Cool idea. I'm guessing most of the value to your users is in the content in your app since the hardware can be replaced by bookmarks for those have >10 or so plants.
For me, I'd more excited about well organized plant content than the NFC hardware. Is there a preview of the content itself? That's where I imagine most of the "features" will be.
Thanks for posting, this is a fun space to see more software in.
Indirectly related, but I'm in the market for a 32inch+ screen which can be used for a photo frame. With the exception of Samsung's Frame, I haven't been able to find other products which is surprising to me because it seems like such a simple use case. Here's what I've found so far:
- TVs and monitors: downside is keeping these on 24-hours isn't great for energy consumption
- color e-ink: these are of course usually a maximum of 13 or so inches
- Samsung the frame - alas, has good features and a good look, but downsides are expensive(!) and Samsung(!!)
A TV will likely have multiple inputs like HDMI, USB, Cable, etc and hence presumably more parts, more complex board and higher power needs.
I might be wrong, but that's an assumption.
A 'feature' of the Samsung TV that copes with this is that it has a motion sensor and turns off when no one is around. Would love an open hardware version of this.
I really can't figure out what relation the doodle has to what's generated. I draw a dot, I get a cat as per the prompt. I add another dot, or a line; the newly generated image changes, but there's no predictability. We can call this 'AI', but is there really any intelligence here?
Seems like a call to stable diffusion's API without any real intent.
Made this mistake too. Drew a sunrise behind two mountains, got a cat. Noticed the prompt and changed it to "sunrise behind mountains, lake at bottom".
I am pleasantly surprised how even random sketches generate beautiful mountain sunrises.
> First it was Jordan Peterson, then it i was Eric Weinstein, then Chamath, the list goes on. Most recently, it’s been Peter Zeihan.
These are not intellectuals, let alone public ones. They are all American and follow a 'clickbait' model to public discourse. Seems like you repeatedly fall for it and enjoy doing so. Nothing here reflects any form of intellect.
Yes, the list is basically demagogic pseudo-intellectuals. As pointed out in the article they are "pseudo" as although they might be studied in one field, they quickly start talking about other topics that they have not studied academically and simply try to enforce their model upon. A lot of "clever" people start sounding less clever the more they talk about something you know about.
because rather than doing serious intellectual work they're really good at selling what people want to hear, deliberately targeting an American online audience and their anxieties (as that is very profitable). All the mentioned guys are essentially permanent guests on the US podcast circuit.
Peterson and Zeihan are examples of this. Peterson has essentially monetized telling Americans what a dystopia Canada is, acting like some sort of reverse Handmaids Tale refugee, and Zeihan is the modern version of his mentor (and Straftor boss) George Friedman, whose primarily claim to fame is predicting an inevitable war between Japan and the US[1], on a crude theory of geographic determinism, "in the next two decades" in 1991. Zeihan has picked that baton up and replaced Japan with China.
> Peterson has essentially monetized telling Americans what a dystopia Canada is, acting like some sort of reverse Handmaids Tale refugee
I think this hyper reductive. You can watch all his lectures, at Harvard and others, online[0]. It's hard to look objectively at his life and not call it "serious intellectual work".
He might have done "serious intellectual work" in a distant past, like his main book were he writes in details about his grandma pubes he saw in a dream, or when in his lecture at UoT were he compares an ancient depiction of two snakes to the twin helix of DNA, but for the past few years he's been rambling about the culture war and strangely defending the fossil fuel industry.
>"You can watch the incredibly popular lecture series "Personality and Its Transformations", "Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief", as well as his "The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories" lectures for free."
I won't pretend I ever watched more than a few minutes of any of this stuff, but isn't it a bunch of inane rambling about finding deep psychological meaning or universal truths in fairy tails? Nonsense along the lines of "Slimey the worm from sesame street represents the dragon, the great primordial evil which the warrior, the eternal hero, must slay to conqueror his fears..."
It's the kind of analysis that right/conservative people with 'pragmatic/common sense' self-perceived alignments would usually mock college professors for, except in Peterson's case it gets lapped up because he mixes it in with things like "communism is bad because it murdered millions of people" and "If you're feeling depressed you should try not living like a slob"
That is the point of this article though, read a bit further down:
"Without fail, each one of comes to dissapoint. They’re either a one trick pony, and every development in the world is analyzed through the same tired lens whether its applicable or not."
Yeah but, one would think after spending even a couple of minutes with Jordan Peterson's corpus of output that maybe we shouldn't venerate people who happen to say one or two things that we find interesting.
Jordan Petersen talks a lot about life being a struggle and how to get through it and make the most of it. A lot of that resonates strongly in many people, it isn't something you would find faults in after watching a few minutes. And that is within his field of expertise so it makes sense that those points are pretty good.
The problem is when Jordan Petersen starts to talk about other things than that, like politics, gender roles etc. There he repeats similar talking points I've seen on online forums for 20 years now, nothing new or interesting.
Edit: Sometimes downvotes amazes me. Did someone downvote this because I said Jordan Peterson said something good, or because I said he did something bad? Will never know. But I've noticed that balanced takes tend to get more downvoted since both sides downvotes them.
For me at least, there's a question as to, "which Jordan Peterson?"
There is the guy you just described, who existed before his year(s?) long struggle with addiction, and then there is the apparently (to me at least) bitter, resentful and angry man who returned after.
Since his return, his expressions, language, positions (and even clothing) have taken on a darker, angrier tone and there's a lot less hope in what I've seen.
For me, this makes this individual different from some others who may fade away over some of issues cited in the article, but remain essentially the same person.
His personality and message changed after a deep and difficult struggle.
I'm not trying to criticize or defend the man, just raising the issue that he may be different from some others in the list.
What do you think an intellectual is? An intellectual is someone whose hobby or vocation is using his mind to consider the big questions and issues of human life.
There is no certification or competency test for intellectuals. If you say you are one, then— like saying you are a “football fan”— you probably are one.
I say I am an intellectual because I want people to think I am always ready to talk about any philosophical topic. Also I wrote a book about living an intellectual life, so there is evidence I do want to use my mind to consider big questions. Not that evidence matters much.
I am American, too. Turns out some Americans enjoy living a life of mind.
I tend to be a bit repulsed by any online discussion of 'intellectuals'. Pretty much always devolves into BS a la GP. "You like Josh Joshson? He's stupid, you must be too", or "who needs intellectuals? Use your own brain"
My definition of a public intellectual is someone who is very bright and can "think in public" about a variety of issues. Weinstein definitely meets that bar for me, probably Jordan as well. Can't speak for the other two as I'm not familiar with their output.
Over the years, Jordan Peterson has gotten more and more aggressive and polarizing. I suspect that social media attention has been a huge influence, because the new Jordan Peterson (NJP) sounds like the old Jordan Peterson's (OJP's) loud aggressive clickbaity twin. Where OJP might have written an academic paper for other scientists, or delivered an hour-long carefully-thought-out lecture, NJP sends an angry tweet full of insults.
For example, after losing a court battle against the College of Psychologists of Ontario, he talked about it as such: "Don't bloody well lecture me ... some dimwit judge with a liberal bias did ... lecturing me about taking responsibility for what I say." I highly recommend watching the video. The tone is also part of the message: https://youtu.be/M5PESEbY_H0?t=74
Or when in December 2021, the Prime Minister of Canada tweeted this to encourage people to get a booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (keeping in mind that there were at no point any mandates for boosters, this was purely an attempt at advertising the fact that booster doses were available and recommended by the healthcare professionals):
> Justin Trudeau: "If you’re taking care of some last-minute Christmas shopping this week, here’s something else you can add to your list: a booster. If you’re eligible for one but haven’t gotten it yet, please, do so now. And if you don’t have your first or second dose, now’s the time to get it."
NJP replied to the tweet as such:
> NJP: "Up yours @JustinTrudeau. Seriously. You'd have to kill me first."
I cannot imagine OJP saying any of these things with this tone and this level of imprudence. OJP was generally cerebral, intellectual, academic, deep, calm, polite. He was a well-respected academic through and through.
NJP, on the other hand, is irritable, imprudent, aggressive, abrasive, impulsive, rude. He is a sensationalist yelling pundit through and through.
Yes, that's precisely why I don't like him, thank you for articulating it so clearly! I want to compel the people around me to speak a certain way, and I have built an identity around that, and Peterson's cutting social commentary shakes me to my core.
For the things he says. I'd encourage you to look for criticism of him online. He his the obligatory subject of plenty of video essayist on Youtube, it's kind of a meme at this point.
He has been widely criticized by legal scholars for misrepresenting the Canadian Bill C-16, which extends the human rights act to cover transgendered people. Peterson, a clinical psychologist, claimed that it would compel speech.
This is probably what the article is referring to. Before the incident Peterson was a respected academic psychologist, but was widely criticized for his amateur legal analysis of C-16. He has since continued to ruin his reputation by making transphobic tweets about Elliot Page, body shaming the plus sized model Yumi Nu, climate change denial, and generally expressing right wing views on a range of issues.
In your opinion, would it be a misrepresentation to say that C-16 makes it easier to fine employers that refuse to use employee pronouns for harassment?
>He just seemed to say sort of "be a decent person and work hard".
We live in a world where even that statement is controversial.
There is a zeitgeist of re-engineering society. Peterson and his tired schtick of "just keep doing the things that were successful for previous generations" interferes. It is unwanted.
Jordan Peterson unfortunately is very much a public intellectual. He just also happens to be a complete and total charlatan who is demonstrably ignorant of most the works he both cites and criticizes.
It's not a controversial opinion as much as it is incongruent.
> IMO It's better to adopt Chromium-based browsers and put pressure on Google to avoid letting it become the sole decision-maker about the web.
But by using chromium/blink-based browsers, you have already taken the pressure off Google. You have already given them what they want, so you've forfeited your hand.
For anyone out there who values the swiftly fading open-ness of the Internet, Firefox or other smaller FLOSS browsers are the right tools of choice.
> For anyone out there who values the swiftly fading open-ness of the Internet, Firefox or other smaller FLOSS browsers are the right tools of choice.
Mozilla had their chance at this decades ago and Firefox was the dominant browser against IE, 16 years ago, until they did a deal with Google, fell asleep at the wheel and allowed them to overtake and get sabotaged via Chrome's dominance. The same Mozilla CEO at the time believed they could live without Google's money [0] and now 16 years later, they are still heavily reliant on Google and at this point are on life-support.
Mozilla already gave Google what they wanted and forfeited their so-called 'privacy-focused browser mission' over giving the CEO a decades streak of multi-million dollar pay days, whilst the 'Mozillians' only got layoffs and all left with little to nothing.
Mozilla is now a joke to the 'open-ness of the web'. They have nothing to fight with and lost as soon as the took Google's money.
The problem IMO is that Mozilla became a corporation for Firefox. Their goals are now aligned with the parties they're supposed to fight against. Obviously that doesn't work.
Chrome became popular by being bundled as shovelware with Flash and being marketed on google.com. There is literally no way for an open source browser to compete against that.
Mozilla has a lot of mismanagement but that's more of a symptom of Firefox being out-marketed in a way that was impossible to fight against.
I saw the headline on your post and felt horrified.
I then read the details and I'm no longer horrified.
There is a difference between advertising your own services vs injecting ads from other parties. Injecting ads from other parties could imply sharing of personal data which would be worrying.
There is no breach of the DDG implicit user contract here which is low tracking and privacy.
You likely saw it just before I edited the headline. I didn't realize at the time I posted it, but the original title definitely could give the impression they're injecting 3rd party ads. Personally, this feels 90% as annoying as a third party ad. But my intent was definitely not to mislead, I was hesitant to even make a post because I don't want to be a bad HN citizen by starting a thread that becomes an emotional bandwagon.
I don't think there is a breach of DDG's contract but it it is a disappointing contrast to my expectations from DDG's brand, which I would expect to be more respectful of the user. This is disruptive.
> Maybe the CEO can jump on here again and give us a bunch of back-peddling double talk about how they’re misunderstood, as when they were caught censoring news results.
I must have missed this, what's this about censoring news?
I believe they're referring to when DDG announced they'd be doing something along the lines of deranking results that are pro-Russian, in context of the Ukraine-Russian war.
I use Gnome and the top bar is far from a checkbox for stylistic design for me. On it are applets that I use multiple times everyday (Calendar, Caffeine, a few custom applets, VPN controls, etc).
The author assumes that utility would come from something like a global menu which is also a choice, as I access menus only using the keyboard and not mouse.
For me, I'd more excited about well organized plant content than the NFC hardware. Is there a preview of the content itself? That's where I imagine most of the "features" will be.