I was issued a Brother by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and it burned through ink cartridges, I took a semester off and the ones in the printer went bad without me printing anything; when the yellow ink ran out it refused to print in black and white even though I had plenty of black ink. Eventually it stopped working because of something to do with the drivers even though I never changed anything.
I'm glad your experience, and the experiences of others here, seem to be better but I can't help but reflect on the variance every time I read an HN poster relating about their positive Brother experience since my own experience was so different.
If your print dialog was set for color then it requires working color cartridges. Even if the document is only black and white. I've been buying Brother printers for over 20 years and I've run into that a few times.
> The bottom line is, at some point in time, automation is going to reduce the amount of human work which needs to be done
Jevons paradox [0] proposes that as automation reduces the cost of labor then people will find new uses for automation, and this seems to be the historical trajectory. Hundreds of years since the industrial revolution and we still haven't run out of work to do (this could be better or worse given your philosophical premises).
> and render some folks unemployable
If automation truly causes more actually productive work to be done, then as a first-order effect there should be a surplus available to support these people without making anyone else (much) worse off. However as you observe the higher-order consequences of this are very much an open issue.
The ape brain doesn't have a separate category for 'people you see on TV' and 'people you work with', celebrities are stored in the same place as your friends except the nature of parasocial relations seems to polarize their status; such that these people are seen as very high or very low status.
>> Our brains treat on-screen faces the same as in-person faces, explains Bradley Bond. He is a communication researcher at the University of San Diego in California. “We assign personhood to people we see in-person and on screens,” he explains. And we “process them in a similar fashion.” We are a social species. So we crave connections to other people. “It’s human instinct,” he says, and parasocial bonds help fill that need.
It's not surprising to me that we process faces the same whether we see them in person or on a screen, that's because screens are designed to accurately display the visual qualities of their subjects. That is not even close to the same thing as saying "celebrities are stored in the same place as your friends".
Recognizing your wife's face and recognizing a cartoon character from your childhood are both done with your brain, therefore your brain doesn't have different categories for family members and cartoon characters?
I'm not sure because I've never read anything about cartoon characters in this context but it probably has to do with whether the person recognizes that the cartoon character is an animated drawing or a person.
I am skeptical that there is any profound scientific value in the term "parasocial interaction".
To judge from the origin of the term,[0] we are calling a "parasocial relationship" the phenomenon of mass conditioning of consumers by controlled media. There is enough clear evidence of a state's ability to affect public discourse by controlling entertainment (and news) media.[1]
Although people may be inclined to credulity or at least some basic level of cooperation, most people can see when they are being duped in a tangible way.
There are extreme cases, which the article calls, "extreme parasocial behaviour".
Other terms exist to describe a person who believes things that are not real, highly improbable, or hallucinatory. And in the marketplace, there is caveat emptor, the complete phrase being,
"Let a purchaser beware, for he ought not to be ignorant of the nature of the property which he is buying from another party."[2]
[0] > Evolution of the term
> Parasocial interaction was first described from the perspective of media and communication studies. In 1956, Horton and Wohl explored the different interactions between mass media users and media figures and determined the existence of a parasocial relationship (PSR), where the user acts as though they are involved in a typical social relationship.
The Wikipedia article claims we treat YouTuber like our personal friend.
The parent post claims ape don't have different caregory for boss that can advance your career and a celebrity that, at its best, can be treated as a friend ..
> If inflation was running hot persistently at like 6% then long term interest rates would be higher
This is not true.
> housing prices would fall in nominal terms compared to wages
I suggest you reconsider your assertion that 6% inflation would result in lower housing prices.
> The low-inflation, low-interest rate environment has produced high asset valuations due to the cheapness of borrowing money.
The high asset valuations as a result of low interest rates is textbook monetary inflation.
> There is an important distinction on the spectrum between consumable things bought with wages and investments bought with borrowed money, and the rise in prices in those categories are different.
The prices in both those categories are affected by dilution of value as a consequence of monetary expansion and that increase in prices has a name, 'inflation'.
> If you want to play the semantic game that all rises in any prices are inflation there is a real distinction that you're missing -- in which case we should talk about asset inflation vs. price inflation vs. wage inflation as being different inflations and stop talking about it like its the same thing (which economists would tell you it isn't by arguing that you're talking about assets and not inflation, but now we've just gone in a circle talking past each other because of definitions).
The point of semantics is to enable us to communicate by having mutually understood meanings for the words we use. If you want to talk about price increases that are not a result of monetary factors, then you can just talk about the price of things going up without misappropriating the word 'inflation' and making it seem like you don't understand what the word even means.
I think it is reasonable to assert both that distraction has been a problem for hundreds of years and that it is considerably worse now than it had been.
> That must be why developing iOS Apps is so unpopular with developers…
Apple products are popular among consumers and developers in spite of their many user-hostile decisions precisely because there are few alternatives, all of which have substantial disadvantages as well.
So if Apple products are “user hostile” then why are enough users happily spending twice as much on iPhones and more on Macs to make Apple the most valuable company in the world?
Maybe their decisions are only hostile to geeks who want to run Linux on the Apple Pencil.
Generally speaking in the Navy and Marine Corps we're discouraged from representing or using our rank to influence the public or gain favor. I don't go around calling myself by my rank, I'd expect a former Rear Admiral not to as well.
In the Marine Corps, honorably separated Marines are entitled to use their rank as a courtesy title in civilian life. Wearing jewelry to celebrate and pay homage to one's service is hardly influencing the public.
I've seen pendants with an EGA, spearheads, and whatnot but not insignia. I kind of diluted this thread by talking about rank instead of insignia at first. Very different things.
I'm glad your experience, and the experiences of others here, seem to be better but I can't help but reflect on the variance every time I read an HN poster relating about their positive Brother experience since my own experience was so different.