Sure, that seems vaguely reasonable to me. Mostly, though, I just wish they'd have sorted this out a bit more before dropping the port. Maybe talked to other major vendors and found a solution that had some consensus behind it.
Of course, maybe they did approach other vendors, and the other vendors were completely uncooperative.
Well honestly, I don't know. There might be any number of improvements that engineers could make on an audio connector. Can they improve audio quality? Reduce interference? Can they make it less likely to break? Cheaper to manufacture? Make it take up less space so that it can be built into smaller/thinner devices? Can they include a power source so that features like active-noise-cancellation don't require additional batteries?
Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. Obviously some of these things might run counter to each other, but yes, I feel like improvements could probably be made. And here we have someone saying that it's old technology, and improvements should be made, so I'm saying, "Great! Release an improved standard, and get other companies onboard. Until then, let me use the existing standard."
I'm not saying that there are no (or won't be any) Lightning headphones. I'm pointing out that those headphones will only work with Apple iOS devices. There aren't Lightning ports on Sony consumer equipment, Dell desktop machines, or even Apple laptops. So if I buy a pair of nice Lightning headphones, I'm severely limited in how and where I can use them.
"It had its last big innovation about 50 years ago. You know what that was? They made it smaller. It hasn't been touched since then. It's a dinosaur. It's time to move on."
You know, fine. I don't disagree with this idea. It's an old port that takes up a lot of space, and it's time to move on by replacing it with something better. What's the replacement here?
You can use Bluetooth, which I haven't found to be a very good solution. Someone's going to say that I'm crazy, but I've had problems with various devices where the connection drops or is unreliable. I've had experiences where I've had problems with pairing, and the process of unpairing and repairing every time you want to connect to a different device is unwieldy. Plus, I just don't like having another battery that I need to keep charged. I want a simple and reliable wired solution. Bluetooth is out.
Apple's other offering seems to be the lightning connector. You know, I wouldn't mind, but then they need to make it an open standard and get others to adopt it. Make it USB type-D micro, or something. Convince everyone to make it a standard connector for peripherals where you want a smaller connector than USB type-C. Make it the new universal standard for headphone ports, and get it installed everywhere. But they haven't done that. They don't even have lightning ports on their computers. Lightning isn't a standard, and no one else is using it. So Lightning is out.
So come up with something else that replaces the existing port, but is better, more convenient, easier to use, and able to provide even better audio quality. Then convince every manufacturer of audio equipment to use this new standard. *Then* get rid of the old port.
the iPhone 7 rumors have been seemingly more frequent and more detailed than the ones in the past.
Maybe you weren't paying attention to the rumors in the past? The Mac rumor mill has been huge for decades. They don't always get things right, but the rumors have always been frequent and detailed.
You realize we're comparing a FREE option vs a PAID option. As a business trying to save money here/there, I'd rather go with the free one to be honest.
Sounds like a sloppy way to try to save money. The smart thing would be to compare the cost of the paid option to the cost of the extra bandwidth needed for the less efficient free version, as well as any other problems the "free" version might cause. "Free" only saves money if when it's not causing you to incur greater costs elsewhere.
On the other hand, who in their right mind launches a satallite of that cost for flight on an experimental vehicle without some kind of insurance?
Whether it's technically "insurance", I can't see a company putting such expensive equipment at risk, even the risk of a conventional launch, without a plan of what happens when things go wrong. Even in the case that it's a high-stakes gamble, there should be legal agreements spelling out liability, and exactly what SpaceX is responsible for.
Also, I could see an insurance company covering something so expensive and high-risk. I'd just expect that the insurance would be very expensive.
in the case of computer equipment, this 'market differentiation' mindset just plain does not fucking work. What we need is stuff that is as uncluttered as possible and just works.
I'd look at it a different way: If you can genuinely add something of value, then you can differentiate your product from the competitors. However, if all your competitors are trying to do that and failing miserably, then there's an opportunity to differentiate yourself by *not* installing crapware.
On the other hand, the reality is that part of the reasons these businesses do these things is that it works. They say, "Buy my product because I've added value by installing our custom 'CoolStuff' interface. Now you can access your favorite programs by waving your hand and hoping the phone picks the right thing!" Consumers go "Oooooo... CoolStuff! I can wave my hand instead of touching the screen?! Count me in." They buy the phone. In two days, they realize that the "CoolStuff interface" is crap and doesn't work, but guess what? The next time they buy a phone, they buy it from the same goddamn company because they're advertising CoolStuff v2 by paying reviewers off to say, "This time, it actually works!" And we keep falling for it.
You can only blame the company so much for giving us the stupid crap that we're asking for.
Why would Sony want to market their phone by talking about how awesome Android is? Any smartphone you get (that's not an iPhone, obviously) will be running Android. If Sony's sales pitch is, "You should buy an Android phone!" it doesn't differentiate them from other phone manufacturers. It doesn't tell you why you should buy an Xperia phone.
So every phone manufacturer is trying to differentiate itself. They want to make their phone different from the other Android phones, and then their sales pitch is going to focus on those differences. For some manufacturers, those differences might be good, and for some they'll be bad, but there is a need to be different. Even Google's Nexus devices are, to some extent, marketing themselves on the premise that they're the reference design. You're getting the true, pure Android experience without all that pesky manufacturer interference.
It's not just Facebook, though. Honestly, part of the problem is that too many of my Facebook "friends" are under the impression that their social media presence is so influential that they have a moral obligation to post really important "news" to their feed on a regular basis. Aunt Alice wants me to read a story about how Trump is a secret genius while ex-classmate Jeremy wants us all to read a story about how women are mistreated in the workplace. Unfortunately for them, I'm just logging on so I can see pictures of my nieces and nephews. For everyone else, I'd be happy to read about what's going on with your lives, but I'm completely disinterested in your political views.
Yeah, I don't know that I 100% agree with that breakdown, but I do think it's something like that.
For one thing, I think "flow" is a little crammed in there. I think there's reason to connect the idea of "flow" (as I understand it) to a sense of contentment, but it's probably not really about achieving the state of flow itself. At least in my thinking, I'd sooner say that regularly achieving a state of flow implies that you're good at something that you derive some pleasure and satisfaction from, and it may be the pleasure and satisfaction that is providing the psychological benefits rather than the state of flow itself. I could be wrong-- maybe he's done some studies that show my thinking is backward, but it feels like it's artificially shoe-horned in there. I do think that some form of engagement is extremely important to a healthy mental state, so I wouldn't argue with him too strenuously about it.
Similarly, I think using the word "meaning" may be conflating a couple of different things that I would tend to separate. I think that there's a kind of happiness that comes from "doing what you're supposed to" or "living the life you think you should", but not necessarily because it's extremely meaningful in the sense most people would use the word "meaning". Instead, I think a big component is something like "an absence of extreme cognitive dissonance" paired with "not hating yourself". What I intend to point out here is that "meaning" might imply things like, "saving poor starving children in the 3rd world", but many people would skip over ideas like, "I think I spent my day in an appropriate way, and I have no conflicted feelings about that." You could call both of them "meaning", but the latter is not what most people would think of.
I guess my point here is just that I think there may be quite a lot of subtly different positive emotions and beneficial psychological states of being that we don't necessarily think of when we say the word "happiness". Seligman has chosen a few, and you could argue that the others can be somehow grouped in with the few that he's chosen. If it provides a workable theory that improves psychological treatment, I'm all in favor of that. Still, my sense is that he hasn't quite hit the bullseye.
For various reasons, I would tend to favor a model that at least contained separate ideas for pleasure, joy, satisfaction, alignment (that feeling of "I am unconflicted about the appropriateness of my actions"), and meaning. I'd be open to an alternate breakdown, but positive emotions, flow, and meaningfulness don't seem to capture the range of what I experience.
Specifically, people were more likely to engage in mood-increasing activities (e.g., play sports) when they felt bad, and to engage in useful but mood-decreasing activities (e.g., housework) when they felt good.
is that it makes perfect sense if you think of happiness not as "something that must be maximized at every moment," but a resource that needs to be rationed or even grown when it's in short supply, but can be expended more freely when it's available. People engage in mood-expending activities when they have extra "mood" to expend.
However, I still think that this misses my point a bit when it says, "They may explain how humans overcome the allure of short-term gains in happiness to maximize long-term welfare." The implication there, it seems to me, is that maximizing hedonism is still the end-goal, but that it's a simple trade-off between short-term happiness and long-term. I don't want to take much time in arguing the point right now, but I suspect it's not that simple. After a lot of thought, I've ended up thinking of the emotion "happiness" as more of a expression of something deeper that we don't quite have a word for, and that deeper thing is what we're all really after.
To keep things simpler, I might instead say it this way: There are different kinds of happiness. One is simple pleasure-seeking and hedonism, another is a more deep-souled immediate sense of "joy" that goes beyond normal pleasure, and yet another is something more like a longer lasting "overall contentment and satisfaction". So anyway, what I suspect this research is really showing is that... well... Imagine you're playing a RPG, and the goal is to build a magic sword that lets you save the kingdom. You have a stamina bar, and when it runs out, you can't do very much. You can't run, you can't fight, you can't craft. The point of the game isn't to keep the stamina bar full, or even to keep it as high as possible as much as possible. It's just a means to an end.
So I would argue that what we normally call "happiness" as an immediate emotional state is like that stamina bar. When your mood is low, you're not very functional, so we find ways to boost it by pleasure seeking. When it's high, we make use of it. But what you're after is not maximizing that immediate emotional state of "happiness". That's just what you do when you don't have enough. I believe our willingness to expend that resource is not necessarily a sign that we are engaging in long-term planning to maximize happiness, but instead a sign that there is some other larger thing, the equivalent of "building a magic sword and saving the kingdom", that we are willing to expend that resource to gain.
I think I have an idea of what that thing is, but it's hard to describe succinctly in a Slashdot post.
It's a bit silly to say that people are sabotaging their own good mood. I think it instead suggests an alternate viewpoint: What we call "happiness" is not simply an end-goal, but also a resource. When we lack it, we conserve it and try to generate more. When we have enough, we expend the resource to accomplish other goals.
This in turn suggests some other ideas that some of us may have already suspected. Hedonists may be extremely unhappy people. Various behaviors that can be described as "addiction to pleasure-seeking" may be a response to suffering some kind of happiness deficiency. Depression may make people unproductive. People who are a mess may benefit from receiving some kind of help, rather than piling on various kinds of punishments.
I think this is simple a smart move. You don't really have Linux admins saying, "Man, I wish I had Powershell!" as much as you have Windows admins saying, "I spent all this time making Powershell scripts. I wish I could run the same scripts on Linux." They're servicing their own users, and providing extra value in learning to use Microsoft technology.
This is the sort of thing that I used to think Microsoft was stupid for not doing.
A Texas man sees a sign that says, "No Swimming - Alligators." He immediately says, "Man, fuck that alligator", jumps in the water and is instantly eaten by an alligator.
And some of them are fake. There are a lot of ads and malware that mimic a security alert in some way, which only trains users to ignore them faster.
Also, not only do users not know how to evaluate the risk, they don't know how to fix the problem. If an alert pops up and says, "You may have a virus", the user can't tell if that's a scam, a false alarm, or a real problem. Regardless of whether it's real, false, or fraudulent, they don't have any idea what to do about it.
The whole POINT of a console over a PC is a known quantity for software makers.
I thought the point was to get gamers continually re-buy their game library and gaming accessories every few years by breaking all compatibility and discontinuing support for the old system.
Take that away and what exactly would differentiate Scorpio from a gaming PC?
Nothing. The XBox is already basically a custom-built gaming PC running Windows. Microsoft has already been doing more to blur the lines between a Windows gaming PC. I believe "XBox Play Anywhere" games allow you to buy the game and play it either on the XBox or a Windows 10 PC. Meanwhile, the XBox One can run some Windows applications (IIRC).
My guess is that, in a few years, there won't be a real distinction. In fact, Microsoft may take a page out of Steam's book and allow 3rd party "XBox" rigs running the XBox OS, which will mostly become Windows 10 with TV-optimized controls and navigation.
Oh, you hipsters with your fancy telephones and telegraphs. I write letters! I carve them into stone tablets and ship them using the USPS. None of that fancy UPS for me.
Well yeah, it's not like they can test for that. It's literally impossible for modern science to tell the difference between human fat and oat/rice/soy products.
The laziness came from not fixing the problem in the first place.
My point is that they're both laziness. Yes, not fixing the problem could be seen as laziness, but fixing the problem could be seen as just being a smarter form of laziness.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, that seems vaguely reasonable to me. Mostly, though, I just wish they'd have sorted this out a bit more before dropping the port. Maybe talked to other major vendors and found a solution that had some consensus behind it.
Of course, maybe they did approach other vendors, and the other vendors were completely uncooperative.
Most of Apple's justifications -- size, layout, RF interference -- would also reject just about any other connector
Apparently not the Lightning connector.
Well honestly, I don't know. There might be any number of improvements that engineers could make on an audio connector. Can they improve audio quality? Reduce interference? Can they make it less likely to break? Cheaper to manufacture? Make it take up less space so that it can be built into smaller/thinner devices? Can they include a power source so that features like active-noise-cancellation don't require additional batteries?
Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. Obviously some of these things might run counter to each other, but yes, I feel like improvements could probably be made. And here we have someone saying that it's old technology, and improvements should be made, so I'm saying, "Great! Release an improved standard, and get other companies onboard. Until then, let me use the existing standard."
I'm not saying that there are no (or won't be any) Lightning headphones. I'm pointing out that those headphones will only work with Apple iOS devices. There aren't Lightning ports on Sony consumer equipment, Dell desktop machines, or even Apple laptops. So if I buy a pair of nice Lightning headphones, I'm severely limited in how and where I can use them.
"It had its last big innovation about 50 years ago. You know what that was? They made it smaller. It hasn't been touched since then. It's a dinosaur. It's time to move on."
You know, fine. I don't disagree with this idea. It's an old port that takes up a lot of space, and it's time to move on by replacing it with something better. What's the replacement here?
You can use Bluetooth, which I haven't found to be a very good solution. Someone's going to say that I'm crazy, but I've had problems with various devices where the connection drops or is unreliable. I've had experiences where I've had problems with pairing, and the process of unpairing and repairing every time you want to connect to a different device is unwieldy. Plus, I just don't like having another battery that I need to keep charged. I want a simple and reliable wired solution. Bluetooth is out.
Apple's other offering seems to be the lightning connector. You know, I wouldn't mind, but then they need to make it an open standard and get others to adopt it. Make it USB type-D micro, or something. Convince everyone to make it a standard connector for peripherals where you want a smaller connector than USB type-C. Make it the new universal standard for headphone ports, and get it installed everywhere. But they haven't done that. They don't even have lightning ports on their computers. Lightning isn't a standard, and no one else is using it. So Lightning is out.
So come up with something else that replaces the existing port, but is better, more convenient, easier to use, and able to provide even better audio quality. Then convince every manufacturer of audio equipment to use this new standard. *Then* get rid of the old port.
"Apple [is detail oriented and therefore] usually doesn't miss these kinds of things."
the iPhone 7 rumors have been seemingly more frequent and more detailed than the ones in the past.
Maybe you weren't paying attention to the rumors in the past? The Mac rumor mill has been huge for decades. They don't always get things right, but the rumors have always been frequent and detailed.
I know! It caught me completely off guard, especially because Apple doesn't usually misses out on these things.
You realize we're comparing a FREE option vs a PAID option. As a business trying to save money here/there, I'd rather go with the free one to be honest.
Sounds like a sloppy way to try to save money. The smart thing would be to compare the cost of the paid option to the cost of the extra bandwidth needed for the less efficient free version, as well as any other problems the "free" version might cause. "Free" only saves money if when it's not causing you to incur greater costs elsewhere.
On the other hand, who in their right mind launches a satallite of that cost for flight on an experimental vehicle without some kind of insurance?
Whether it's technically "insurance", I can't see a company putting such expensive equipment at risk, even the risk of a conventional launch, without a plan of what happens when things go wrong. Even in the case that it's a high-stakes gamble, there should be legal agreements spelling out liability, and exactly what SpaceX is responsible for.
Also, I could see an insurance company covering something so expensive and high-risk. I'd just expect that the insurance would be very expensive.
in the case of computer equipment, this 'market differentiation' mindset just plain does not fucking work. What we need is stuff that is as uncluttered as possible and just works.
I'd look at it a different way: If you can genuinely add something of value, then you can differentiate your product from the competitors. However, if all your competitors are trying to do that and failing miserably, then there's an opportunity to differentiate yourself by *not* installing crapware.
On the other hand, the reality is that part of the reasons these businesses do these things is that it works. They say, "Buy my product because I've added value by installing our custom 'CoolStuff' interface. Now you can access your favorite programs by waving your hand and hoping the phone picks the right thing!" Consumers go "Oooooo... CoolStuff! I can wave my hand instead of touching the screen?! Count me in." They buy the phone. In two days, they realize that the "CoolStuff interface" is crap and doesn't work, but guess what? The next time they buy a phone, they buy it from the same goddamn company because they're advertising CoolStuff v2 by paying reviewers off to say, "This time, it actually works!" And we keep falling for it.
You can only blame the company so much for giving us the stupid crap that we're asking for.
Why would Sony want to market their phone by talking about how awesome Android is? Any smartphone you get (that's not an iPhone, obviously) will be running Android. If Sony's sales pitch is, "You should buy an Android phone!" it doesn't differentiate them from other phone manufacturers. It doesn't tell you why you should buy an Xperia phone.
So every phone manufacturer is trying to differentiate itself. They want to make their phone different from the other Android phones, and then their sales pitch is going to focus on those differences. For some manufacturers, those differences might be good, and for some they'll be bad, but there is a need to be different. Even Google's Nexus devices are, to some extent, marketing themselves on the premise that they're the reference design. You're getting the true, pure Android experience without all that pesky manufacturer interference.
It's not just Facebook, though. Honestly, part of the problem is that too many of my Facebook "friends" are under the impression that their social media presence is so influential that they have a moral obligation to post really important "news" to their feed on a regular basis. Aunt Alice wants me to read a story about how Trump is a secret genius while ex-classmate Jeremy wants us all to read a story about how women are mistreated in the workplace. Unfortunately for them, I'm just logging on so I can see pictures of my nieces and nephews. For everyone else, I'd be happy to read about what's going on with your lives, but I'm completely disinterested in your political views.
Maybe it's just me?
Yeah, I don't know that I 100% agree with that breakdown, but I do think it's something like that.
For one thing, I think "flow" is a little crammed in there. I think there's reason to connect the idea of "flow" (as I understand it) to a sense of contentment, but it's probably not really about achieving the state of flow itself. At least in my thinking, I'd sooner say that regularly achieving a state of flow implies that you're good at something that you derive some pleasure and satisfaction from, and it may be the pleasure and satisfaction that is providing the psychological benefits rather than the state of flow itself. I could be wrong-- maybe he's done some studies that show my thinking is backward, but it feels like it's artificially shoe-horned in there. I do think that some form of engagement is extremely important to a healthy mental state, so I wouldn't argue with him too strenuously about it.
Similarly, I think using the word "meaning" may be conflating a couple of different things that I would tend to separate. I think that there's a kind of happiness that comes from "doing what you're supposed to" or "living the life you think you should", but not necessarily because it's extremely meaningful in the sense most people would use the word "meaning". Instead, I think a big component is something like "an absence of extreme cognitive dissonance" paired with "not hating yourself". What I intend to point out here is that "meaning" might imply things like, "saving poor starving children in the 3rd world", but many people would skip over ideas like, "I think I spent my day in an appropriate way, and I have no conflicted feelings about that." You could call both of them "meaning", but the latter is not what most people would think of.
I guess my point here is just that I think there may be quite a lot of subtly different positive emotions and beneficial psychological states of being that we don't necessarily think of when we say the word "happiness". Seligman has chosen a few, and you could argue that the others can be somehow grouped in with the few that he's chosen. If it provides a workable theory that improves psychological treatment, I'm all in favor of that. Still, my sense is that he hasn't quite hit the bullseye.
For various reasons, I would tend to favor a model that at least contained separate ideas for pleasure, joy, satisfaction, alignment (that feeling of "I am unconflicted about the appropriateness of my actions"), and meaning. I'd be open to an alternate breakdown, but positive emotions, flow, and meaningfulness don't seem to capture the range of what I experience.
Yes, my immediate thought when reading this:
Specifically, people were more likely to engage in mood-increasing activities (e.g., play sports) when they felt bad, and to engage in useful but mood-decreasing activities (e.g., housework) when they felt good.
is that it makes perfect sense if you think of happiness not as "something that must be maximized at every moment," but a resource that needs to be rationed or even grown when it's in short supply, but can be expended more freely when it's available. People engage in mood-expending activities when they have extra "mood" to expend.
However, I still think that this misses my point a bit when it says, "They may explain how humans overcome the allure of short-term gains in happiness to maximize long-term welfare." The implication there, it seems to me, is that maximizing hedonism is still the end-goal, but that it's a simple trade-off between short-term happiness and long-term. I don't want to take much time in arguing the point right now, but I suspect it's not that simple. After a lot of thought, I've ended up thinking of the emotion "happiness" as more of a expression of something deeper that we don't quite have a word for, and that deeper thing is what we're all really after.
To keep things simpler, I might instead say it this way: There are different kinds of happiness. One is simple pleasure-seeking and hedonism, another is a more deep-souled immediate sense of "joy" that goes beyond normal pleasure, and yet another is something more like a longer lasting "overall contentment and satisfaction". So anyway, what I suspect this research is really showing is that... well... Imagine you're playing a RPG, and the goal is to build a magic sword that lets you save the kingdom. You have a stamina bar, and when it runs out, you can't do very much. You can't run, you can't fight, you can't craft. The point of the game isn't to keep the stamina bar full, or even to keep it as high as possible as much as possible. It's just a means to an end.
So I would argue that what we normally call "happiness" as an immediate emotional state is like that stamina bar. When your mood is low, you're not very functional, so we find ways to boost it by pleasure seeking. When it's high, we make use of it. But what you're after is not maximizing that immediate emotional state of "happiness". That's just what you do when you don't have enough. I believe our willingness to expend that resource is not necessarily a sign that we are engaging in long-term planning to maximize happiness, but instead a sign that there is some other larger thing, the equivalent of "building a magic sword and saving the kingdom", that we are willing to expend that resource to gain.
I think I have an idea of what that thing is, but it's hard to describe succinctly in a Slashdot post.
They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.
Apparently their big mistake was crossing Peter Thiel. The Hulk Hogan video was just the instrument of their downfall.
It's a bit silly to say that people are sabotaging their own good mood. I think it instead suggests an alternate viewpoint: What we call "happiness" is not simply an end-goal, but also a resource. When we lack it, we conserve it and try to generate more. When we have enough, we expend the resource to accomplish other goals.
This in turn suggests some other ideas that some of us may have already suspected. Hedonists may be extremely unhappy people. Various behaviors that can be described as "addiction to pleasure-seeking" may be a response to suffering some kind of happiness deficiency. Depression may make people unproductive. People who are a mess may benefit from receiving some kind of help, rather than piling on various kinds of punishments.
I think this is simple a smart move. You don't really have Linux admins saying, "Man, I wish I had Powershell!" as much as you have Windows admins saying, "I spent all this time making Powershell scripts. I wish I could run the same scripts on Linux." They're servicing their own users, and providing extra value in learning to use Microsoft technology.
This is the sort of thing that I used to think Microsoft was stupid for not doing.
A Texas man sees a sign that says, "No Swimming - Alligators." He immediately says, "Man, fuck that alligator", jumps in the water and is instantly eaten by an alligator.
Surprising that it wasn't a Florida man.
There are just way too many of them
And some of them are fake. There are a lot of ads and malware that mimic a security alert in some way, which only trains users to ignore them faster.
Also, not only do users not know how to evaluate the risk, they don't know how to fix the problem. If an alert pops up and says, "You may have a virus", the user can't tell if that's a scam, a false alarm, or a real problem. Regardless of whether it's real, false, or fraudulent, they don't have any idea what to do about it.
The whole POINT of a console over a PC is a known quantity for software makers.
I thought the point was to get gamers continually re-buy their game library and gaming accessories every few years by breaking all compatibility and discontinuing support for the old system.
Take that away and what exactly would differentiate Scorpio from a gaming PC?
Nothing. The XBox is already basically a custom-built gaming PC running Windows. Microsoft has already been doing more to blur the lines between a Windows gaming PC. I believe "XBox Play Anywhere" games allow you to buy the game and play it either on the XBox or a Windows 10 PC. Meanwhile, the XBox One can run some Windows applications (IIRC).
My guess is that, in a few years, there won't be a real distinction. In fact, Microsoft may take a page out of Steam's book and allow 3rd party "XBox" rigs running the XBox OS, which will mostly become Windows 10 with TV-optimized controls and navigation.
Oh, you hipsters with your fancy telephones and telegraphs. I write letters! I carve them into stone tablets and ship them using the USPS. None of that fancy UPS for me.
Well yeah, it's not like they can test for that. It's literally impossible for modern science to tell the difference between human fat and oat/rice/soy products.
The laziness came from not fixing the problem in the first place.
My point is that they're both laziness. Yes, not fixing the problem could be seen as laziness, but fixing the problem could be seen as just being a smarter form of laziness.