whateverman23

This is the opposite of stifling innovation. It's literally not innovative, which is a big point of the ruling.

The company produces and sells watches with the technology. It's not a patent troll.

Okay, but that's not the framing of the argument I'm responding to in this thread. The title of the article and the people I'm responding to are framing the percentage growth as the problem.

S&P 500 YTD is at 20%

Vanguard growth fund (VIGAX) 42%

AMZN 71%

APPL 56%

MSFT 55%

GOOG 52%

TSLA 124%

Anyone with an aggressive but not insane portfolio could be at 47% growth in 2023.

You can't fully remove the "gag-worthy" label unless they use the word "layoff". Calling it "rightsizing" or "headcount reduction" is gag-worthy.

A great gag-worthy line: "Please know we are focused on treating our impacted colleagues with the respect and compassion they deserve".

Also, if the note doesn't include the CEO stepping down (even with a transition period would be fine), then it's not a good layoff note.

> in order to get the discussion centered more on the idea itself and competing views on the extent to which folk's have found some usecase or success with it?

So you only want "competing" views if they line up with your views?

The study was about driving, something many/most of us do on a regular basis. It shows that:

1. Sleep deprivation while driving is comparable to being intoxicated while driving.

2. Those who are sleep deprived are not reliably able to recognize their impairment.

If you think it's "obtuse" to bring this up, then I don't know what you're trying to do here. Those are extremely important pieces of information to bring up.

> Why don't you try it and see?

I feel great after a few beers, but keeping that state is a very bad idea. "try it and see" is not a great idea when it comes to your brain.

> Well, if there's not a cost difference, why do they keep trying to double my pricing when the base tier goes up?

Because you keep paying for it. It's not like you're going to not pay for internet, and you probably don't have many alternative options.

Would it actually be that much less costly to give you 20-25 vs 75, though? My uninformed assumption was that it was largely artificial once you get to a low enough speed.

> But who bears the cost of this betterment?

We all do, of course.

> I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice

Then, in some cases, you'd prefer them dead/permanently disabled/permanently in pain/etc. Which, I guess is a position to have, but not one I'd like to take. It sounds like I'm exaggerating here but I'm not.

Remember, the theory in the posts above is that technology makes people more likely to take more risky behaviors. And I'm arguing that there will always be a significant percentage of the population that engages in risky behaviors (for whatever your definition of risky is), and we should have technology to help.

> esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".

Not everything is black and white. We are allowed to pick and choose here and limit this from happening. Most examples we've been talking about involve an individual having to use some communal system, like a healthcare system. That isn't an "advantage" or "profit" that the individual is abusing.

People often confuse society as a whole with individual choices.

An individual can independently choose to brush, floss, engage in less risky behaviors, have a good diet, maintain a health weight, etc. It's not hard.

But when talking about society as a whole, that breaks down. Society is going to have a percentage of people who don't brush and floss. Who aren't managing their diet and weight. Who are taking risks beyond what you find acceptable.

When talking about society as a whole, it's a dead end to just say, "well people should just be better". It doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't fix anything. Society will always have people who have a lot of sex. Making it safer is better. Society will always have people who have teeth issues. Not having them die or be in massive pain is better. Society will always have people who can't maintain a healthy weight. Making it easier is better.

> Why should an ISP know more about a child’s Internet activity than the parents?

They shouldn't. Fight the ISPs.

> For what it’s worth my personal philosophy would be trust, but verify. That necessarily entails some way to verify.

Again, trust what? Do all roads lead to porn?

> Furthermore, in many jurisdictions parents are civilly or even potentially criminally liable for their childrens’ activities. If you’re in one of those jurisdictions you have a duty to prevent your child from breaking the relevant laws or other rules.

Really grasping at straws here. What laws are you worried your child will break that would reasonably reach the level you're worried about?

Please focus on the core message of my post rather than three words.

If you're so concerned with Internet pornography that you want to lock down your child's digital life and know every single thing they say and do, then so be it. We probably won't change each other's minds.