Chrome OS and Android may seem similar from a distance – they’re technically similar and do similar things, but they have very different goals.
Android was trying to imitate iOS and needed to establish itself and survive in a harsh market environment. It needed to be flashy, appeal to elitists, be affordable enough for the „poorer“ market segments, foster an economy around „apps“, etc. The result was an unholy monstrosity that, nevertheless, managed to beat iOS (on market share) as it was supposed to.
Chrome OS instead was an attempt at reducing a computer as much as possible to being just an interface to the internet – merely a technical artefact required to interface with the digital world, since humans don’t happen to have WiFi built in. Sort of like Google Glass, but envisioned in a world were smartphones did not yet exist. Market concerns and technical viability were secondary. The result was something that functionality-wise works as well as current technology allows, but nevertheless is the only laptop out there that truly „just works“. If anything actually ever breaks, you can go to the store, buy another one and have it work exactly the same like your old one – just type in your login credentials and everything’s back to where you left it.
I agree that in a perfect world both these „things“ should be achievable by only one product, but, reality being the mess hat it is, lead to Google developing two different products and now painfully trying to converge them into only one as much as possible.
Android is a odd one. Google bought it, and until recently it pretty much acted as a separate fief to Google.
Chrome(OS) on the other hand was, i think, started as one employee's personal project. Likely based on a observation that many of us spend our days mainly using a web browser, with the rest of the OS sitting idle around it.
> As for where the money comes from, doesn't that just fall out of supply and demand? As demand for electricity increases, prices will go up, funding the infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate the increased demand.
Looking forward to oil-shareholders claiming how expensive electric cars for the elites are making electricity unaffordable for the poor.
There's bound to be people out there (other than me) that hate dealing with other humans - let alone other humans who barely understand the language you speak, have bad hearing and work in a noisy environment.
I think the words you're looking for are "micromanagement" (if it's about dealing with more than one unit) and "mechanical skill" if it's about having twitch reaction times (for last hitting, landing spell-combos, etc.)
I play DotA on and off, and thi is the part that irritates me the most :x
Twitch reactions are what make it real-time. You might be more interested in a turn-based strategy game where you can plan out your moves before striking.
Even if thinking does somehow depend on quantum effects, it seems hugely unlikely that it would depend on the specific quantum state of individual atoms.
If it does, you don't need a spec of that state, since we know that it can emerge from something simpler (humans start out as a single cell, after all, and so in fact did all of humanity). You don't need the whole system, just the right initial conditions.
At that point you're growing a brain rather than engineering one, and maybe it takes you no closer to understanding the mechanics. But the point stands that it must be possible to construct a brain in principle, because it's already happened so many times before.
> Let's exclude things like rigorous scientific studies for the purpose of the discussion and focus on day-to-day human reasoning
I think you'll need to look at the other end of the spectrum to see an abundance of (wrong?) models of causality: Religion and Law.
There are no "confirmed" cases of anyone actually going to heaven or hell or purgatory (or whatever else), and yet many of us still conform to some arbitary ruleset in the hopes of eventually ending (or not ending) up in one of thoses places, because we have constructed some model of how doing this gets you into hell and doing that gets you into heaven.
Similarly, we have plenty of evidence on how companies spend huge effort on finding loopholes in tax laws in order to avoid taxes, and yet instead of simplyfing the ruleset (so that there are obviously no holes in it) we still opt for piling on more laws (so that there are no obvious holes in it) because we construct (faulty?) models of how those new rules will prevent further exploits.
> I think that in 99% of cases a traditional storage engine approach works just fine. We all tried to reinvent the wheel, but ultimately it turned out to be a lot of work for fairly little benefit.
Please publish this in a paper or at least a blog article so I can properly quote you the next time a discussion on ACID comes up. :)
I feel exactly like you, and I'm glad I'm not alone.
For some reason though we're the exception here. Most people seem to have enjoyed ME2 more than ME1 because nobody seems to care about having an actual coherent storyline as opposed to a bunch of one-off missions, fancy graphics and a character with a recognizable face from TV.
Personally speaking, I preferred ME2 greatly because it was a modern game in the good senses of the word: competent mechanics, enjoyable combat, and a good-enough story that was presented well enough as to be able to effectively stir emotional reactions that I appreciated. ME3 continued this trend--its general rep as "ME2 but more and better" is a compliment to ME2, which I feel like is a game that could have come out today and nobody would have felt it was out of place. In terms of mechanics and structure, it was ahead of its time, and it's still very fun for me to play today.
On the other hand, the original Mass Effect is unplayable to me; that the narrative is a little (not a lot, IMO, despite retroactive claims to the contrary) tighter gets lost when the game is too frustrating to play, with unsatisfying core gameplay when you get out of menu hell to even play it. I liked many of the ideas in it--the Mako was a great idea with a ton of potential--but execution, and arguably the technology stack they used, was severely lacking. As such, ME1 is a product of that weird transitional era in games where few people seemed to really have a handle on what they were doing--a game like the original Half-Life has aged better than the ME1, and it came out many years before.
Now, isn't it funny that that bears no resemblance to hurf blurf fancy graphics recognizable face hurf blurf? But that's a real nice cross you've nailed yourself to, don't let me stop you from indulging in your self-righteous enlightenment.
You asume that computers will remain tied to a wall socket, which may not be necessarily true forever.
And even if, given all the bugs prevalent in our software, what are the chances of containing something that can not only fully reason around but also exist within those bugs?
Android was trying to imitate iOS and needed to establish itself and survive in a harsh market environment. It needed to be flashy, appeal to elitists, be affordable enough for the „poorer“ market segments, foster an economy around „apps“, etc. The result was an unholy monstrosity that, nevertheless, managed to beat iOS (on market share) as it was supposed to.
Chrome OS instead was an attempt at reducing a computer as much as possible to being just an interface to the internet – merely a technical artefact required to interface with the digital world, since humans don’t happen to have WiFi built in. Sort of like Google Glass, but envisioned in a world were smartphones did not yet exist. Market concerns and technical viability were secondary. The result was something that functionality-wise works as well as current technology allows, but nevertheless is the only laptop out there that truly „just works“. If anything actually ever breaks, you can go to the store, buy another one and have it work exactly the same like your old one – just type in your login credentials and everything’s back to where you left it.
I agree that in a perfect world both these „things“ should be achievable by only one product, but, reality being the mess hat it is, lead to Google developing two different products and now painfully trying to converge them into only one as much as possible.