You might want to pick that mic back up. I repeat:
You can take a perfect standard (which I'm not saying USB-A is by any means) and make it look like shit by not following it.
The same way USB 3 external storage devices do, graceful degradation to other less performant standards.
Wake me up when that happens. What you're missing was that USB (the protocol, not the connector) does that be default; adding Thunderbolt to the mix means that Thunderbolt devices now need to also add in USB chipsets in order to gain that ability and, well, most of them don't. if usb-C was just USB, well, hell, it;d be great; but it's not. Your proposed "solution" also only "works" for the cherry-picked problem you quoted; what about the rest of that paragraph?
And you ignore this is functionally no different than the FACT that often only one OS had supported drivers for a lot of different devices in the past.
And you ignore the fact that the driver issue still exists and always will; the hardware issue is being added on top of it.
To the end user they are equivalent, and in fact it's EASER to solve a problem around hardware lacking because anyone can simply buy new hardware
Yes, because everyone can just whip out that plastic for a new $1500 machine the $500 USB-C display they just bought can work. No, they'll probably just buy an $5 HDMI cable and call it a day, discounting USB-C as the problem. You're right, though, it's an easier problem to solve.
The thing is what most people will be doing is plugging in a handful of different device types that are very easy to support a few common standard for across USB-C.
So what you're saying is that most people will use USB-C for USB devices? Wouldn't that be nice if it were true? But it is not, and cannot be, true; people see a device with a USB-C connector and they don't know if it's using USB, Thunderbolt, HDMI, DisplayPort, or something that's not even part of the standard; as you said, to them it's all equivalent. They see USB-C and they expect it to work, but the USB-C spec doesn't (and for what should be obvious reasons, can't) require that; all that is required is that at least one required protocol be supportedand "charge-only" is one of those protocols.
So we have charge-only USB-C ports that look just like display-only USB-C ports, or USB-only USB-C ports, or Thunderbolt-only USB-C ports, and which one do you plug the display into? And where do you charge? At least with separate standards for charging, display, and peripherals, this was obvious to the lay person.
If the USB-C standard required that all specified protocols be supported, that would solve the "works on this port but not that port" issue but, again, there are reasons why this can't happen. Those reasons should be obvious, but I'll drop a few hints just in case: your charger probably has no video signal to pass and your non-Intel system certainly lacks Thunderbolt, just for starters. Another solution would be to leave display and Thunderbolt out of USB-C, but we're already past the point where that's possible, the spec is already written.
I think there's a bit of a disconnect here, so allow me to clarify. USB-C as a connector for USB is great. It's all the other crap they stuffed in that are going to be problems going forward. These are problems that cannot be fixed with drivers... unless you know how to add Thunderbolt or HDMI passthru support to a system lacking the necessary hardware with a simple software update.
How does my ISP know how many people live in my house? They only know I exist, because I pay the bill; they might have some idea that my wife exists, but they don't know whether Tulip and Blue are my cats or my kids.
If you remember the times before USB-A you should ALSO remember that it didn't "just work" at the outset either. Specifically I seem to remember an awful lot of different USB devices (from CD-ROM burners to special mice) that needed drivers added to work, so it was absolutely not the case you could plug in any USB-A device and it would just work...
Yes, drivers. Software. Which you can add after-the-fact. That's always going to be a problem and is fairly diffeent from the issues USB-C faces.
Even today in the waning years of USB-A I have run across devices that do not just work, trying to get a working USB-A -> Serial port adaptor was a very trying experience. I have also had over the years some VERY flaky USB-A external storage devices that were very particular as to which cables they worked well with, or simply were not very stable at all.
Ah, yes, cheap crap products and cheap crap cables. You can take a perfect standard (which I'm not saying USB-A is by any means) and make it look like shit by not following it. The problem with USB-C is that it's not a standard, it's a collection of standards which all physically look the same to the end user. Any of those standards might be supported by a given port, with no way to tell which are and are not supported by that port; this leads to a situation where the thing can plug in but can potentially never work because the hardware to make it work simply is not there. This was not a problem with USB-A where, at most, you might need a driver; even USB 1 vs 2 vs 3 was just a matter of speed and devices made for any of those standards would work with any of those standards.
Within just a few years most of the USB-C issues will have smoothed out.
How do you fix a "USB-C" Thunderbolt device not working with a non-Intel system? How do you fix a USB-C display cable not working with your laptop that doesn't support HDMI or DisplayPort passthru? Or supports the HDMI when your display expects DisplayPort (or vise-versa)? How do you fix Thunderbolt and USB protocols requiring different cables despite sharing the same port?
You don't just install drivers like the good old days of USB, these are hardware issues.
That is in large part due to Apple shipping a LOT of devices with USB-C only, meaning that there is great motivation to making a lot of components that work well with USB-C which provides a lot of financial motivation as well as making Apple kind of a reference hardware standard for testing, as in if you are shipping a USB-C device or cable today you may make sure it works with a number of Windows laptops or phones, but you WILL make sure it works with a MacBook Pro or your Amazon ratings will be in the toilet.
Define "USB-C only". Is that USB 3.1 over USB-C, HDMI over USB-C, DisplayPort over USB-C, Thunderbolt over USB-C, analog audio over USB-C, or what? Any of those? All of those? What haopens when you plug your Thunderbolt over USB-C device into a computer which only supports USB 3.1 over USB-C? What drivers make that work?
That;s the mess.
You complain that USB-A was no better because you might have needed some drivers, completely missing that the problems with USB-C cannot be fixed with drivers.
No, but it would be nice to keep it around alongside the new and unproven interface until that new interface becomes proven. We're talking about the (still) ubiquitious USB-A port, here, not some dead-end technology we've been trying to get away ffor years. Well, maybe some people have been trying, but even they seem to agree that jumping to USB-C before it was proven was a mistake.
And now? USB-C has, indeed, been proven... to be quite a mess.
I have a USB-C phone that will charge from my backup battery, which will then go to sleep because it is no longer charging something; the phone will then wake it up and begin charging it. I have a laptop that charges via USB-C. Well, no, I don't. I have a laptop that charges via Thunderbolt through a USB-C port; it will not charge from any of the various power supplies I have, even if they support the voltage and current it expects; though it will happily dump the content of its own battery into my phone or a portable battery via the very same port.
That's to add to TFS, of course, as I've experienced most of what the author of that list of complaints has written, as well.
USB-A (and B) never had these problems, USB-C does, primarily because it's trying to be more than just USB. Does the port support Thunderbolt? With which cables? HDMI? DisplayPort? Both? Neither? And with which adapters is it compatible? There is no way to tell without pawing through the manual for the device the port is on, and we don't get manuals with our devices anymore.
The beauty of USB was that anything that could plug in to the port would just work, and we had that for nearly two decades. With USB-C, that's a thing of the past.
Yes, USB-C is a huge step forward... to a time I recall before USB-A took hold. If you're over 30 and remember that time as well, and still think USB-C is a net win, you'll be the first I've met.
If, by "catch up to iOS next year", you mean "have had features for several years that iOS will get next year", sure. But even at that, Android development hasn't stopped and there will be new features next year that iOS won't get for quite some time.
Of course, the pendulum swings both ways; there are iOS features that Android will literally never have. Mostly because Android users don't want them.
As for using depth sensors for face unlocking, well, HTC and LG have both done so previously. The features flopped as nobody uses face unlock.
Yet you'll reply to this. And my next post. And the one after that...
The whole while ignoring the fact that you're doing so under your own free will. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you reply.
That said, I'll give you a reason to reply this time: please, explain to me how I "kept on about the ads". You were the first to mention ads re: Netflix vs Hulu and all I did was point out the difference in what the two providers offer and the fact that Hulu also offers ad-free service. That is what set you off on a tirade about ads and how people don't need 99% of what's advertised, completely missing my point.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees, my friend. You're a prime example.
Right, but people like the AC above thunk it's okay for their platform of choice to have problems as long as yours does, too; but your platform's problems are serious, so your platform sucks, while their platform (with just as many, but different, problems) is the fucking bee's knees. yaknowwhatimsayin'?
And yet my 5 cent pencil is immensely useful, as well. You must absolutely be blown away by that, especially for a device with absolutely no resale value on the open market.
Seriously, WTF is going on in your head that causes you to equate dollar value with utility?
Family Guy managed to fit it into the flow of the show and I almost feel like it would have been somewhat jarring had they made up a car for the bit. Bones straight up interrupted the flow of a conversation between Booth and Brennan to talk about how cool the tree-and-leaf fuel economy display was. It ruined the rest of that episode because I just couldn't pull myself out of the fog of disbelief and forget I was just watching a show.
Hmm... Netflix, watch shows a full season behind, after all the spoilers, but with no ads... Hulu, watch shows as they come out, before spoilers, but with ads.
I guess it really depends if you think avoiding ads is worth potentially having your enjoyment of a show ruined before you even get to watch it. Netflix is great for re-watching, or catching up on a show that's been on the air for a while that you just haven't gotten around to watching, but Hulu is aimed at people who want to watch current episodes of shows and not just last season. Personally, I subscribe to both.
Oh, and Hulu has an ad-free option. I don't watch enough for it to be worth it, but they do offer it.
Yeah, I'm surprised they're still a start-up at least 6 years in, as well. I mean, with all the "diversity" you get by not hiring any men, you're sure to have the absolute brightest and best on your team. After all, no man has ever been good at anything; certainly never the best in their field.</sarc>
I'm all for hiring a diverse team based solely on merit, if the pile of resumes representing the best-qualified candidates does, in fact, belong to a diverse team. Doing anything else (like, for example, not hiring men because "diversity") is going to have real world negative consequences. Sure, maybe you build a "good enough" team picking and choosing by gender or race; but your company doesn't exist in a vacuum and your competitors will be hiring the talent you've passed up. You will lose to competitors who were willing to hire solely on merit because they will inevitably build a more talented and capable team.
And, when 90% of your qualified applicants are men, it's quite likely that 90% of your new hires will be. That's not sexism, that's statistics.
If more women wanted to do this work enough to actually get good at it, we'd see more women in tech. It's pretty bad when you can walk into a room and tell which women were hired on merit and which were hired to fill seats for "diversity" before anyone even says a word, but there's really that much of a gap that you actually can tell. Sadly, most women I've encountered in this field were not hired on merit; the ones who were are absolutely amazing at what they do, while the ones who weren't tend to be more eyecandy than anything else. And we wonder why harassment is so prevelent -- maybe stop hiring women who bring nothing more than a pair of boobs with them to the office and focus on hiring women who can do the job, instead? If you can't find a qualified female candidate, don't just hire the first nice ass that walks through the door, you're only setting yourself up for a hostile work environment by doing that; either hire a man if you have an immediate need and no worthy female applicants, or keep looking if the need is not immediate, the qualified women are out there, they're just typically harder to find because there are insanely fewer of them and they tend to switch jobs less once they find a place that treats them like people rather than meat.
consider what they may be simulating. Nuclear physics was just something random I pulled out of my ass for my initial comment, before I had even made the biblical connection, but it's especially fitting there. Think about it, particles smashing into each other, destroying each other, breaking apart... and also forming odd and sometimes nonsensical and unexplainable bonds. No, if that's what they're simulating, I'd say they got it spot-on.
And if we simply exist within some intermediate calculation, that some data is necessarily discarded. Violently. In that case, well, they nailed it.
Please take a moment to read this post where I posit something quite similar; and the follow-up I posted shortly thereafter. You may find it interesting and I'd surely like to explore the idea in-depth if you do.
I realize now that I should, perhaps, clarify what would be so funny about that. If, by some chance, we are living in a simulation and our whole existance boils down to a bit flipped in RAM trillions of years ago, it would be entirely possible that we exist in the process space of some intermediate calculation which is not actively being observed; in which case our "overlords" don't even know we exist.
It's even possible that we were "discovered" at some point during a debug session, the implemented "fix" was, rather than re-start the simulation and lose years of work (potentially millions, billions, trillions, or some other insanely large amount of time), to feed us some information in an attempt to coerce us to behave in a manner consistent with the true ourpose of the simulation, leading to the writings we now know as The Bible. Of course, debugging now being done, our very existence has long since been forgotten, which would explain why so many feel thst God has abandoned us.
Or, this is all really real. We dont know. Probwably never will.
Wouldn't it be funny if we're in a simulation intended to calculate nuclear physics and our whole existence comes down to a bit flipped in memory trillions of years ago?
Slashdot Mirror
Flat out wrong. Evidence? People use their phones in their laps while driving today.
USB-A power only cables. *drops mic*
You might want to pick that mic back up. I repeat:
You can take a perfect standard (which I'm not saying USB-A is by any means) and make it look like shit by not following it.
The same way USB 3 external storage devices do, graceful degradation to other less performant standards.
Wake me up when that happens. What you're missing was that USB (the protocol, not the connector) does that be default; adding Thunderbolt to the mix means that Thunderbolt devices now need to also add in USB chipsets in order to gain that ability and, well, most of them don't. if usb-C was just USB, well, hell, it;d be great; but it's not. Your proposed "solution" also only "works" for the cherry-picked problem you quoted; what about the rest of that paragraph?
And you ignore this is functionally no different than the FACT that often only one OS had supported drivers for a lot of different devices in the past.
And you ignore the fact that the driver issue still exists and always will; the hardware issue is being added on top of it.
To the end user they are equivalent, and in fact it's EASER to solve a problem around hardware lacking because anyone can simply buy new hardware
Yes, because everyone can just whip out that plastic for a new $1500 machine the $500 USB-C display they just bought can work. No, they'll probably just buy an $5 HDMI cable and call it a day, discounting USB-C as the problem. You're right, though, it's an easier problem to solve.
The thing is what most people will be doing is plugging in a handful of different device types that are very easy to support a few common standard for across USB-C.
So what you're saying is that most people will use USB-C for USB devices? Wouldn't that be nice if it were true? But it is not, and cannot be, true; people see a device with a USB-C connector and they don't know if it's using USB, Thunderbolt, HDMI, DisplayPort, or something that's not even part of the standard; as you said, to them it's all equivalent. They see USB-C and they expect it to work, but the USB-C spec doesn't (and for what should be obvious reasons, can't) require that; all that is required is that at least one required protocol be supportedand "charge-only" is one of those protocols.
So we have charge-only USB-C ports that look just like display-only USB-C ports, or USB-only USB-C ports, or Thunderbolt-only USB-C ports, and which one do you plug the display into? And where do you charge? At least with separate standards for charging, display, and peripherals, this was obvious to the lay person.
If the USB-C standard required that all specified protocols be supported, that would solve the "works on this port but not that port" issue but, again, there are reasons why this can't happen. Those reasons should be obvious, but I'll drop a few hints just in case: your charger probably has no video signal to pass and your non-Intel system certainly lacks Thunderbolt, just for starters. Another solution would be to leave display and Thunderbolt out of USB-C, but we're already past the point where that's possible, the spec is already written.
I think there's a bit of a disconnect here, so allow me to clarify. USB-C as a connector for USB is great. It's all the other crap they stuffed in that are going to be problems going forward. These are problems that cannot be fixed with drivers... unless you know how to add Thunderbolt or HDMI passthru support to a system lacking the necessary hardware with a simple software update.
How does my ISP know how many people live in my house? They only know I exist, because I pay the bill; they might have some idea that my wife exists, but they don't know whether Tulip and Blue are my cats or my kids.
If you remember the times before USB-A you should ALSO remember that it didn't "just work" at the outset either. Specifically I seem to remember an awful lot of different USB devices (from CD-ROM burners to special mice) that needed drivers added to work, so it was absolutely not the case you could plug in any USB-A device and it would just work...
Yes, drivers. Software. Which you can add after-the-fact. That's always going to be a problem and is fairly diffeent from the issues USB-C faces.
Even today in the waning years of USB-A I have run across devices that do not just work, trying to get a working USB-A -> Serial port adaptor was a very trying experience. I have also had over the years some VERY flaky USB-A external storage devices that were very particular as to which cables they worked well with, or simply were not very stable at all.
Ah, yes, cheap crap products and cheap crap cables. You can take a perfect standard (which I'm not saying USB-A is by any means) and make it look like shit by not following it. The problem with USB-C is that it's not a standard, it's a collection of standards which all physically look the same to the end user. Any of those standards might be supported by a given port, with no way to tell which are and are not supported by that port; this leads to a situation where the thing can plug in but can potentially never work because the hardware to make it work simply is not there. This was not a problem with USB-A where, at most, you might need a driver; even USB 1 vs 2 vs 3 was just a matter of speed and devices made for any of those standards would work with any of those standards.
Within just a few years most of the USB-C issues will have smoothed out.
How do you fix a "USB-C" Thunderbolt device not working with a non-Intel system? How do you fix a USB-C display cable not working with your laptop that doesn't support HDMI or DisplayPort passthru? Or supports the HDMI when your display expects DisplayPort (or vise-versa)? How do you fix Thunderbolt and USB protocols requiring different cables despite sharing the same port?
You don't just install drivers like the good old days of USB, these are hardware issues.
That is in large part due to Apple shipping a LOT of devices with USB-C only, meaning that there is great motivation to making a lot of components that work well with USB-C which provides a lot of financial motivation as well as making Apple kind of a reference hardware standard for testing, as in if you are shipping a USB-C device or cable today you may make sure it works with a number of Windows laptops or phones, but you WILL make sure it works with a MacBook Pro or your Amazon ratings will be in the toilet.
Define "USB-C only". Is that USB 3.1 over USB-C, HDMI over USB-C, DisplayPort over USB-C, Thunderbolt over USB-C, analog audio over USB-C, or what? Any of those? All of those? What haopens when you plug your Thunderbolt over USB-C device into a computer which only supports USB 3.1 over USB-C? What drivers make that work?
That;s the mess.
You complain that USB-A was no better because you might have needed some drivers, completely missing that the problems with USB-C cannot be fixed with drivers.
No, but it would be nice to keep it around alongside the new and unproven interface until that new interface becomes proven. We're talking about the (still) ubiquitious USB-A port, here, not some dead-end technology we've been trying to get away ffor years. Well, maybe some people have been trying, but even they seem to agree that jumping to USB-C before it was proven was a mistake.
And now? USB-C has, indeed, been proven... to be quite a mess.
I have a USB-C phone that will charge from my backup battery, which will then go to sleep because it is no longer charging something; the phone will then wake it up and begin charging it. I have a laptop that charges via USB-C. Well, no, I don't. I have a laptop that charges via Thunderbolt through a USB-C port; it will not charge from any of the various power supplies I have, even if they support the voltage and current it expects; though it will happily dump the content of its own battery into my phone or a portable battery via the very same port.
That's to add to TFS, of course, as I've experienced most of what the author of that list of complaints has written, as well.
USB-A (and B) never had these problems, USB-C does, primarily because it's trying to be more than just USB. Does the port support Thunderbolt? With which cables? HDMI? DisplayPort? Both? Neither? And with which adapters is it compatible? There is no way to tell without pawing through the manual for the device the port is on, and we don't get manuals with our devices anymore.
The beauty of USB was that anything that could plug in to the port would just work, and we had that for nearly two decades. With USB-C, that's a thing of the past.
Yes, USB-C is a huge step forward... to a time I recall before USB-A took hold. If you're over 30 and remember that time as well, and still think USB-C is a net win, you'll be the first I've met.
If, by "catch up to iOS next year", you mean "have had features for several years that iOS will get next year", sure. But even at that, Android development hasn't stopped and there will be new features next year that iOS won't get for quite some time.
Of course, the pendulum swings both ways; there are iOS features that Android will literally never have. Mostly because Android users don't want them.
As for using depth sensors for face unlocking, well, HTC and LG have both done so previously. The features flopped as nobody uses face unlock.
But it'll be so much better when Apple does it.
Right?
If it weren't for Apple your Android phone would be a piece of shit with perhaps even a physical keyboard.
I'd greatly prefer that to the pieces of shit with touchscreen "keyboards" we have today... on both sides of the fence, mind you.
So, I say, bring it on.
Yet you'll reply to this. And my next post. And the one after that...
The whole while ignoring the fact that you're doing so under your own free will. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you reply.
That said, I'll give you a reason to reply this time: please, explain to me how I "kept on about the ads". You were the first to mention ads re: Netflix vs Hulu and all I did was point out the difference in what the two providers offer and the fact that Hulu also offers ad-free service. That is what set you off on a tirade about ads and how people don't need 99% of what's advertised, completely missing my point.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees, my friend. You're a prime example.
a CPU @ 1% to run a torrent client != a CPU @ 100% running a javascript coin miner
Had you not kept going on about ads, perhaps your message would have been more clear?
Oh, and Hulu has an ad-free option. I don't watch enough for it to be worth it, but they do offer it.
Right, but people like the AC above thunk it's okay for their platform of choice to have problems as long as yours does, too; but your platform's problems are serious, so your platform sucks, while their platform (with just as many, but different, problems) is the fucking bee's knees. yaknowwhatimsayin'?
And yet my 5 cent pencil is immensely useful, as well. You must absolutely be blown away by that, especially for a device with absolutely no resale value on the open market.
Seriously, WTF is going on in your head that causes you to equate dollar value with utility?
Family Guy managed to fit it into the flow of the show and I almost feel like it would have been somewhat jarring had they made up a car for the bit. Bones straight up interrupted the flow of a conversation between Booth and Brennan to talk about how cool the tree-and-leaf fuel economy display was. It ruined the rest of that episode because I just couldn't pull myself out of the fog of disbelief and forget I was just watching a show.
Hmm... Netflix, watch shows a full season behind, after all the spoilers, but with no ads... Hulu, watch shows as they come out, before spoilers, but with ads.
I guess it really depends if you think avoiding ads is worth potentially having your enjoyment of a show ruined before you even get to watch it. Netflix is great for re-watching, or catching up on a show that's been on the air for a while that you just haven't gotten around to watching, but Hulu is aimed at people who want to watch current episodes of shows and not just last season. Personally, I subscribe to both.
Oh, and Hulu has an ad-free option. I don't watch enough for it to be worth it, but they do offer it.
Came here to say this.
Do tell.
Bones was a little egregious with their Prius placement.
That's why I always swing from behind.
Yeah, for their Warp Drive controllers.
Yeah, I'm surprised they're still a start-up at least 6 years in, as well. I mean, with all the "diversity" you get by not hiring any men, you're sure to have the absolute brightest and best on your team. After all, no man has ever been good at anything; certainly never the best in their field.</sarc>
I'm all for hiring a diverse team based solely on merit, if the pile of resumes representing the best-qualified candidates does, in fact, belong to a diverse team. Doing anything else (like, for example, not hiring men because "diversity") is going to have real world negative consequences. Sure, maybe you build a "good enough" team picking and choosing by gender or race; but your company doesn't exist in a vacuum and your competitors will be hiring the talent you've passed up. You will lose to competitors who were willing to hire solely on merit because they will inevitably build a more talented and capable team.
And, when 90% of your qualified applicants are men, it's quite likely that 90% of your new hires will be. That's not sexism, that's statistics.
If more women wanted to do this work enough to actually get good at it, we'd see more women in tech. It's pretty bad when you can walk into a room and tell which women were hired on merit and which were hired to fill seats for "diversity" before anyone even says a word, but there's really that much of a gap that you actually can tell. Sadly, most women I've encountered in this field were not hired on merit; the ones who were are absolutely amazing at what they do, while the ones who weren't tend to be more eyecandy than anything else. And we wonder why harassment is so prevelent -- maybe stop hiring women who bring nothing more than a pair of boobs with them to the office and focus on hiring women who can do the job, instead? If you can't find a qualified female candidate, don't just hire the first nice ass that walks through the door, you're only setting yourself up for a hostile work environment by doing that; either hire a man if you have an immediate need and no worthy female applicants, or keep looking if the need is not immediate, the qualified women are out there, they're just typically harder to find because there are insanely fewer of them and they tend to switch jobs less once they find a place that treats them like people rather than meat.
consider what they may be simulating. Nuclear physics was just something random I pulled out of my ass for my initial comment, before I had even made the biblical connection, but it's especially fitting there. Think about it, particles smashing into each other, destroying each other, breaking apart... and also forming odd and sometimes nonsensical and unexplainable bonds. No, if that's what they're simulating, I'd say they got it spot-on.
And if we simply exist within some intermediate calculation, that some data is necessarily discarded. Violently. In that case, well, they nailed it.
Please take a moment to read this post where I posit something quite similar; and the follow-up I posted shortly thereafter. You may find it interesting and I'd surely like to explore the idea in-depth if you do.
I realize now that I should, perhaps, clarify what would be so funny about that. If, by some chance, we are living in a simulation and our whole existance boils down to a bit flipped in RAM trillions of years ago, it would be entirely possible that we exist in the process space of some intermediate calculation which is not actively being observed; in which case our "overlords" don't even know we exist.
It's even possible that we were "discovered" at some point during a debug session, the implemented "fix" was, rather than re-start the simulation and lose years of work (potentially millions, billions, trillions, or some other insanely large amount of time), to feed us some information in an attempt to coerce us to behave in a manner consistent with the true ourpose of the simulation, leading to the writings we now know as The Bible. Of course, debugging now being done, our very existence has long since been forgotten, which would explain why so many feel thst God has abandoned us.
Or, this is all really real. We dont know. Probwably never will.
Wouldn't it be funny if we're in a simulation intended to calculate nuclear physics and our whole existence comes down to a bit flipped in memory trillions of years ago?