Does that mean that iPhone 15 Pro camera has the same physical module as iPhone 14 Pro, apart from some software changes? Or did they release a wrong data for their comparator on apple website?
It's not the same physical module. The physical aspects they list (megapixels, aperature) are the same, but the actual 48MP sensor they use is improved.
"iPhone 15 pro features a more advanced 48MP main camera, with an even larger sensor than iPhone 15 [and therefore iPhone 14 Pro]. The camera includes a new nanoscale coating to reduce lens flare."
What's the damn point of having the base line and the "Pro" line if some features are still going to be locked behind a larger (more expensive) device?
I'm considering upgrading but I don't want to carry around a Max sized device. I doubt it will fit in my pockets even.
Right. But why have the "pro" line if the phones aren't equivalent? I'm sure there's probably some opaque reason why the smaller size can't have the 5x optical zoom as well but I still think it's dumb.
I want the Pro version. I want all of the features, but not the Max size. But that phone doesn't exist for some reason. I want to believe it's a practical limitation, but my guess is the main reason is to up sell.
It shouldn't be any more opaque than why the larger device also has a larger battery. Optical zoom requires additional physical space for the optics doing the zoom. This doesn't make all smaller device options the basic models it makes them the smaller options of their class. Some people want the top class but still smaller, even if it means it doesn't have everything the largest top class option does.
As the person you responded to just stated, the reason is the physical size of the device itself. Apple has done this before before w/ the 12 pro vs. pro max.
They did the same thing with the iPhone 7 Plus, the first iPhone with two cameras.
It could also be because there’s extra room in the larger phone but… I’ll stick with because Timmy loooves money. Point in case, they just increased the price of the Max and said “same price as last year (for the higher storage you don’t need)!”
It's not about the pocket for me, it's about being able to reach the screen when using the phone with just a single hand. I can barely do this on my 13 Pro (I skipped the 14 Pro), I sure can't on any Pro Max, and I sure understand why my wife says she won't replace her 13 Mini.
Depending on where you live, that may not be a great idea. In my parts, you could pretty much bet that it would get stolen if you carried it like that.
I think so. The way I see it, effective altruism is a dangerous trend because it can very quickly go into the 'ends justify the means' territory.'
In the case of SBF, if he essentially stole from a bunch of retail investors, and then went about doing altruism (this is not yet verified, of course) did he ultimately create a net positive? That only works if the investors in FTX did not lose out, which they did.
Anything that goes into the 'ends justifies the means' territory ends up badly. Sometimes immediately, sometimes over time, but always.
He did donate and fund many people through his FTX Foundation and donations via Giving What We Can. I know this because 1) people were funded with real money, even if some people who have not received money yet are of course screwed and 2) I did some voluntary data analysis work for some EA orgs and saw figures, SBF donated.
There are uncountably many cases where people defraud/steal from others, destroy the environment or do any number of bad things in order to accumulate wealth for themselves or their families. These are all cases where people have thought that the end (i.e. their own personal benefit) justified the means. Indeed, this kind of behavior is more-or-less the norm. People seek to advance in their careers to make more money to buy the things that they want to buy, often regardless of the moral character of the companies they choose to work for or the detrimental effects that their purchases have on others.
In the case of EA, we now have exactly one instance where someone engaged in this ends-justify-the-means behavior in a morally problematic way, and this is for some reason supposed to show that EA is irredeemably flawed. This seems a bit absurd.
“Ya. Hehe. I [SBF] had to be. It’s what reputations are made of, to some extent. I feel bad for those guys who get fucked by it, by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us.”
Is it a bad thing that people can convince themselves that whatever they do to make a lot of money is ethical as long as they buy some mosquito nets afterward? I can see some potential issues.
> whatever they do to make a lot of money is ethical as long as they buy some mosquito nets afterward
EA doesn't support this. It's absolutely not okay to do immoral things to make money and even things like Earning to Give via legit quant roles is and was pretty hotly debated.
But what in the philosophy of EA really disallows it? In a utilitarian model, if I can do a lot of good by doing some bad (eg, steal from crypto investors and give the money to AI safety research), what did I do wrong? I appreciate that this can discredit EA and hurt their efforts, but this is a short-termist concern; in the long run, the AI research might end up being more important than the transient reputational damage. Furthermore, what if there's only a 5% chance of being caught doing something immoral? Then, in expectation, the positive impact is even higher.
It's all very well to pay lip service to 'common sense morality' but it doesn't seem to fit into the actual theology of EA, and this is what fanatics are most likely to follow.
EA isn't limited to utilitarianism. A very substantial amount of people in EA would not consider themselves utilitarians. And of those who do, it's very rare to find a "pure" utilitarian with no deontological bent and thus willing to engage in fraud.
Even if you find a "pure" utilitarian (which is rare), it's considered "naive utilitarianism" to ignore the long-term and broad effects of creating harm, and it's also considered intellectually arrogant to think you know enough about the impacts of your decisions and moral philosophy that you can justify causing definite short-term harm for potential long-term gain against the moral frameworks of just about everyone else.
On the whole, I can't personally think of any one person involved in EA, or widely-read EA literature, that promote or support that type of thinking.
> But what in the philosophy of EA really disallows it
Because most people who are willing to donate x% of their salary to charity tends to be decent people? Apart from that, there's tons of fundermental EA posts and writings that talk about how EA cannot be an 'ends justify the means' philosophy to donating. Sadly this SBF shit has really corrupted the core message which is to be skeptical of charities and view them like investments, picking the best one for QALY per $, and valuing all lives equally. I don't even like the futurist side of EA because I personally can't put the value of a hypothetical person above someone who's sick today and focus on global health & animal welfare. Honestly the core point of EA is imo very hard to discredit aside from longtermism.
> Because most people who are willing to donate x% of their salary to charity tends to be decent people?
I’m curious if you would accept the claim that a regular churchgoer is unlikely to act immorally, because I can’t see any difference in principle, down to the “donating a portion of your salary” part.
> There's tons of fundermental EA posts and writings that talk about how EA cannot be an 'ends justify the means' philosophy to donating.
This is at odds with its core adoption of utilitarianism, which is the movement's fundamental justification. Utilitarianism is sort of textbook "sounds nice on paper, works crappy in practice" outcome.
How can the press be correct about what something is, when that something has since its inception been both vocally and actively different? Even going back to Singers books that sort of kicked this all off its specifically said to be different to utilitarianism. Most advocates of EA say they're not utilitarian. I'm saying I'm not utilitarian. EA organizations actions are clearly not utilitarian in general.
I don't really know how to defend EA as not Utilitarian beyond that, except saying take a look at some EA-based books or blog posts that aren't from the last month and decide for yourself!
If you're genuine about learning more to have a balanced view I really do recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qslo4-DpzPs. This to me is a good representation of what EA is and is challenged by someone in a sensible way.
You keep using and implying the term learn as if I haven't read about this quite a few times over the past decade, evaluated it, and found it wanting. Please do me a favor and at least acknowledge that many people you interact with regarding EA have thought about it and aren't babes in the wool.
EA is reskinned utilitarianism, which folks have repeated pointed out.
> EA is reskinned utilitarianism, which folks have repeated pointed out.
Well then I respectfully argue you're misinformed, or simply reading a small subset that is utilitarian. I don't know a single utilitarian in the EA circles I'm in. Central EA-orgs define themselves as not utilitarian. There's many sources arguing you give what you can afford while a utilitarian approach would be to give beyond that if you can save more lives. SBF would be championed as a hero, not a villain, for his ponzi scheme. No money would be going to animal welfare or modern healthcare worries because longtermism would have won the argument. There'd be more than one case of someone using EA to cause harm like robbing a bank. There'd be popular EA speakers calling themselves utilitarian in public. There'd be a single post arguing the ends justify the means from a central EA organisation.
Etc...
EA is very simply the idea that one should check the efficiency of charities and try get the best bang for their dollar. That is it.
Maybe it'd help to understand your idea of what EA and Utilitarianism actually are? Because there's a disconnect somewhere between us. And utilitarianism is a huge subject so perhaps your thinking of a particular kind that is different to my (and many EA's) understanding of the topic.
> There's many sources arguing you give what you can afford while a utilitarian approach would be to give beyond that if you can save more lives
A misunderstanding of utilitarianism. If telling people to give everything makes them give nothing, then it is a bad approach. The utilitarian aims to maximize the amount given, which may entail telling them to give less. You treat utilitarianism as if we are philosophers considering it in theory, not practitioners who have accepted its logic.
>SBF would be championed as a hero, not a villain, for his ponzi scheme.
A terrible approach for similar reasons. Telling people you intend to scam them is a good way to get them to not give you money.
>No money would be going to animal welfare or modern healthcare worries because longtermism would have won the argument.
Treated similarly: EA is like a funnel. They draw you in by saying "you give to charity anyways, shouldn't you do so 'effectively'?" Then, instead of telling you which local homeless shelters are best, they tell you "effective" means curing diseases in africa. Once you accept that, then they have another style of charity to sell you. They carefully avoid pushing you too far, to avoid having you throw out the whole project.
> EA is very simply the idea that one should check the efficiency of charities and try get the best bang for their dollar.
"Effectiveness" is not defined, and any concrete definition is carefully buried. In practice, it usually means "maximizing human welfare" or something to that effect (ie utilitarianism), but they will carefully avoiding forcing that definition on anyone. "Oh, you want to donate to a local foodbank," they might say, "better make sure its an effective food bank" - this for reasons explained above. But every EA organization knows exactly what it means by effective, which is always some variant of utilitarianism. Importantly, they never refer to it as such, because utilitarianism is a ideology, and thus open to criticism. Instead, they always describe it in terms of platitudes that seems sufficiently obvious as to be impossible to question. In this way, they prevent anyone from falling off the ramp.
> you're misinformed, or <slightly nicer statement of misinformed>
I'm confident I'm not misinformed, and I have no need to inefficiently waste your and, much worse, my and other HN readers' time arguing with a clear acolyte on the topic. So, to circle back to the portion you dodged from my prior comment:
>> Please do me a favor and at least acknowledge that many people you interact with regarding EA have thought about it and aren't babes in the wool.
----
> I don't know a single utilitarian in the EA circles I'm in ... There'd be popular EA speakers calling themselves utilitarian in public.
With due respect, your personal take on the EA movement is less informative than* that of* the core EA thinkers, which I've reviewed. Why would they not want to claim association to utilitarianism? Utilitarianism has a lot of nasty known failure modes and edge cases. Repackaging it is more sellable than fixing an older idea.
Defining what is really good and bad is a very hard thing to do, and has been the subject of philosophical debate for millennia. It gets really hard when we try to construct a reasonable logical foundation for ethics, but then we always check it by comparing it to the intuitive ethics in our evolved/cultured meat brains. Of course, the intuitive ethics always "wins" and we conclude that the problem must not be there, but any conflicts must be problems with the ethical framework!
So you can conclude that you should just do whatever makes you feel good and all ethics are nonsense as you seem to prefer, but I'm not sure that you've really refuted the basic premise that you should try to maximize the amount of good you can accomplish.
If you reject appeals to intuition there is really nothing to base your argument for ethics on since at their core they all rely on one. Made that college ethics class I took a bit unsatisfying.
People are not forced to treat EA as an all-or-nothing package. If some of their claims are more convincing than others, and acceptance of only the more-convincing claims leads to SBF-like behavior with much-higher-than-background probability, it is important to strengthen some arguments, and/or withdraw community support for ideas that are currently too unsafe in practice.
I agree with this. I think there are two sides of EA - the futurist utilitarian viewpoint and the rational QALY/$ viewpoint. I'm a believer of the latter, but do worry because this is boring (malaria nets and deworming) the former is the only one people hear of or see even if it's a minority group.
I say this as someone who took the Earning to Give path from 80,000 hours and happily donate to healthcare charities suggested by Givewell via Giving What We Can. My wife took the other path and is a postdoc at Stanford working on medical research with an EA focus (both in her field and on replication crisis in medicine). I'm pretty in this space so to speak, albeit only in a small way.
Felix Salmon on Slate Money podcast this past weekend suggest that its still net positive given alternative is those people don't even try to make world better. More nuanced than that but my take on the position.
Effective altruism sounds like choosing between destroying the enviroment and destroying the enviroment with some greenwashing on top. In my mind, the movement amounts to PR to make excessive riches and excessive political influence palatable.
Feels like the same logic all over again as when we had tyrant kings sending out their peasants to get killed in a field in order to win them more lands and wealth, then dumping their fortune into building a cathedral to try to buy their way into heaven.
Maybe it works if folks make a clear eyed appraisal of what the salient issues are. But once the biggest issues facing humanity were identified as AI or the sun exploding and not climate change and wealth inequality, it was game over
Yes. You're not just cleaning your own conscience but also your image in the minds of other people.
It's basically a license to be a charming scoundrel. Everything good you do can be balanced by some vice of yours, and that's how we get powerful people abusing their employees and other relations.
The MO is not new, you might have heard of the Sacklers donating to art. Should it buy them any sympathy for what they've done? Doubt it.
If you want to do good things, do good things. As soon as you do a good thing and get publicity for it, I'm going to think you're buying publicity. I think there's an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm about this.
If you're after good publicity, then EA is a spectacularly bad approach.
If you want to turn money into publicity, then giving locally to high profile causes is optimal. EA discourages both in favor of more global, more impactful causes.
The rich man who came to Jesus asking him what he should do knew that too much money was a bad thing. He followed all the commandments but felt that it wasn't enough.
Pretty much the most active users of cryptocurrencies so far are different kinds of investors who use it to avoid taxes and exposure of their assets to government and such?
There is a big recent trend for inventing new UI/UX solutions for things that aren't broken until they are.
I'm really looking forward to see this problem to be addressed in the near future.
That hamburger menu button in Chrome kept me from adopting the browser until I gave up only about a year ago.
There are so many projects born and die each day, it's a mystery to me why nobody have solved the famous Linux Desktop UI problem so far (Mac OS did though). The 'about' item often is the first thing I'm looking for when I see a new app. And if I can't find it within a minute, it gives me a instant idea that working with it will be no walk in a park.
I think the reason UI/UX is not solved on Linux is that designers do not readily work for free. And there are often very good reasons they don’t. The only solution I see is for someone to pay large amounts for great designers.
I personally have found the article pretty informative as I can relate to the topic very well. Takes me enormous amount of energy to write something that's more than a few random sentences together. There is a well-known fear of public speaking and in my case it's more like a fear of public writing.
Still looking for an efficient way to break thoughts down into pieces and that's one way to approach it.
You're not alone. Public speaking is no problem for me, as it cuts out the middle man, or, the medium.
Another comment points to the typos in this article in devaluing the author, while I secretly admire him for letting them slide. My threshold for typos is small, don't get me wrong, but enough years of unfinished essays behind me and I'll seek to learn from these masters (of efficiency, if nothing else).
Maybe not the best place to ask, but is it known what engine is used behind his website?
I can assume it's probably something custom made? I like the way topics are structured, the navigation is clear, nice comment section.
Are there any known tools or service capable of building a full-featured website like this? Any good open source projects? (please no jokes about Wordpress)
If you're interested in the tech behind websites, then I recommend getting the Wappalyzer extension for your browser, It tells you what software is most-likely running on a specific website you're looking at.
You could do something like this with Jekyll, which is supported on GitHub pages. You'd need to put some work into it to get the same features Gatesnotes has, but the framework is there.
