Their absence supports that it's not an omnipresent American pattern after all.

It's still crucial to keep your hands on the wheel and be able to take over from a self driving car within seconds. But we know this isn't happening and won't happen. The nature of the invention nurtures the behavior to use it unsafely.

Don't forget how many people here (and elsewhere, but especially here) need you to think this stuff works better than it does because they're selling it or otherwise benefit from its success.

People who only see art as its surface content without all that other subtext are exposing themselves.

Well said. There is a social context, there is a process and a struggle that can be more important than the result. It is sad to reduce art to the final product, or to approach it with an industrial mindset: maximizing commercial value while minimizing effort.

I can't write well. Let someone say it who can: (Ursula Le Guin, 5min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2v7RDyo7os&t=337

That's part of the Chesterton's Fence nature of why these markets are bad. We know insider trading is a bad thing for the stock market, so it's policed. These markets, being a post-regulation internet free for all, aren't.

I found the Rosetta Stone of Hacker News.

In hindsight, we could have listened to the people who warned about how the internet would make our lives worse. Can our society withstand another generation of worsening on par with the effects of social media etc?

Whether the internet has made our lives better or worse depends on the perspective (half full or half empty), and is an excellent water cooler conversation. :-)

The internet has objectively made life worse, and the people who say it hasn't haven't experienced the alternatives. Many people will never know true joy because of the internet.

Oh no. I looked at a screen. There goes all my joy... /s

Objectively worse in some vectors, Objectively better in others. Being able to get medical advice quickly. Being able to communicate to vastly different people broadening your horizons. And yes, more comparisons to make (the thief of joy).

Bingo

You're an ant to them. All that data they have tells them this action won't hurt them.

An incredibly important turning point of this era is that businesses have learned that they no longer need to fear acting hostile to consumers. Consumers don't practice agency.

> Consumers don't practice agency

Customers can't practice agency when the markets are mostly monopolized or the products pass through a cartel first.

The moment a viable, cheaper and more convenient option appears, your customers will show you exactly how fickle they are.

There's a lot of moving parts here:

1. Competition is much lower in a lot of places.

2. Customers prioritize convenience and (perceived at least) low-prices over being treated well.

Look at airlines: Unless you happen to be traveling between two major airports, there will typically be at most 2 airlines with a reasonable schedule for the two endpoints, and most people will not pay $100 more for being treated like human beings over cattle.

How could you not know the argument that Apple has normalized selling devices that forbid the ability to run arbitrary code without their permission?

You're not required to agree that that's a bad thing, but how could you be unaware of the reasoning at a high level?

Yes because video console makers haven’t been doing this since the 1980s…

I mean for starters it’s obviously not true. Almost every electronic device has programming and none of them allow you to run your own arbitrary code. Video game consoles, MP3 players, drones, roombas, TVs. In fact Apple is the one that pioneered the idea of a “personal computer” in the first place, there was no expectation that you could program your devices before this.