This was my favorite Monkey Island game. I felt like it had all the charm, brilliance and comedy of the first two, but with a much prettier and more engaging world.

I feel like I'd like to see this as a scatterplot. Thought about it as a kind of 2x2, the four buckets are each independently substantively interesting. You might have low income/low cost areas... low income/high cost areas... high income/high cost areas... or high income/low cost areas. It'd be interesting to see how they compare.

Actually... just whipped it up in data commons... basically this:

https://datacommons.org/tools/scatter#%26svx%3DMedian_Income_Person%26dx%3DCount_Person%26svy%3DMedian_Cost_HousingUnit_OccupiedHousingUnit_OwnerOccupied_SelectedMonthlyOwnerCosts%26dy%3DCount_Person%26epd%3Dcountry%2FUSA%26ept%3DCounty

Alright... You sold me!

Let's send some shit to Titan!

She seems pretty good... But what about Noah Wiley?

The most important thing is cost. The quest isn't popular because it's good. There are better headsets out there. The quest is popular because it's at a price point where more casual users will try it out. Selling this at 1000 bucks will only attract people who are already into VR.

Of course there is... They make all their money from hardware. Also Tim Cook was specifically picked for the job because he was their hardware supply chain guy and that's the company they are.

You are completely misunderstanding Apple.

The iPhone isn't "stupid" in an abstract sense. But it is baffling that so many people are willing to pay so much money for them. They aren't that amazing. Hell, I'd take a midrange Android device over an iPhone any day of the week. The confusing thing is that so many people are willing to spend about twice what they should for iPhones that apple is somehow able to fucking thrive as basically just a hardware company. It's kind of amazing... Their software is mostly just ok (though they've got a few decent things)... They're really just a hardware company that somehow made that work.

Ahh ok... Thanks! Yeah that feels like a line I'd have put in the abstract!

This study is a little odd and maybe I'm just not getting it... I also can't see the whole article because academic publishing sucks.

But it looks like the comparison was simply between high status women and low status women... That basically people trusted information from low status women more than high status women. That's kind of an odd comparison case. I would obviously like to know whether that effect persisted regardless of gender, for example. Like do people distrust high status men in favor of low status men?

People always present this like it's a binary variable. That makes sense for almost nobody... Maybe except Lyft.

We already have self driving cars. My car has "adaptive cruise control" and fancier versions of that do more and more for you on the highway. We're definitely going to see more and more gradual progress of cars taking over certain tasks, from highway driving, to parking, to basic summoning tasks, etc. And that's good. Humans are terrible drivers.

The furthest step out is what a Lyft needs... Like a car that you can deploy anywhere with no human involvement and have it done anything. That's definitely a long way off. But I don't think basic driving will look anything like it does today as we get closer to that point. I would love to see more "self driving only" lanes on highways, or garages designed for autonomous cars, or whatever other cool innovation we'll see. Those things still help a lot along the way.

I can't decide if this is actually much more humane than what we do today and, therefore, a real proposal... Or like a Modest Proposal kind of thing...?