifelong and not everyone can afford the therapy you will end up needing.
It shocks me that even the nicest parents I know - on the surface - still give their children phones.
This is why I see the drive for child safety regulation as an unspoken admission that the problems of an individual parent are falsely seen as insurmountable, so people start pointing fingers at whoever is in the vicinity, when in reality the parent was the one responsible for choosing their own fights by purposefully exposing their child to the modern Internet. Parenting has existed for thousands of years, social media for just 20. This is a solvable problem but parents have to change their behavior. When the majority of childhood is spent with one's family, there is no other solution.
I believe that in marketing something to children, you become co-responsible for the usage situation you are promoting, even as parents share that responsibility. Marketing cigarettes, gin or tablets to children would be immoral in deeper ways than doing the same to adults. I stand by that.
For the record I think the gin industry should in fact be regulated from marketing their product as a pacificer for kids. I find it very difficult to believe that you don't.
Nobody is marketing a "toddler pacifier" to children. The intended audience is PARENTS. Or do you actually know toddlers with enough financial power to buy their own tablets/whatever? C'mon, the cope is getting really hilarious. I don't really understand where this reluctance to make parents responsible for their decisions comes from? Is it a knee-jerk reaction of actual parents? Why is it so hard to accept that YOU are responsible for most of the things happening to your child until a certain age?
Nobody is saying parents aren't responsible for their choices, only that trying to influence them to make harmful choices via marketing is immoral and bad for society. The parents are supposed to give this thing to their kids as a pacificer, that is literally the proposed use case here. If you are trying to make money by encouraging people buying your cigarettes for their children, you are morally complicit in that outcome, regardless of all the purchases still being made by adults.
I don’t think it’s woke that killed it. If they’d embraced the right with similar zest, the result would be the same. I think it’s ‘go divisive, go broke.’
Your post would be way less hilarious if you refrained from using words like "bitches" in a post arguing for DEI! Derogatory sexist terms don't really help your cuase.
While cynical, there is a lot of truth to your statement. I wish the activist type would realize that they are actually being used, but it appears there isn't much chance they will ever listen to the old dogs in this game.
Real equality isn't obtainable. What we are doing currently is just moving things around. The classic case of the vocal minority being louder then another minority. This isn't creating honest fairness, it just highlights certain groups to the detriment of others. Since LGBTQ has become louder, disabled people are being more forgotten again. Accessibility is HARD, so, just cater to LGBTQ and your corporate conscience is magically cleared up. Activists HATE this insight, since they are also blind to the needs of even smaller groups. I know what I am talking about, I am disabled, and I am watching the "landscape" since 35 years.
If your knee jerk reaction is to downvote this, I am not surprised, because, you know, that just underlines my point.
Is a bit like with democracy. Its the best system we have... Everything we, as humans, do, will eventually be unfair, because, frankly, humans are just not fair. Sure, a select few have high goals, and might even DTRT... But thats always just a small group. The rest of us will try to take advantage of others, some coniscously, some unconsciously. Humankind will only be fair once it has ended.
I don't see how you could conclude that capitalism is the best system when it is the only one the west has tried since the end of feudalism. I think there is still plenty of progress to be made and capitalism creates more negative incentives than anything positive.
reply