My only problem with iOS 27 (and I mean that literally. It's been a great release so far.) is that the light/dark mode switching when connected to my car is insane. There's no dead band built into it so, for example, driving down a tree lined road, Carplay is constantly switching back and forth in rapid--RAPID--succession. My other phone, still on 26, doesn't do that.
How does CarPlay still not have a brightness control? I leave my CarPlay perpetually in dark mode because light mode is searing in all but directly sunlight.
In my experience in a Subaru, a Toyota, and a Volvo, it seems to be connected to the car's light sensor (so it triggers at the same time as the automatic headlights). A third-party head unit I've tried was just always light.
My wife, upon seeing the pictures of this ridiculous contraption I gleefully waved in her face, described it as "a Sonicare on a steampunk bender", so arguably there are already pretty good options.,
Is it possible they have families, aging relatives to care for, health issues or other reasons that time is precious and “spend an hour correlating amazing restaurants with their available bookings against my crazy schedule” is not a good solution?
IMO the greatest failure of the HN-style tech community is complete lack of empathy, or even awareness, for people whose lives have different shapes.
It's quickly getting to the point for me that "find the thing I want locally and buy online if it's cheaper" is reversing. I've actually been to one of the few remaining electronics retailers to look for a PC for my kid recently, and it was nice not to be assailed by dark patterns (yes, there are dark patterns in b&m retail, but they're much more obvious).
First, I respect anyone’s choice not to be a parent. It’s constant, demanding work, far more intense than any job I’ve ever had as a baseline.
Second, this is the third time in two days I’ve seen some variation on “I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids.” That’s a wild construction. Having kids is incredibly significant, and more world-changing than most of us will ever do. Having kids didn’t give my life meaning, but I’m certainly able to pour life’s meaning into my kid and family more than into anything else before it.
Life insurance companies and federal agencies estimate the value of the life of an average US citizen at around 10 million USD, last I checked. If you consider that anywhere close to accurate, it's hard to imagine anything you could do with a higher ROI than having a child, at least from a public goods perspective. You'll never see the 10 million but they're out there enjoying themselves because you helped bring them into being. And if you consider it a woeful underestimate, or that it's wrong to put a price on something priceless, that argument only gets stronger.
>Having kids is incredibly significant, and more world-changing than most of us will ever do
This is a strange thing to say. Where does the "world changing" part come from, is it just in the parent's head? Or are you expecting it to be in the actions of your children? Surely your parents would have also done something "world changing" by having you, which implies that your existence is already world changing.
Maybe this is just a saying and not to be taken literally. But I feel like people divorce the concept of "having children" from the reality of that child becoming an adult and having all the same worries and neuroses you do.
Creating a sentient person and equipping him or her to exist in and affect the world is by definition world changing, and to a far greater and more sustained degree than almost any entrepreneurial activity. The usual construct is “I thought I knew what was important until I had kids,” which I have historically actually been uncomfortable with (because imho being a good parent is as much about being fully you than putting on a parent uniform), but what’s notable about the meditations on the topic I’ve seen in the last couple of days is the persistence in bifurcating “something of significance” from “having children”, as if the writers never quite accept that having kids is significant. I fully accept that people have wildly different ideas about having kids, but it’s odd (to me) to not see parenthood as at least as significant as starting a business.
I guess sure, but if the main "world changing" thing you do is have children, then that would imply that the main "world changing" thing your children do, is again have children. So if your child turns out to be infertile or something, has your "world changing" effect suddenly vanished? If the only real value you have as a person is to create more people.
> “I thought I knew what was important until I had kids”
I wouldn't doubt this, obviously in the mind of the parent their children are going to be an almost spiritual experience. But it seems like the most important thing children -actually do- is make their parents happier.
People usually talk about children in terms of how it makes them feel I guess, "my children give me meaning" etc. With the children being more of an abstraction of "potential".
> “I dreamed of doing something significant and never wanted kids.” That’s a wild construction. Having kids is incredibly significant
Sure, but you have to remember that there is most likely a silent "and new" in there; most jobs in a competitive industry are significant, because otherwise they would be cut. Being a cleaner at a hospital you are doing significant work too, but at the same time it is probably not what was imagined by an author of the phrase "I dream of doing significant things".
Completely frivolous comment: people who insist on capitalizing “realtor” are hilarious. I know “Realtor” is a registered trademark, but that just makes it funnier to me.
On topic, we’ve stopped going to a popular pizza place near us because the owner put a Flock camera up.
No, it’s people in the industry correctly using a registered trademark. Sometimes you’ll even see someone say “I’m a Realtor®”. It’s all proper. It’s just funny because they’ve put so much effort into being perceived as a legitimate profession that they’ve made a mockery of it.
> However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Maga, Sars, Aids, Nasa, Opec, Apec).
Not to start a whole flamewar over this, but it adds to confusion when it would look like another word like "Aids". Even their own final rule says not to do that.
> There are a few exceptions:
> Seasonal Affective Disorder becomes SAD ("Sad" would be confusing)
> Where a capped-down acronym risks being misunderstood as a word.
And when I say "should know better", a news organization, especially a place as respected as the BBC, should try to reduce confusion wherever possible. And as a matter of politeness, when it is an organization/person's name, it should probably cased the way they chose to name it, like "NASA" or "e e cummings".
Let’s say you’re a musician and pay to go to a concert. What do you get out of it? Profit can come in many forms, including simply seeing that a thing is possible.
Or, and I know this is novel to the subliterate Wall Street types, just show me my network. I'll even give up on chronological feed if they'll just show me the people I want to see. I don't care what an HR Recruiter for a regional organic pet supply company in western Canada has to say about crypto.
> "I made the wrong decisions and I want society to bail me out of them".
The irony of you using this in a negative sense when capitalism has profited mightily from exactly this dynamic is not lost on me, in that insurance companies are insanely profitable things. And that's without getting into what b3lvedere notes in the other comment about disability and the absolute, fundamental dependency capitalism has on socialized risk, e.g., limited liability as a corporate model, bankruptcy protection, even the dependence on national military and economic strength to create the conditions for private profit. Note that I'm not even dinging capitalism here. Not at all. It's just that capitalism wouldn't work without whole social risk networks to create the conditions for private profit.
reply