Yeah literally the exact same thing can happen on android and windows. The solution is regulation, not ridiculous solutions like telling billions of people to back up their own stuff.
I would support legislation that enforces a right to data export for 6 months in human readable file formats, or a physical equivalent like spending a USB stick in the mail.
> I effectively have over $30,000 worth of previously-active “bricked" hardware. My iPhone, iPad, Watch, and Macs cannot sync, update, or function properly.
(I assume these can be re-sold? They do mention that they can't sign out)
> I have lost access to thousands of dollars in purchased software and media.
Should the "purchased" software and media be within the data export scope?
> I don’t have a 6TB device to sync them to, even if I could.
...yeah.
But let's say we limit ourselves to stored bits.
How should the service identify the person asking for data export? Does your regulation imply government id registration for all internet services? Is that what you actually want?
What if the service is e2ee? How do they deliver "human readable file formats"? Are we also banning e2ee?
What do compliance requirements imply for people's ability to start competing services?
You are proposing to replace a very tiny bit of personal responsibility (having backups) with a very intrusive, and highly consequential, legal mechanism.
EDIT: Though I would, of course, support a requirement for these services to properly warn users (on the registration page, not buried in TOS small print), and provide thorough instructions for making backups to external storage connected to any of the devices they support.
I'm going to guess that it's easier to get addicted to weed than to alcohol due to price, pleasure, and no alcohol hang over.
Kids especially can get addicted to weed much easier than alcohol in my opinion.
I like alcohol but I see alcohol as a social drug. I never drank it alone. I also physically can't drink it too much due to hang over and complete inability to do anything useful after. During covid lockdowns, I was absolutely addicted to weed after I tried it. It had none of the draw backs of alcohol and even more pleasure in the beginning.
I was addicted for a while. It was horrible. I became unmotivated, fat from munchies, didn't talk to family or friends, always asked people I met if they wanted to smoke weed with me, was high during remote work, couldn't remember anything because my memory got very poor, had horrible acid reflux from all the smoke.
Thankfully I was able to remember what life was like before weed.
If you read https://www.reddit.com/r/leaves/ you'll see just how many people have been smoking since they were teenagers and are not 30 or 40 and don't remember what life was like.
I do agree with most of what you say (acid reflux is inherent to smoking in general, though; it's not specific to weed), but the point is that it's only problematic if it becomes a habit.
It doesn't have to. If you were drinking as much as you were smoking, you would probably fare even worse, and I don't think alcohol has a lower potential for abuse; in fact, it is likely worse because it is not as strongly socially stigmatized.
Personally, I have rarely purchased weed myself, but I have consumed quite a bit because of many stoner friends.
When they would share, I would never have the strength to refuse, but I could very much feel the impact the next day.
But I think that if you can manage the consumption just like you would do with alcohol, it's mostly fine. If you smoke a joint once every few weeks, the impact on your life is unlikely to be that bad. Of course the hard part is managing that, but it's true for alcohol as well…
Munchies are pretty benign if you have enough sense to stock your home with healthy options like unprocessed foods and no sugary stuff.
There is no benign volume of alcohol consumption. It's hard on your liver[0], causes cardiovascular disease[1], produces carcinogenic metabolites[2], it's a horrible drug... without even considering the high occurrence of abusive/violent drunks compared to weed.
Everyone is saying there is an "AI Bubble" and it's going to pop. Yet, no one can actually tell us when, at what prices will it pop, and how long will it take the market to recover (Nasdaq is 5x higher now than dotcom).
If it's going to "pop" but everyone knows it will go way higher than in the future than in 2025, then what exactly is the pop? A buying opportunity?
Everyone who isn't a total idiot will buy when it "pops" and wait it out for massive gains in the future. People writing these articles think the AI bubble will burst stay down forever. They keep citing dotcom but conveniently leave out the fact that tech is far bigger now than in the peak of dotcom.
This is exactly why despite these countless AI bubble burst predictions, the market is still near all time high. I'd like to see these bubble burst people put their money where their mouth is.
Here's my prediction: There will be an AI bubble but when it pops, it will still be way bigger than in December 2025. In other words, I believe we're in 1995 of the dotcom and not 1999.
> Yet, no one can actually tell us when, at what prices will it pop, and how long will it take the market to recover
... I mean, yeah, if you could reliably predict _those_, you wouldn't be _telling_ anyone, you'd be busy making billions on options.
"This will break, but we don't know exactly when" is not an unreasonable warning.
> but everyone knows it will go way higher than in the future than in 2025
Does everyone know that?
> People writing these articles think the AI bubble will burst stay down forever. They keep citing dotcom but conveniently leave out the fact that tech is far bigger now than in the peak of dotcom.
I mean, while that is true, it took a very long time (adjusted for inflation, the NASDAQ didn't recover until 2018), and most of the individual companies who were big then are now either gone or obscure (Sun's gone, Yahoo's basically gone, Cisco never recovered, Oracle arguably just about recovered, Amazon did very well). If you'd bought into the NASDAQ the day after dot-com went pop, well, you wouldn't have come out _great_; you'd have been far better off with the S&P500 or another broader index. If you'd bought into any of the dot-com darlings except for Amazon, you'd have been screwed.
And to be clear, not all bubbles recover. Railways never did, say.
To be clear I mean predicting the timing to any accuracy. That’s notoriously difficult (I’d argue pretty much impossible). A modern economist dropped in 1715 or so would be able to say with certainty that the South Sea Company and associated companies was a bubble, but they would not really be able to predict when it would pop accurately.
RE the Nasdaq, yeah, it recovered in real terms after 18 years. That would be cold comfort to most.
100% agreed. The AI "bubble" has been "going to pop" for the past year or more. Sounds a lot like Bitcoin, that was definitely popping any second now but actually did not really pop and you can still buy Bitcoin at prices higher than 6 or 12 months ago.
I need people to understand that if everyone thinks something is going to pop then it won't pop because people don't put money in risky assets. Assets only pop when everyone thinks they are absolutely safe and they can never go down in price, like what happened with the housing market.
AI bubble isn't even as big as the railroad and dotcom bubbles yet in terms of relative size to the total economy.
Yet, I feel like AI is more transformative for society than both.
One difference between dotcom and AI is that with AI, most people feel like their jobs can be automated away in a few years. This includes everyone from office workers to software devs to warehouse workers.
I don't think dotcom ever threatened this many jobs, right?
Yea but those men with 106 IQ on average lose out to men with 120 IQ and good looking on dating apps, right?
And the vast majority of those 106 IQ men can't move somewhere else where their IQ advantage comes into play. Passport bros are a thing but they're a very small (but growing) part of the male population.
reply