You don't need a phone for most 2-factor methods. Also, you don't need iOS to receive a text message. It's very rare that I have to grab my phone for MFA.
We really don't know how consciousness works. The popular theories that it's emergent might be proven correct, or might be proven to be like the idea that phlogiston built up in a vacuum, putting out flames.
My theory is that it will turn pro sports, baseball especially, into something like boxing was decades ago, where "Johnny got paid to take a dive" was a common meme.
As a parent, I was shocked how little that's actually true, at least in some US states. Home-schooling can mean sending a copy of your curriculum to your school district and you're good to go.
Texas can be pricey, but it has huge and diverse growing urban areas with a lot of job opportunities, where someplace like Miami is really cutthroat and very expensive.
Or you'd move if you like Mexican food more than Cuban and South American food.
I generally agree with this take. Some specific unions, especially in the US, seem unnecessarily adversarial to employers, but others are known primarily for upholding professional and safety standards (I'm thinking of electricians we contracted with at a previous job).
I bought a console as a gaming device, but now my family mostly use it for YouTube and other streaming video. Similarly, relatively little of my phone time is used on phone calls. I think the distinction is mostly just locked in by history.
If you wanted a dedicated streaming device, the competition is much cheaper.
But sure, nothing on a technical lecdl stops you from using a console as a general computer. It's just that that's not what the overwhelming use is as of now. Use cases play a large factor in rulings like this.
Well, its not just "games vs phones". The question is whether or not the company's actions unfairly stifle competition. Nintendo / sony / etc would argue there's lots of competition, because you can just buy their competitor's product if you think they provide a better service. The argument is weaker for apple because its much harder for regular people to "just" swap their phone between ios / android over differences in the app stores.
Consoles compete on games. Phones compete on specs, and then they happen to have an app store on the side. Thats a difference.
I thought it was safety and environmental regulations, primarily. You have to have airbags, and now antilock brakes, and now rearview cameras, etc. If you were allowed to buy a new car built to the standard of the 1970s, it would be cheap.
I am also very suspect of the origins of some of these regulations as well. Modern airbags are wonderful, don't get me wrong, but it's not unreasonable to question, in the US at least, whether auto manufacturers and their lobbyists have been causing new rules to be invented that coincidentally both require fancy, expensive technology AND increase the difficulty/ cost of meeting the standards as a mean to prevent new competitors from starting up in auto manufacturing. Rear-view cameras, eye tracking, and drunk-driving detection all come to mind.
Emissions regulations should come to mind first. Eye tracking is a lot cheaper than getting an ICE to pass modern emissions (a multi-billion dollar project).
Of course any of the above if they work are a good thing. We are debating cost/benefit here though.
I've been keeping an eye on Slate lately. They _supposedly_ will be selling their trucks for sub $30k late 2026. Presumably they will meet every modern safety standard.
reply