betterThanTexas

I think you mean "invention". Innovation describes how products change over time and doesn't necessarily imply insight or value-adds. Sometimes it just means the packaging gets updated.

I suppose. It's difficult to view capital as "doing" anything but entrenching itself. We're still stuck with the same power structures as we had before; none of neuralink or starlink or tesla or spacex will fundamentally change anything about our world.

Like, it is true that capital is responsible for the charging networks being deployed across america. But it's this same deployment of resources that is also responsible for my needing a damn car to do anything in life, and it has zero plan on doing anything about that.

I find the analysis of this without addressing what should people be doing do be a nearly useless view of humanity. What can be gleaned from this aside from seeing that the people with the greatest impact care the least about their impact?

Making coffee is an agricultural ceremony!

I'm struggling to figure out why you'd pick Musk as an example of a doer when you also can't distinguish coalescing money and talent from the thing money and talent does. What distinguishes doers from capital being capital? How do you distinguish between a "generational genius" and a useful idiot?

"Fiction" doesn't seem to be the right word for open speculation positioned as open speculation, which is how I immediately evaluation observation.

think this is just an observational essay. The confident tone makes for better reading, even if you're questioning the accuracy while you read it. It also allows a more loving tone than a more hedged rhetoric would allow.

Well then Asia is de-facto doing the hardware. Apple is just paying for it.

Apple is famously sitting on a mountain of cash. How easily do you think they could replicate the supply chain of even one of their products without outsourcing it?

> There is no single company from Asia that deals in mass produced consumer goods that's capable of doing decent hardware and decent software at the same time.

Doesn't apple do most of their manufacturing in asia? I don't get your point. We certainly can't match this quality in the west.

ah, if only the rest of us had the willpower to simply choose to not suffer and to enjoy life instead.

Seriously, who do you talk to that enables such viewpoints? I suspect not many people want to talk to you after their shift.

Work isn't the problem; it's doing bullshit work that's undervalued so that morons who don't work can eat. This has held true at every part of the pay scale. It's just the compensation on the upper end helps you have hope you may find meaningful work that can feed you.

I suspect we all WANT to work. We just need to eat, too.

> why is it directed at making money rather serving society

i think this particular phenomenon is rooted in calvinism, particularly in North America, and calvinists hated humanity. It also wouldn't surprise me if the protestants coming over here normally prone to social responsibility (eg some lutherans) were less willing to show up for their community than those in the old world.

> and it makes you wonder how much of it is actual science

I don't wonder. You can look up egyptian texts with translations and pronunciation guides. We have literally hundreds of thousands of discarded papyri and plenty of papers detailing the archaeological processes of their excavations and interpretations. It's a gold-mine of explicit documentation about their practices and beliefs and logistics over millennia. We know about their diets, their genetics, how their ruling class changed over time, how they interpreted life and death, to the extent where we can draw likely religious transmission among stories with other near-east religions. The extent of evidence we have demonstrating actual knowledge is better than anything else in the ancient world.

Granted, interpretation isn't science, but it's still expected to be presented rationally. The linguistics that yielded the translation itself proved empirically very reliable.

There are many cranks into Egyptian history with many different agendas, though, and I'm sure many of them call themselves egyptologists.

From the way they describe how the message is read, it doesn't seem written very plainly at all. It would be odd to assume that this knowledge was accessible to many people if the manner in which it's written is only found in certain circumstances.

I believe you're still expected to be celibate once taking your vows.

> By the fourth century it became standard to forbid marriage because was believed that previously permitted marriage was only for individuals who remained celibate within the marriage.

On the other hand, de-facto marriages (say, a live-in servant woman the priest treated like a wife, including having sex with her) were overlooked by the catholic church on continental Europe well into the high middle ages.

I don't think I learned basically anything about "fancy architecture" from my undergraduate courses except, ironically, reasoning about coupling and overhead.