This person gets it! This is an old trope of promoting complexity under the guise of doing each and every feature someone from marketing or legal or some other dept asks for. Instead if companies focus on minimalism and creative thinking to solve some interesting needs, it becomes clear that a CMS is bloatware and unnecessary

Remix 2 is beautiful in its abstractions. The thing with NextJS Roadmap is that it is tightly coupled with Vercel's financial incentives. A more complex & more server code runs ensure more $$$ for them. I don't see community being able to do much change just like how useContextSelector was deprioritized by the React Core team.

Align early on wrt values of a framework and take a closer look at the funder's incentives.

That . after the smiley is making me go bonkers, lol.

Iceland is trying to reduce its dependence on oil exports, which is a good thing, by directing efforts towards Tourism. But looks like this is also affecting nature in its own way. It is like we can't really interact with nature without destroying it in some way or the other.

Instagram does affect people a lot and the same people deny it. I am not on Instagram, never got onto it as I realized the impact FB was having in my life when it was the most popular medium. Uninstalled the FB app as well, I do access it through the browser occasionally, necessary evil and all that. But of course, instagramers (don't know if this is even a word) think they are inspiring people. What do I know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I hope Instagram goes through their new change of not showing the number of likes to viewers. Would be interesting to see whether that has any modification of societal behavior of people hooked onto it.

I am sure Tesla has already put in an order to first buy one of these cars. See whether there is any significant leg up that their own car making team can get by buying lightyear or not. Reason being, Tesla themselves could already be working on a car design with solar panels, not as primary source of power, but just to help squeeze out a little more mileage

Until tech firms start taking responsibility of ensuring that their platforms are robust and cannot be misused, I am not convinced of Libra. Putting the blame on people using the technology is incredibly naive on their part, frankly because it is human nature to exploit something. They need to start operating from a position of 'how can this be misused' not from a position of 'let's make this cool thing and expect some ideal world out there to embrace it and then think about problems as they arise'.

And this is just 1 part of it, the other part is assurances that this data will not be used to further interests of all the validators. I am curious on what is the value proposition pitched by FB to attract validators, besides what is given on the public facing websites. The fact that you have government institutions is to have a body that is removed from profit making goals, and thinks about the society in the long term. Sure, there are corrupt politicians, but not all of them are. Europe seems to have the right mind with regards to tech firms. What is it that fb and other investors look to get out of this thing?

Time is another dimension that we 'perceive'. Hence for our frame of reference, which is bound by time, asking what is outside this frame of reference makes no sense. But frames of references are relative and meant to be broken.

Similarly it is hard to imagine any object that can be purely 2D in nature, because we are biased to perceive the world in 3D. So we think that every object has to be 3D, even the smallest organism, or even atoms. But a 'fake' example of 2D is a tv screen. It gives us an example to imagine 2D. The point I am trying to make is that time is just our perception. To say causality is always tied to time is a bias created by viewing the universe through a 'time' tinted/colored glass.

The point of singularity where gravity is so high that time comes to stand still, but is still present - this is a possibility.

So maybe time just pauses between big bangs and flows at lower density and lower gravitational fields

> The point I am trying to make is that time is just our perception.

So is causality—I'm not really sure what your point is.

Because we are limited by our perceptions of time (and causality as well) doesn't mean we shouldn't wonder what could have been before the start of the universe. Maybe time started when universe started, or maybe time always existed and was super slow or literally paused at singularity - the gravity is so high (way more than the gravity of a super massive black hole) that time had paused. So maybe there was something before the big bang and I don't think 'talking about that makes no sense' should stop us from talking about it :)

I am also confused a tad about the point I wanted to make though, lol. Maybe causality and time is perceived differently in higher or other dimensions that we do not perceive as of now in our human level of evolution. So the assumption of causality exists only due to time being present could be something relative to our perceptions and not true

The only time I prefer watching TV is when I want to have breaks in between while doing my chores. So I would watch 'The Office' and go about doing by work by mentally disconnecting myself when ads are running. New stuff is always Prime or Netflix. Though I get how annoying it can be for kids shows, with toy ads and disney ads (each spring time I swear it is annoying), not that I wouldn't take my kids to disney

I would like to make 2 points

Firstly, In the past there were certain ways of being social - clubs, churches etc. But just because humans engage in a different form of being social doesn't immediately mean all is gone. It depends on whether the individual goes to meaningful meetup groups or whether he/she uses tinder and calls it social. There are way too many options and being distracted between many of these is true

Secondly, Humans have had a social need, yes. That is how we evolved, yes. But evolution never stops, it is like walking on a slow gradient curve, each step is probably 1 or 2 generations. Why is human evolution viewed as static? Why is the declining need to be social today viewed as bad? Are we sure that people being alone are really feeling lonely?

When change happens in the environment, side effects do show until the mind and body adapt to the new environment. We could well see a future (100-200 years from now) where a human isn't necessarily social because of the underlying need, that need could get quite minimized in future generations. That human could be social when he/she needs to and chooses to do so people of similar thinking / mind and could be by themselves for long periods of time. Why is this viewed as bad?

Such humans could be extremely well suited for space travels because they can easily handle being by themselves rather than people who constantly need to be in groups to affirm their existence

Many things in life "could be" true, but with things such as this (human psychology related), it often takes very long time periods before the truth begins to show itself. This would be my reason for considering these major social changes as potentially bad, and certainly worthy of concern/attention/discussion.