And you'd ironically have identical 0-100 km/h and similar handling characteristics but lesser technology, higher fuel cost and much higher maintenance cost. Like it or not, Tesla's stuff can compete with premium cars pretty handily.
As much as I agree that the CARB thing was a huge fuck up (they shouldn't have backed off on it), the problem with saying that it's an "artificial regulatory construct" is that if you remove any and all pollution regulations, the pollution doesn't go away. The manufacturers have been able to benefit from the fact pollution is an external cost for decades. There's exactly one way to ensure that the cost of those emissions factors into their bottom line: regulation. You can't work around that fact.
They also won't buy it if they think it looks hideous. It mystifies me why so many EV makers insist on making intentionally ugly hatchbacks.
This, so much. There's a reason why Tesla was seen by many as a game changer: they made desirable cars. I think the Leaf, Bolt, Volt, Prius and more are all great cars, but to pick one would be an entirely rational choice and would have to put my aesthetic inclinations on the backburner. The Model S is desirable, it's luxurious. It'd sell well even if it weren't an electric car.
This is also why I'm looking at the Model 3 and the VW e-Golf with interest. Mass-market yet still good looking electric cars are going to be a big deal.
A lot of that is fragmentation. I enjoy reading up on home automation and building up a few things (don't have much, but I figure I can build up over time), and the one overriding factor is just how every single company feels the need to develop their technology above all else. No standard communication technology, no standard API for interacting with the device, no compatibility with other systems. You end up with many many "smart bridges" that only do one thing and have to chain them together to get anything done.
There's just a complete disconnect between manufacturers and users when it comes to value as well. A good recent example: for the same price, I can get a Lutron smart bridge, which only supports Lutron's smart lights and blinds, or I can grab a Wink which supports Lutron's stuff plus Z-Wave, ZigBee, BLE and Thread. There's half a dozen smart hubs on the market with the same kind of problem. Even the more generalist hubs like Vera or SmartThings tend to miss at least one thing which means you'd have to have many of them to fully cover everything (namely, Lutron's stuff, because they decided they'd have their own proprietary communication method). Philips Hue poses a similar issue: it's proprietary and doesn't integrate unless you also grab their hub.
Basically, they all want to lock you into their system, even though no given system has everything you want. On top of that, they make extension and customization really limited, often preventing integration (Lutron sells a telnet enabled bridge, but only to professional installers, otherwise it's fully locked down). I really shouldn't have to run Home Assistant on my home server to make Wink not suck, but if I just stick with Wink's app (no PC app, no website), the automation basically amounts to a dumb timer and making switches do something.
Smart homes should feel smart, almost magical. Right now you just end up with 10 bloody plastic boxes which all do one thing not all that well and rarely want to work together properly, and if you lose internet... tough luck (next to no smart devices support local control). If you want to do all the stuff they show in ads, you better be ready to start hacking, because none of them really do that without integrating into a third-party system like Home Assistant or OpenHAB.
Samsung's tried pulling out of Android in the past and it never worked. Their Tizen watches were terrible compared to Android Wear (which is no small feat considering how poor Google's support is for AW), their forays into Tizen phones flopped, and even just on Android itself, all of their custom software, be it TouchWiz or just apps, tends to be ranked at the very bottom on virtually all levels.
Samsung would lose a lot from pushing out of Android, they just don't have the software know-how.
Ah, but math doesn't have to be dry. It's just how it's currently being presented. I can make programming super extra dry too, I'd just have to ask one of my numerous university professors.
215 Republicans voted yes. 0 Democrats voted yes. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely a party line vote, regardless of the 15 exceptions out of 230. Yes, it's nice some Republicans apparently have the ability to think, but it's too little. Much too little.
Unfortunate that the two words have almost nothing in common then, right? "One" comes from the Germanic ancestry of English which itself took it from Latin and it meant "one" the whole way through. The French "On" actually comes from the Latin "homo", or human being.
What's more, even ignoring etymology, the two words have basically opposed uses: "One" is very formal and impersonal, whereas "On" tends to be favored in informal speech. It also really is not a good gender-neutral pronoun and is basically never used as such in French, which still favors the masculine form as the gender-neutral form.
Certain remasters went the extra mile, and people constantly claim that Blizzard is the sort to do just that. Homeworld Remastered comes to mind, having ported all the best features of each game (subsystems from HW2 with ballistics and formations from HW1, among others) into a single, unified, ultimate experience.
Unfortunately, it does appear to be the case that Blizzard are just going to release a texture pack and widescreen fix and call it a day.
Better luck next time, I would guess. They're keeping restrictions like maximum 12 units selected at once (which is completely inane and nostalgia fogged, I find), so expect the experience to be basically the same, just upscaled.
I'm not sure the argument flies with actual humans. Remember, we're not rational agents.
Just look at many African countries, where everything is in constant shortage. They shouldn't be having kids, right? And yet they have way more than highly industrialized, rich countries. A lot of them will die, but more will survive with just the bare minimums, exacerbating the already evident shortages. Sure, eventually the population would reach a tipping point, but that would play out as more children dying than surviving, causing the population to stabilize. That's utterly inhumane and not something you can rely on for population control.
And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).
You're making the assumption that 26.3 and 25.6 are given with the full number of significant digits (which may not be the case), or that significant digits actually matter in a percentage figure (not an actual measurement) in popular scientific journalism. Get over yourself.
It seems like you didn't grasp what she's saying at all, actually. She says that since we know for a fact that our two current theories (that is, quantum mechanics and relativity) do not match up, we have no idea how complicated an actual simulation of our universe would be since we don't know the actual rules that control it. Anyone attempting to extrapolate a simulation from our current understanding of physics is most likely severely underestimating the complexity of the problem.
Just look back at Newton's laws and imagine someone thinking you could simulate our universe with just those. The problem is dramatically easier than simulating the complexity of quantum mechanics and relativity, isn't it? A similar step upwards in complexity could very well happen to reconcile those two theories.
Laws of physics are theories and models for the observable world. You must distinguish the laws themselves, which are a wholly human creation, with what they attempt to describe. We know for a fact not all of our laws are correct or complete, which inherently tells us that they are human.
Nevermind PETA's ridiculousness, if you had the choice, wouldn't you prefer not harming a living being? That's on top of the smaller environmental footprint, potential for more uniform distribution of fat, removal of undesirable parts (tendons, nerves, etc.), ability to shape the meat however you want (could have blocks of the thing!), etc.
chances are there's a grumpy asshole who is of more practical use to an employer because they can handle social interactions in a workplace and understand the way work life works, with enough experience (in precisely what their employer requires!) to more than raise their net value above an inexperienced applicants'.
That's funny considering the volume of news stories on Slashdot about employment problems for older people because they tend to be more expensive and less... malleable than younger workers. So which is it?
That argument holds no water. What was, doesn't have to be. Europe has waged wars across the globe for millenia too. Greece was once a world power. France and Germany were often embroiled in wars with their neighbors lasting decades. Britain once had so many colonies they spanned the whole globe. None of that is relevant to the now.
Right now, Japan is faced with a severe population aging problem and their economy is entirely tied with the region and the world. They have no interest in declaring a war unless provoked or forced.
Removing Lightning would also significantly remove the lock-in factor and their large 3rd party peripherals advantage. Not only would people have to buy iStuff-compatible hardware for the third time in a row (which would most likely lose them some people), the new hardware would support Android phones on a hardware basis, making it quite easy for Google to just add support for the peripherals in Android. Suddenly all of those iPhone exclusive sound docks, car docks and whatever else become universal.
I frankly don't see that happening. Only thing I can see would be them bundling a USB-C cable and charger at the other end.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice of you to immediately assume political partisanship when none was mentioned by the parent.
And what if the app masquerades as something with a perfectly valid reason to access the gyroscope, like a map app?
Panasonic, Tesla's partner for their Gigafactory?
And you'd ironically have identical 0-100 km/h and similar handling characteristics but lesser technology, higher fuel cost and much higher maintenance cost. Like it or not, Tesla's stuff can compete with premium cars pretty handily.
As much as I agree that the CARB thing was a huge fuck up (they shouldn't have backed off on it), the problem with saying that it's an "artificial regulatory construct" is that if you remove any and all pollution regulations, the pollution doesn't go away. The manufacturers have been able to benefit from the fact pollution is an external cost for decades. There's exactly one way to ensure that the cost of those emissions factors into their bottom line: regulation. You can't work around that fact.
They also won't buy it if they think it looks hideous. It mystifies me why so many EV makers insist on making intentionally ugly hatchbacks.
This, so much. There's a reason why Tesla was seen by many as a game changer: they made desirable cars. I think the Leaf, Bolt, Volt, Prius and more are all great cars, but to pick one would be an entirely rational choice and would have to put my aesthetic inclinations on the backburner. The Model S is desirable, it's luxurious. It'd sell well even if it weren't an electric car.
This is also why I'm looking at the Model 3 and the VW e-Golf with interest. Mass-market yet still good looking electric cars are going to be a big deal.
A lot of that is fragmentation. I enjoy reading up on home automation and building up a few things (don't have much, but I figure I can build up over time), and the one overriding factor is just how every single company feels the need to develop their technology above all else. No standard communication technology, no standard API for interacting with the device, no compatibility with other systems. You end up with many many "smart bridges" that only do one thing and have to chain them together to get anything done.
There's just a complete disconnect between manufacturers and users when it comes to value as well. A good recent example: for the same price, I can get a Lutron smart bridge, which only supports Lutron's smart lights and blinds, or I can grab a Wink which supports Lutron's stuff plus Z-Wave, ZigBee, BLE and Thread. There's half a dozen smart hubs on the market with the same kind of problem. Even the more generalist hubs like Vera or SmartThings tend to miss at least one thing which means you'd have to have many of them to fully cover everything (namely, Lutron's stuff, because they decided they'd have their own proprietary communication method). Philips Hue poses a similar issue: it's proprietary and doesn't integrate unless you also grab their hub.
Basically, they all want to lock you into their system, even though no given system has everything you want. On top of that, they make extension and customization really limited, often preventing integration (Lutron sells a telnet enabled bridge, but only to professional installers, otherwise it's fully locked down). I really shouldn't have to run Home Assistant on my home server to make Wink not suck, but if I just stick with Wink's app (no PC app, no website), the automation basically amounts to a dumb timer and making switches do something.
Smart homes should feel smart, almost magical. Right now you just end up with 10 bloody plastic boxes which all do one thing not all that well and rarely want to work together properly, and if you lose internet... tough luck (next to no smart devices support local control). If you want to do all the stuff they show in ads, you better be ready to start hacking, because none of them really do that without integrating into a third-party system like Home Assistant or OpenHAB.
Samsung's tried pulling out of Android in the past and it never worked. Their Tizen watches were terrible compared to Android Wear (which is no small feat considering how poor Google's support is for AW), their forays into Tizen phones flopped, and even just on Android itself, all of their custom software, be it TouchWiz or just apps, tends to be ranked at the very bottom on virtually all levels.
Samsung would lose a lot from pushing out of Android, they just don't have the software know-how.
Ah, but math doesn't have to be dry. It's just how it's currently being presented. I can make programming super extra dry too, I'd just have to ask one of my numerous university professors.
215 Republicans voted yes. 0 Democrats voted yes. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely a party line vote, regardless of the 15 exceptions out of 230. Yes, it's nice some Republicans apparently have the ability to think, but it's too little. Much too little.
Unfortunate that the two words have almost nothing in common then, right? "One" comes from the Germanic ancestry of English which itself took it from Latin and it meant "one" the whole way through. The French "On" actually comes from the Latin "homo", or human being.
What's more, even ignoring etymology, the two words have basically opposed uses: "One" is very formal and impersonal, whereas "On" tends to be favored in informal speech. It also really is not a good gender-neutral pronoun and is basically never used as such in French, which still favors the masculine form as the gender-neutral form.
Certain remasters went the extra mile, and people constantly claim that Blizzard is the sort to do just that. Homeworld Remastered comes to mind, having ported all the best features of each game (subsystems from HW2 with ballistics and formations from HW1, among others) into a single, unified, ultimate experience.
Unfortunately, it does appear to be the case that Blizzard are just going to release a texture pack and widescreen fix and call it a day.
Better luck next time, I would guess. They're keeping restrictions like maximum 12 units selected at once (which is completely inane and nostalgia fogged, I find), so expect the experience to be basically the same, just upscaled.
I'm not sure the argument flies with actual humans. Remember, we're not rational agents.
Just look at many African countries, where everything is in constant shortage. They shouldn't be having kids, right? And yet they have way more than highly industrialized, rich countries. A lot of them will die, but more will survive with just the bare minimums, exacerbating the already evident shortages. Sure, eventually the population would reach a tipping point, but that would play out as more children dying than surviving, causing the population to stabilize. That's utterly inhumane and not something you can rely on for population control.
A parabolic reflective dish can focus collimated light into a single point. It's been around for millennia.
26.29 rounds to 26, not 27.
Nobody mentioned 27 though. 2.7 isn't 27.
And, although the wording clearly implies an absolute relationship, the correct relative formula would be 26.3/25.6=1.03 when significant digits are accommodated (which would be a 3% relative increase).
You're making the assumption that 26.3 and 25.6 are given with the full number of significant digits (which may not be the case), or that significant digits actually matter in a percentage figure (not an actual measurement) in popular scientific journalism. Get over yourself.
Well, at least you're in good company.
Someone's really salty to be shown wrong, eh?
It seems like you didn't grasp what she's saying at all, actually. She says that since we know for a fact that our two current theories (that is, quantum mechanics and relativity) do not match up, we have no idea how complicated an actual simulation of our universe would be since we don't know the actual rules that control it. Anyone attempting to extrapolate a simulation from our current understanding of physics is most likely severely underestimating the complexity of the problem.
Just look back at Newton's laws and imagine someone thinking you could simulate our universe with just those. The problem is dramatically easier than simulating the complexity of quantum mechanics and relativity, isn't it? A similar step upwards in complexity could very well happen to reconcile those two theories.
Laws of physics are theories and models for the observable world. You must distinguish the laws themselves, which are a wholly human creation, with what they attempt to describe. We know for a fact not all of our laws are correct or complete, which inherently tells us that they are human.
I mean, he was three days late for his son's execution, had to resurrect him to make up for it. That's just rude.
Nevermind PETA's ridiculousness, if you had the choice, wouldn't you prefer not harming a living being? That's on top of the smaller environmental footprint, potential for more uniform distribution of fat, removal of undesirable parts (tendons, nerves, etc.), ability to shape the meat however you want (could have blocks of the thing!), etc.
chances are there's a grumpy asshole who is of more practical use to an employer because they can handle social interactions in a workplace and understand the way work life works, with enough experience (in precisely what their employer requires!) to more than raise their net value above an inexperienced applicants'.
That's funny considering the volume of news stories on Slashdot about employment problems for older people because they tend to be more expensive and less... malleable than younger workers. So which is it?
The UK is leaving the EU because the EU is hindering their ability to turn into a xenophobic police state. Connect the dots?
That argument holds no water. What was, doesn't have to be. Europe has waged wars across the globe for millenia too. Greece was once a world power. France and Germany were often embroiled in wars with their neighbors lasting decades. Britain once had so many colonies they spanned the whole globe. None of that is relevant to the now.
Right now, Japan is faced with a severe population aging problem and their economy is entirely tied with the region and the world. They have no interest in declaring a war unless provoked or forced.
Hey editors, the link to the first video (which I presume you added) links to the very end of it. I know, editing is hard and all.
Removing Lightning would also significantly remove the lock-in factor and their large 3rd party peripherals advantage. Not only would people have to buy iStuff-compatible hardware for the third time in a row (which would most likely lose them some people), the new hardware would support Android phones on a hardware basis, making it quite easy for Google to just add support for the peripherals in Android. Suddenly all of those iPhone exclusive sound docks, car docks and whatever else become universal.
I frankly don't see that happening. Only thing I can see would be them bundling a USB-C cable and charger at the other end.