Battery life was about a week and is now about 3 days but it really depends on which apps you want to "freeze" and which apps you never want to "freeze" (to receive notifications).
There’s also a "super saving mode" which allows only 6 apps, no notifications. I use it during long bikepacking trips, recharging every other day when stoping for lunch in a restaurant. It is great. Also, I leave the "super saving mode" if I need to use another app.
So it is perfectly possible to get very long battery time but you need to really configure it and figure out how to use it.
I’ve lost a lot a battery time by disabling freeze for Adguard VPN. In day to day use, I prefer to use more battery and send less data to China (the stuff is full of spyware). Even with that, I charge it every three days but I don’t use it much (which is the goal)
Everytime I read about longevity research and how many people are in favor of it I can't stop thinking about this speech.
And one of the endings of Cyberpunk 2077.
I think people generally, and the Silicon Valley set in particular, have a hard time abstracting from “would I like” to “would the world be a better place if”.
Would I like to live a thousand years? Yes, with the obvious caveats.
Would the world be a better place if the technology for living a thousand years existed? Absolutely not, at least not at first, and certainly not today. There’s a great many people around right now who’s primary redeeming quality is their impending mortality - it’s not just science that advances one funeral at a time.
How many times has your life or someone close to you in your life not died from something they would have died of 100yrs ago? If you're happy medical tech saved their lives then you're arguably for life extension because all it really means is saving more lives from more things that kill them.
I don’t know if this is supposed to be a dunk or something, but - yes, my grandma lived to 93 because of modern medicine. I was happy she did. That’s the tension: things that are good for me personally can be bad for the world at large (I mean, not my grandma’s longevity specifically - she was a lovely woman), and a big part of emotional and intellectual maturity is recognizing that indeed the world is full of tradeoffs and I can’t have everything I want.
Specific to:
> all it really means is saving more lives from more things that kill them.
No, that’s not all it really means, not in our society, not in our time. As Ted Chiang put it, “Most of our fears or anxieties about technology are best understood as fears or anxiety about how capitalism will use technology against us,” and that’s also the case here: the outcome of this technology isn’t that my grandma lives to 150, it’s that Vladimir Putin lives to 150. If my grandma needs to die at 90 so we don’t have immortal god-emperors - if I have to die at 90 - then so be it. Some day we may live in a world where longevity technology is an unalloyed good, but until that day, we don’t get to just put the good stuff on the ledger and ignore the bad stuff.
Most notably Rupert Murdoch- while I do not wish death on the man, it's certainly true that he has a grip on the hearts and minds of people and often uses his media empire to convince people to go against their own interests.
He will be replaced by someone similar, but seldom are people as effective as their predecessors.
The fact that you would even make this joke shows how absurdly far we have fallen.
Obviously they exist for that purpose, studying the foundations of news media and journalism... for even a day... shows concisely that it was painfully created for this reason.
> He will be replaced by someone similar, but seldom are people as effective as their predecessors.
I'm not a real believer in the "Great Man" theory of history - I think the ground needs to be set for an event for it to happen, I don't think the will of one person is truly sufficient to bend history - but there are certain people who you would have a very, very hard time replacing in a given scenario.
Rupert Murdoch is definitely one, and Donald Trump is another - without getting into specific judgements of the man, there's nobody else within easy reach who could do what he's done, and I don't really see his movement surviving him. He's a particular person for a particular moment, and it's hard to see anyone else doing what he has.
“All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.” – Clarence Darrow
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck
1) Possible solutions aren't binary (true vs false) but trinary (true vs false vs indeterminate)
2) The devil is always in the details. The world is fucking complex and and a first order approximation isn't going to get you there anymore. We've had 100kyrs to solve problems, we got most of the simple ones down (appearing simple does not mean simple)
2.5) A clique wouldn't be a clique if it wasn't something practically everyone knows and can recite but is not something people demonstrate an actual understanding of by observing their actions. (Just like LLMs: just because you can repeat some knowledge does not mean you're able to (ineptitude), or have the will to (malice), use the knowledge in any meaningful way)
> Would the world be a better place if the technology for living a thousand years existed? Absolutely not, at least not at first, and certainly not today
If you want to sacrifice your life for a better world, that is your decision. But do not force that decision to other people.
We could live for 20 years or 200 and it wouldn't matter - entities will emerge that will attempt to consolidate and abuse power. Those may be individual dictators, tyrannical governments, or global conglomerates. The answer is the same, and it doesn't involve hampering scientific progress.
Same.
I was unaware that Belgium or India have such systems and often wished for them to exist in Germany, but thought that it was impossible for privacy reasons in the EU.
Now it's clear that it's just incompetence or lack of funds or vision in Germany.
„Datenschutz“ (data protection) is an extremely popular excuse for any failing digital project, in reality, it’s probably a mix between complete incompetence (see digital drivers license), a lack of funds (look at smaller cities/towns) and and lack of capable employees with It backgrounds.
Looking at the situation here it’s really damming that Germany not only has essentially no digital processes implemented, the people in charge seem to are even lacking something as fundamental as a coherent vision how it should work at some point. That the current coalition also decided to essentially cut funds for digitalization projects isn’t making the issue any better
My guess is backwards compatibility. There might be applications out there that have a dispose method for different reasons. Symbol.dispose is literally impossible to be already in use, since symbols are guaranteed to be unique.
How do you handle user credentials or general inputs?
If I type in my Netflix credentials, don't you and/or my watch party friends get access to them in some way?
We’re building a “privacy mode” feature to address this exact problem that allows the host to black out the screen when entering sensitive information like credentials.
As for Hyperbeam getting access to credentials—we don’t store any input from users in the virtual computer. The only things we track are the time a particular IP is connected to the VM and the domains that are visited (this is anonymized).
Russia can't win a war against NATO, so they will not attack Poland or Germany. Maybe Moldova or something. This fear mongering is ridiciouslus.
They can't even win against Ukraine, for crying out loud. Poland, France, UK, Germany(, Turkey?) would together crush them in a couple of months. Add Finland and Sweden and it gets reduced to weeks. Add the US and it'll take a couple of days.
(Hyperbole, but still).
They are hopelessly outclassed in all categories but nukes. And UK/France has a couple of them, so Russia can't nuke willy nilly.
No, but as soon as you start asking questions like "is X country really worth it compared to nuclear war?" then the deterrent has failed.
A loss in Ukraine means every non-NATO state in the region either gets nuclear armed up, or gets annexed.
The expectation that the result of "letting it happen" would also be cheap gas is laughable: if someone's willing to trade away their morals and a country for something you sell them, then you already know it's underpriced.
There's a whole spectrum of actions between "do nothing" and "open hot war between nuclear powers". It's quite clear Western military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic support has been critical to Ukraine in the current conflict.
But that was when we had the majority of our industrial capability in Europe and with aid from the US. We also still had open coal mines and people didn't mind burning coal and wood in masses (which was the primary heat source at the time).
But, most importantly, we also had lots of young people. The aging of Europe will be the final nail in the coffin. Who will rebuild Europe? Not the roughly 30 percent over the age of 60 (who, coincidently, ran Europe into the ground for the last 30 years+).
True, but we do not have anything resembling WWII-levels of destruction on the vast majority of the continent, so the effort needed to get back on track is an order of magnitude lower. In 1945, Mariupols were everywhere.
And post-WWII Europe was forcibly split into competing power blocks, which strangulated a lot of the pre-WWII commerce. Contemporary EU is a common market where goods and workforce can freely flow. This compensates for the lack of young people somewhat.
For example, Germany post-WWII was seriously handicapped by the fact that they lost a large portion of their male population in war, either killed/maimed, or taken prisoner by the USSR which only let them return after 1950.
