anyone paying more than retail is exacerbating the problem.
What problem? I don't see that there is one. The toys are not going to fewer people, just different people.
A $15 toy intended for a 5-year old is targeted for the masses. A $1000 price tag on that same toy is targeted for fucking elitist morons who are creating spoiled narcissistic little shits that society will have to deal with in a more direct manner in the future. That is a problem. The world has enough spoiled narcissistic little shits running around.
I'm also not sure how the hell you feel that scalping isn't a problem, no matter what is being sold. That's not price fixing; it's price fucking.
Chuck Schumer seems to think that allocating limited goods randomly, or perhaps by rationing, is more "fair" than allocating them to whoever is willing to pay the most. That is backwards nonsense.
No, he's probably simply advocating that people get a fair shot at purchasing to avoid price fucking, and injecting human-validating components (CAPTCHA or the like) into the purchasing process to curb bot use is one way of doing that. Again, if a manufacturer sells a toy for $15 MSRP, their intent is to not force consumers to buy their product at a 5000% markup.
When a hacker attacks a freeway full of autonomous vehicles during rush hour and causes 1,000 deaths to include one of your loved ones, you'll likely be revisiting your "winning" position here.
An when a hacker takes over an airplane. you'll be revisiting the plan to allow air travel.
I'm not advocating for a "good-enough" solution in any product, particularly where shit solutions can result in loss of life.
Greed has dismissed Quality because Limited Liability makes it worth it, and justifies rushing to market with half-assed solutions.
Far too often, Risk gets tossed out the window by Greed, with the end result of the masses being abused as test monkeys. We're better than that.
Latest drug on the market kills 75% of people because they rushed to market? Oh well, we can only improve from here!
You're forgetting to mention that without the drug, 100% of the people would have died anyway. Oh, no, greed is saving 25% of the people!
Greed is responsible for rushing products prematurely to market, which has consequences. Consequences that are often easily avoidable. A bug in this case can end a life, not just lose the family pictures to ransomware or leak webcam video.
You're also dismissing other risks with autonomous vehicle networks coming under attack and being responsible for causing more deaths than we have today, which perhaps could have also been avoided had a half-ass solution not been rushed to market. It's very odd how we assume that autonomous solutions could never have a very dark downside. Guess that's not surprising. We once believed the housing market could never crash, and billed the Titanic as unsinkable.
When human drivers kill 40,000 people a year in the US, but autonomous solutions "only" kill 30,000 people a year due to avoidable glitches, Greed will still arrogantly sell that as a win.
Even if autonomous vehicles resulted in 30,000 deaths a year (which they won't), saving 10,000 lives a year is a win.
When a hacker attacks a freeway full of autonomous vehicles during rush hour and causes 1,000 deaths to include one of your loved ones, you'll likely be revisiting your "winning" position here. The end result of a bug in this case isn't family pictures being lost to ransomware. Lives are on the line this time, and yet all I see are manufacturers rushing to market like they always do. Liability may be able to put a price tag on a life, but your loved one is gone forever, due to something that could have been likely avoided. We don't expect computers to perform a little better than humans, we expect them to perform a LOT better because they should not suffer from many of the fallacies of humans. When it comes to approving autonomous solutions, a 25% reduction should not be accepted. A 90% reduction should be the goal.
And the difference is that while the number of human-driver deaths keeps climbing (because people are too busy talking or texting on their smartphones to pay attention to the road), the number of autonomous deaths will decline as the software and hardware improves.
If you want to reduce problems with distracted driving, then fucking punish violators. Enough of this slap on the wrist bullshit. $1,000 ticket when caught the first time. Impound their car and take away their license for repeat offenders. Heavy fines and real jail time when manslaughter is the end result.
In fact, greed will drive auto makers to improve the safety of autonomous vehicles, because they'll want to minimize their legal liability.
Bullshit. Liability will be buried in the EULA every autonomous rider will refuse to read and blindly agree to. Liability for mega-corps is a fucking joke today. That won't change in the future, even when human lives are on the line.
When human drivers kill 40,000 people a year in the US, but autonomous solutions "only" kill 30,000 people a year due to avoidable glitches, Greed will still arrogantly sell that as a win.
In my book, that is a win. And if the glitches were avoidable, that's even better, because that means the numbers will only go down in the future.
Latest drug on the market kills 75% of people because they rushed to market? Oh well, we can only improve from here!
Latest pesticide poisons 75% of humans because of Greed? Oh well, more jobs to help reformulate!
Let's hope your Charlie Sheen flavored formula of "winning" doesn't become infectious. Greed kills enough people today.
I think that electric is in our future but issues with the grid, infrastructure, refueling time will be persistent problems.
Much like cell phones, removable battery packs would solve a lot of issues, particularly for the give-it-to-me-NOW generation who can't stand having to wait for anything, even if it's a 15-minute "quick" charge. A 5-minute battery swap that will likely become fully autonomous when you pull up to the "pump" is the future.
What do you do if the power is out for a day to a week with an electric vehicle? Right, you charge it with your gas generator.
The better solution would be to be able to charge it with solar panels, because the small handful of gas stations still operating during an extended no-electric apocalypse will inevitably be overrun due to demand. While you're waiting for a full battery, you can load guns to protect your food from the ill-prepared hordes.
I remember back then that OS/2 was supposed to be the future. Folks were investing millions in it.
What will happen if self-driving cars turn out to be a flop? Will we be able to at least salvage some of all that money that venture capitalists are throwing at it . . . ?
When you push 3 tons of autonomous steel to market at the speed of IoT, you end up with the integrity and security of IoT as the result.
You can't "salvage" human lives lost. Fuck these companies for pushing to be first to market faster than they should. I'm not necessarily against automation. I'm against the kind of fucking greedy mentality that makes any product ultimately unsafe.
When human drivers kill 40,000 people a year in the US, but autonomous solutions "only" kill 30,000 people a year due to avoidable glitches, Greed will still arrogantly sell that as a win.
We won't need the working class because of robots, and we won't need the middle class because of AI. So, the only ones left will be the educated classes, which are not the source of problems today.
Uh, not the source? Yeah right. It is in fact the "educated classes" that represent the 1%, who have created this massive imbalance of global wealth and power. Is is in fact that particular flavor of ruthless Greed that drives elitists, pushing as fast as possible with automation and AI, regardless of the impact. The 1% cannot envision a concern beyond the next fiscal year. Their only goal is to become the next billionaire or trillionaire, a fucking pointless self-centered metric that serves no one but the narcissistic elite hell-bent on achieving it.
In 100 years the Earth will practically be a paradise. People can live their lives free of capitalist oppression and spend their time creating art and achieving self-actualization. It's going to be glorious, but none of us alive today will see it. Future historians will see us as monsters who nearly killed all life out of greed.
Solve for Greed. Otherwise, we perish. Not some of us, all of us. If we get too far beyond the tipping point, there are plenty of countries with their hand on a nuclear Fuck-It button. Either that, or Skynet will realize just how worthless the human race is.
And how many billions of jobs are automated today? Probably at least 100 billion, depending on how you define "job".
For the last 200+ years, our consistent answer to every human that was displaced by some form of automation was "go get an education."
Since automation and good-enough AI are now coming for educated jobs, please stop ignorantly looking at history as if our tried-and-true wisdom will continue to be valid.
50 years from now, there won't be much of a reason to even educate a human for the purposes of employment.
"39 million to 73 million jobs in the U.S. could be destroyed, but about 20 million of those displaced workers can be shifted fairly easily into similar occupations. Globally, up to 800 million workers could be displaced."
Translation: 800 million jobs globally are being removed by automation, and only 25 - 50% of them are coming back.
Perhaps we can stop with the "could be a rocky transition" bullshit already and wake up. Automation and good-enough AI is going to be a massive disruptor to human employment, it's coming faster than anyone can predict, and we don't have a fucking clue as to how to resolve that problem.
And please don't tell me UBI is the solution when taxation is the obvious answer to fund it. You can't even get the wealthy elite to fucking pay taxes today, what the hell makes you think you're going to actually be able to collect taxes for the global welfare state of unemployable humans 20 years from now? Simple answer is, you won't. UBI will remain a pipe dream for the unemployable masses.
The future looks dark unless we figure out a way to solve for Greed, and eradicate this battle between the 1% and the 99%. Trillionaire is not a metric of success for the human race.
Consider patents as taxable assets. Tax based on the value of the patents held - which should be declared - with a surtax for unused patents. No tax avoidance loopholes.
If you bring out a submarine that you didn't declare for taxes, or sue while declaring the patent is worth a lot more than you paid taxes for.... oooooo, tax avoidance...
Taxing the obscenely wealthy doesn't work worth a shit for all the things they should normally be paying taxes on. Not sure how you're going to reform that enough to close hundreds of loopholes to make it effective for patents.
That said, I do like the concept of limiting lawsuit damages to the amount paid in taxes. Helps shine a light on several issues.
Of course cats can be trained! Most owners don't bother (or even realize it's possible).
But even a trained cat can ignore their training if they don't want to do something. For a dog appreciation from the pack leader is extremely important, a cat don't care.
You actually confirmed the fact that you can try to teach a cat, but because their give-a-shit level is almost zero, there's a damn good chance you won't be very successful, or that training will be consistent.
Even something as simple as the litter box isn't a consistent activity. Just ask any cat owner who's had the pleasure of extracting cat piss out of a mattress.
This is a pretty common misconception. Cats can be trained they just respond to differnet stimuli than dogs (they dont really care if you call them a good boy). Most cat owners do not bother with this as they don't really require it in most cases (unless you dont want them to walk on counter tops or walk on a leash e.t.c) as they are much more independent than a dog and much better behaved without training. It is harder to train a cat but if anyone wants to they can. Please stop perpetuating this myth that it is not possible to teach a cat to do something.
There's a valid reason that "myth" has perpetuated for thousands of years of companionship with the human race.
When a healthy human refuses to do anything but lay around and sleep all day, that's not "well behaved". That's lazy, which perfectly describes a cats behavior 90% of the time. Cats have a purpose as a comfort animal. Not much else. We often label their behavior as "regal" or "spoiled" or "stubborn". Science tends to highlight a different reason; capacity.
...but cannot do their business on their own in a designated spot (cats can do that) and are inept to spend a few days alone (no problem with cats). I have come across many dumb dogs that bark constantly for no reason, but at least as many clever cats. More cells does not make one smarter.
Humans have been very successful in teaching dogs to do MANY tasks. For that reason alone, this study was confirmed centuries ago when humans tried to train cats and realized just how dumb and incapable they truly are.
You really can't do much else other than suggest to a cat where to piss and shit, and when you don't pay them enough attention, they sometimes get even by pissing somewhere other than the litter box, so even that one task isn't fully grasped.
For rescue, or military, or even bomb detection. They're a comfort pet. Outside of biological advantages of dogs for these tasks, cats are difficult to train in those tasks as they're solitary animals.
You can call them solitary. You can call them regal. You can call them comfort pets.
I call it dumb, and now science tends to confirm it, so perhaps we can stop with the excuses now. They aren't "difficult" to train; they can't be trained because they're rather stupid. Plain and simple. Usually the only one getting schooled around a cat is the owner.
This action by Apple shows why a company wants patents even if it does not run around enforcing them all the time. It is a war chest for when someone else sues you. Sue IBM for patent infringement? IBM has tens of thousands of patents to sort through to counterattack.
Blowback can be a bitch.
Here's how we fix this bullshit, perhaps for good.
Step #1: Audit every patent holder with more than 5,000 patents in their "war chest". Force all patent holders to prove they are actively using their patents.
Step #2: Any patents merely being held for the purposes of patent warmongering, preventing competition, or stifling innovation will be forced into expiration, and put up for bid.
Step #3: Sit back and watch as (former) patent holders are forced to spend their (offshore) cash reserves and executive bonus cash pools in order to buy back their pointless "war chests" of patented dominance.
Step #4: Lather, rinse, and repeat every 3 years.
Might not be 100% effective in restoring balance to the patent system, but it sure as hell would be fun to watch patent hoarders squirm, which may ultimately prove that hoarding is no longer a profitable venture.
If their 45% capacity increase estimates are accurate, you will not have to endure as many cycles per year, and for the average user not charging as often as you do, that will likely translate to a couple of years.
As I wrote , the major manufacturers tend decreasing the size and the weight of the phone instead of increasing battery capacity (there is some capacity increase only to accommodate larger power-hungry screens).
With regards to shitty design, consumers need to start voting with their wallets to take back hardware design. It's obvious no manufacturer has consumer interest in mind, and instead is solely focused on maximizing revenue.
The problem is convincing the blindly ignorant masses who happily take whatever paper-thin bullshit design is thrown at them, all because it's the "new" one.
For the past decade-and-a-half or so I have read at least 80 reports of 'Breakthrough in Battery Technology'
All of them claimed to boost battery power, longer lasting battery, and faster charging time
If they are so much better, as claimed, I think the market would welcome them with open arms
Funny thing is no one bring them onto the market
Why is that??
They ARE bringing them to market.
It's not that batteries haven't drastically improved. They have.
The TRUE problem is the telemetry-riddled always-listening power sucking shit they're bolted to.
Here's a perfect example of KISS design maximizing efficiency; the Nokia "candy bar" phone. Fucking thing would last a week on standby, with some obscene amount of talk hours. Smartphone charges could probably last two weeks or more, IF they were not being used as personal video streaming devices. People demand a smartphone does everything for them now. Turn off features, cut out 90% of the extraneous bullshit, and (spoiler alert!) battery life would likely increase ten-fold.
I'm charging my S8+ ~1.5 a day. 500 charges means that after just 1 year the battery is at 78% of capacity, What happens after 1.5 years?
Even for those who charge only once a day, 500 charges is ~1.5 years, which is less than the common 2-year lifespan of the phone.
Increasing the battery density probably won't help either, as manufacturers will again make thinner phones instead of increasing capacity.
If their 45% capacity increase estimates are accurate, you will not have to endure as many cycles per year, and for the average user not charging as often as you do, that will likely translate to a couple of years. Besides, after a year, all current smartphone batteries are running at some level of degradation. It's essentially expected.
As far as it not lasting, smartphone factory warranties are typically one year. Manufacturers don't give a shit how long your service contract is. That's your problem. Their only job is to manufacture hardware that lasts through the warranty period, and not much longer. Revenue is maximized that way.
Taplin cited Snapchat an example of a company that tried to innovate, but refused to take Facebook's buyout offer. Facebook has simply copied its features.
If someone can put you out of business simply by copying what you are doing, maybe it means you're a shit company who isn't doing it very well.
Snapchat has managed to rack up losses in the hundreds of millions for the last few years.
In their IPO filing, they stated they may never turn a profit.
Naturally, they valued themselves north of 20 billion dollars.
The problem is far larger than some company with an overinflated ego. The entire concept of valuation has turned into a fucking shitshow, and is completely devoid of common sense. If you want to blame something, blame the idiots who sustain that kind of fucking financial wizardry.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone paying more than retail is exacerbating the problem.
What problem? I don't see that there is one. The toys are not going to fewer people, just different people.
A $15 toy intended for a 5-year old is targeted for the masses. A $1000 price tag on that same toy is targeted for fucking elitist morons who are creating spoiled narcissistic little shits that society will have to deal with in a more direct manner in the future. That is a problem. The world has enough spoiled narcissistic little shits running around.
I'm also not sure how the hell you feel that scalping isn't a problem, no matter what is being sold. That's not price fixing; it's price fucking.
Chuck Schumer seems to think that allocating limited goods randomly, or perhaps by rationing, is more "fair" than allocating them to whoever is willing to pay the most. That is backwards nonsense.
No, he's probably simply advocating that people get a fair shot at purchasing to avoid price fucking, and injecting human-validating components (CAPTCHA or the like) into the purchasing process to curb bot use is one way of doing that. Again, if a manufacturer sells a toy for $15 MSRP, their intent is to not force consumers to buy their product at a 5000% markup.
If bitcoin serves anything, it's merely demonstrating the utter fucking stupidity of how we perceive value today.
And we've done this shit before. Hell, tech valuation today makes the .bomb bubble look tame by comparison.
Valuation falsely propped up on bullshit and hype will result in a crash when common fucking sense eventually kicks in.
Cash should be outlawed too.
If the government can't control it, it should not exist
If it were outlawed, governments couldn't merely print more of it in order to sustain its false value.
No way in hell is that gonna happen.
Besides, the US Government still mints pennies at a loss. They would continue to print dollars for the same stupid reason.
When a hacker attacks a freeway full of autonomous vehicles during rush hour and causes 1,000 deaths to include one of your loved ones, you'll likely be revisiting your "winning" position here.
An when a hacker takes over an airplane. you'll be revisiting the plan to allow air travel.
I'm not advocating for a "good-enough" solution in any product, particularly where shit solutions can result in loss of life.
Greed has dismissed Quality because Limited Liability makes it worth it, and justifies rushing to market with half-assed solutions.
Far too often, Risk gets tossed out the window by Greed, with the end result of the masses being abused as test monkeys. We're better than that.
Latest drug on the market kills 75% of people because they rushed to market? Oh well, we can only improve from here!
You're forgetting to mention that without the drug, 100% of the people would have died anyway. Oh, no, greed is saving 25% of the people!
Greed is responsible for rushing products prematurely to market, which has consequences. Consequences that are often easily avoidable. A bug in this case can end a life, not just lose the family pictures to ransomware or leak webcam video.
You're also dismissing other risks with autonomous vehicle networks coming under attack and being responsible for causing more deaths than we have today, which perhaps could have also been avoided had a half-ass solution not been rushed to market. It's very odd how we assume that autonomous solutions could never have a very dark downside. Guess that's not surprising. We once believed the housing market could never crash, and billed the Titanic as unsinkable.
Even if autonomous vehicles resulted in 30,000 deaths a year (which they won't), saving 10,000 lives a year is a win.
When a hacker attacks a freeway full of autonomous vehicles during rush hour and causes 1,000 deaths to include one of your loved ones, you'll likely be revisiting your "winning" position here. The end result of a bug in this case isn't family pictures being lost to ransomware. Lives are on the line this time, and yet all I see are manufacturers rushing to market like they always do. Liability may be able to put a price tag on a life, but your loved one is gone forever, due to something that could have been likely avoided. We don't expect computers to perform a little better than humans, we expect them to perform a LOT better because they should not suffer from many of the fallacies of humans. When it comes to approving autonomous solutions, a 25% reduction should not be accepted. A 90% reduction should be the goal.
And the difference is that while the number of human-driver deaths keeps climbing (because people are too busy talking or texting on their smartphones to pay attention to the road), the number of autonomous deaths will decline as the software and hardware improves.
If you want to reduce problems with distracted driving, then fucking punish violators. Enough of this slap on the wrist bullshit. $1,000 ticket when caught the first time. Impound their car and take away their license for repeat offenders. Heavy fines and real jail time when manslaughter is the end result.
In fact, greed will drive auto makers to improve the safety of autonomous vehicles, because they'll want to minimize their legal liability.
Bullshit. Liability will be buried in the EULA every autonomous rider will refuse to read and blindly agree to. Liability for mega-corps is a fucking joke today. That won't change in the future, even when human lives are on the line.
When human drivers kill 40,000 people a year in the US, but autonomous solutions "only" kill 30,000 people a year due to avoidable glitches, Greed will still arrogantly sell that as a win.
In my book, that is a win. And if the glitches were avoidable, that's even better, because that means the numbers will only go down in the future.
Latest drug on the market kills 75% of people because they rushed to market? Oh well, we can only improve from here!
Latest pesticide poisons 75% of humans because of Greed? Oh well, more jobs to help reformulate!
Let's hope your Charlie Sheen flavored formula of "winning" doesn't become infectious. Greed kills enough people today.
I think that electric is in our future but issues with the grid, infrastructure, refueling time will be persistent problems.
Much like cell phones, removable battery packs would solve a lot of issues, particularly for the give-it-to-me-NOW generation who can't stand having to wait for anything, even if it's a 15-minute "quick" charge. A 5-minute battery swap that will likely become fully autonomous when you pull up to the "pump" is the future.
What do you do if the power is out for a day to a week with an electric vehicle? Right, you charge it with your gas generator.
The better solution would be to be able to charge it with solar panels, because the small handful of gas stations still operating during an extended no-electric apocalypse will inevitably be overrun due to demand. While you're waiting for a full battery, you can load guns to protect your food from the ill-prepared hordes.
I remember back then that OS/2 was supposed to be the future. Folks were investing millions in it.
What will happen if self-driving cars turn out to be a flop? Will we be able to at least salvage some of all that money that venture capitalists are throwing at it . . . ?
When you push 3 tons of autonomous steel to market at the speed of IoT, you end up with the integrity and security of IoT as the result.
You can't "salvage" human lives lost. Fuck these companies for pushing to be first to market faster than they should. I'm not necessarily against automation. I'm against the kind of fucking greedy mentality that makes any product ultimately unsafe.
When human drivers kill 40,000 people a year in the US, but autonomous solutions "only" kill 30,000 people a year due to avoidable glitches, Greed will still arrogantly sell that as a win.
We won't need the working class because of robots, and we won't need the middle class because of AI. So, the only ones left will be the educated classes, which are not the source of problems today.
Uh, not the source? Yeah right. It is in fact the "educated classes" that represent the 1%, who have created this massive imbalance of global wealth and power. Is is in fact that particular flavor of ruthless Greed that drives elitists, pushing as fast as possible with automation and AI, regardless of the impact. The 1% cannot envision a concern beyond the next fiscal year. Their only goal is to become the next billionaire or trillionaire, a fucking pointless self-centered metric that serves no one but the narcissistic elite hell-bent on achieving it.
In 100 years the Earth will practically be a paradise. People can live their lives free of capitalist oppression and spend their time creating art and achieving self-actualization. It's going to be glorious, but none of us alive today will see it. Future historians will see us as monsters who nearly killed all life out of greed.
Solve for Greed. Otherwise, we perish. Not some of us, all of us. If we get too far beyond the tipping point, there are plenty of countries with their hand on a nuclear Fuck-It button. Either that, or Skynet will realize just how worthless the human race is.
The fact that they break the rules as payback mean that they DO grasp it I think.
Stupid and sadistic isn't exactly a defense, especially when failing to grasp the consequences of said behavior is often euthanasia.
And how many billions of jobs are automated today? Probably at least 100 billion, depending on how you define "job".
For the last 200+ years, our consistent answer to every human that was displaced by some form of automation was "go get an education."
Since automation and good-enough AI are now coming for educated jobs, please stop ignorantly looking at history as if our tried-and-true wisdom will continue to be valid.
50 years from now, there won't be much of a reason to even educate a human for the purposes of employment.
"39 million to 73 million jobs in the U.S. could be destroyed, but about 20 million of those displaced workers can be shifted fairly easily into similar occupations. Globally, up to 800 million workers could be displaced."
Translation: 800 million jobs globally are being removed by automation, and only 25 - 50% of them are coming back.
Perhaps we can stop with the "could be a rocky transition" bullshit already and wake up. Automation and good-enough AI is going to be a massive disruptor to human employment, it's coming faster than anyone can predict, and we don't have a fucking clue as to how to resolve that problem.
And please don't tell me UBI is the solution when taxation is the obvious answer to fund it. You can't even get the wealthy elite to fucking pay taxes today, what the hell makes you think you're going to actually be able to collect taxes for the global welfare state of unemployable humans 20 years from now? Simple answer is, you won't. UBI will remain a pipe dream for the unemployable masses.
The future looks dark unless we figure out a way to solve for Greed, and eradicate this battle between the 1% and the 99%. Trillionaire is not a metric of success for the human race.
Or
Consider patents as taxable assets. Tax based on the value of the patents held - which should be declared - with a surtax for unused patents. No tax avoidance loopholes.
If you bring out a submarine that you didn't declare for taxes, or sue while declaring the patent is worth a lot more than you paid taxes for.... oooooo, tax avoidance...
Taxing the obscenely wealthy doesn't work worth a shit for all the things they should normally be paying taxes on. Not sure how you're going to reform that enough to close hundreds of loopholes to make it effective for patents.
That said, I do like the concept of limiting lawsuit damages to the amount paid in taxes. Helps shine a light on several issues.
Of course cats can be trained! Most owners don't bother (or even realize it's possible).
But even a trained cat can ignore their training if they don't want to do something. For a dog appreciation from the pack leader is extremely important, a cat don't care.
You actually confirmed the fact that you can try to teach a cat, but because their give-a-shit level is almost zero, there's a damn good chance you won't be very successful, or that training will be consistent.
Even something as simple as the litter box isn't a consistent activity. Just ask any cat owner who's had the pleasure of extracting cat piss out of a mattress.
This is a pretty common misconception. Cats can be trained they just respond to differnet stimuli than dogs (they dont really care if you call them a good boy). Most cat owners do not bother with this as they don't really require it in most cases (unless you dont want them to walk on counter tops or walk on a leash e.t.c) as they are much more independent than a dog and much better behaved without training. It is harder to train a cat but if anyone wants to they can. Please stop perpetuating this myth that it is not possible to teach a cat to do something.
There's a valid reason that "myth" has perpetuated for thousands of years of companionship with the human race.
When a healthy human refuses to do anything but lay around and sleep all day, that's not "well behaved". That's lazy, which perfectly describes a cats behavior 90% of the time. Cats have a purpose as a comfort animal. Not much else. We often label their behavior as "regal" or "spoiled" or "stubborn". Science tends to highlight a different reason; capacity.
...but cannot do their business on their own in a designated spot (cats can do that) and are inept to spend a few days alone (no problem with cats). I have come across many dumb dogs that bark constantly for no reason, but at least as many clever cats. More cells does not make one smarter.
Humans have been very successful in teaching dogs to do MANY tasks. For that reason alone, this study was confirmed centuries ago when humans tried to train cats and realized just how dumb and incapable they truly are.
You really can't do much else other than suggest to a cat where to piss and shit, and when you don't pay them enough attention, they sometimes get even by pissing somewhere other than the litter box, so even that one task isn't fully grasped.
For rescue, or military, or even bomb detection. They're a comfort pet. Outside of biological advantages of dogs for these tasks, cats are difficult to train in those tasks as they're solitary animals.
You can call them solitary. You can call them regal. You can call them comfort pets.
I call it dumb, and now science tends to confirm it, so perhaps we can stop with the excuses now. They aren't "difficult" to train; they can't be trained because they're rather stupid. Plain and simple. Usually the only one getting schooled around a cat is the owner.
Have lots of brains and don't know how to use it. Seriously.
If YouTube and the rest of social media is any indication, humans have devolved way farther on that scale.
Seriously. We've turned look-at-me idiocy and rampant narcissism into paid professions.
And to confirm the study, at least you can teach a dog to do various things. The only one being trained with cats around, is the owner.
This action by Apple shows why a company wants patents even if it does not run around enforcing them all the time. It is a war chest for when someone else sues you. Sue IBM for patent infringement? IBM has tens of thousands of patents to sort through to counterattack.
Blowback can be a bitch.
Here's how we fix this bullshit, perhaps for good.
Step #1: Audit every patent holder with more than 5,000 patents in their "war chest". Force all patent holders to prove they are actively using their patents.
Step #2: Any patents merely being held for the purposes of patent warmongering, preventing competition, or stifling innovation will be forced into expiration, and put up for bid.
Step #3: Sit back and watch as (former) patent holders are forced to spend their (offshore) cash reserves and executive bonus cash pools in order to buy back their pointless "war chests" of patented dominance.
Step #4: Lather, rinse, and repeat every 3 years.
Might not be 100% effective in restoring balance to the patent system, but it sure as hell would be fun to watch patent hoarders squirm, which may ultimately prove that hoarding is no longer a profitable venture.
If their 45% capacity increase estimates are accurate, you will not have to endure as many cycles per year, and for the average user not charging as often as you do, that will likely translate to a couple of years.
As I wrote , the major manufacturers tend decreasing the size and the weight of the phone instead of increasing battery capacity (there is some capacity increase only to accommodate larger power-hungry screens).
With regards to shitty design, consumers need to start voting with their wallets to take back hardware design. It's obvious no manufacturer has consumer interest in mind, and instead is solely focused on maximizing revenue.
The problem is convincing the blindly ignorant masses who happily take whatever paper-thin bullshit design is thrown at them, all because it's the "new" one.
For the past decade-and-a-half or so I have read at least 80 reports of 'Breakthrough in Battery Technology'
All of them claimed to boost battery power, longer lasting battery, and faster charging time
If they are so much better, as claimed, I think the market would welcome them with open arms
Funny thing is no one bring them onto the market
Why is that??
They ARE bringing them to market.
It's not that batteries haven't drastically improved. They have.
The TRUE problem is the telemetry-riddled always-listening power sucking shit they're bolted to.
Here's a perfect example of KISS design maximizing efficiency; the Nokia "candy bar" phone. Fucking thing would last a week on standby, with some obscene amount of talk hours. Smartphone charges could probably last two weeks or more, IF they were not being used as personal video streaming devices. People demand a smartphone does everything for them now. Turn off features, cut out 90% of the extraneous bullshit, and (spoiler alert!) battery life would likely increase ten-fold.
Does it required the connectors to be gold-plated for faster throughput?
No, there's a new precious metal used these days to maximize the speed of marketing throughput.
They call it "bitcoin".
I'm charging my S8+ ~1.5 a day. 500 charges means that after just 1 year the battery is at 78% of capacity, What happens after 1.5 years?
Even for those who charge only once a day, 500 charges is ~1.5 years, which is less than the common 2-year lifespan of the phone.
Increasing the battery density probably won't help either, as manufacturers will again make thinner phones instead of increasing capacity.
If their 45% capacity increase estimates are accurate, you will not have to endure as many cycles per year, and for the average user not charging as often as you do, that will likely translate to a couple of years. Besides, after a year, all current smartphone batteries are running at some level of degradation. It's essentially expected.
As far as it not lasting, smartphone factory warranties are typically one year. Manufacturers don't give a shit how long your service contract is. That's your problem. Their only job is to manufacture hardware that lasts through the warranty period, and not much longer. Revenue is maximized that way.
Taplin cited Snapchat an example of a company that tried to innovate, but refused to take Facebook's buyout offer. Facebook has simply copied its features.
If someone can put you out of business simply by copying what you are doing, maybe it means you're a shit company who isn't doing it very well.
Snapchat has managed to rack up losses in the hundreds of millions for the last few years.
In their IPO filing, they stated they may never turn a profit.
Naturally, they valued themselves north of 20 billion dollars.
The problem is far larger than some company with an overinflated ego. The entire concept of valuation has turned into a fucking shitshow, and is completely devoid of common sense. If you want to blame something, blame the idiots who sustain that kind of fucking financial wizardry.