Except it is more likely that the real source of these airborne plastics are clothing and carpet fibers rather than single use plastic bags or other sheet plastics. Thin fibers are much more likely to wear off and become airborne. As you can see plainly in a carpeted room when sunlight light streams through a window or when you shake out your threadbare clothing that is falling apart.
So, maybe if we stop making synthetic carpets and using synthetic fibers in clothing... but how would that effect the global demand? And really if these things are a health hazzard, then indoor air quality is where we need to look next.
Literally you could be saying it is simple that we just need some percentage of the world to go naked and have cold feet on slippery floors rather than merely choosing a different kind of bag... so it makes a big difference what is actually happening.
They will fix the problem, which was that the robot which locks down recovered boosters did not work with the center one from a Falcon Heavy.
Yes, that seems about right from what has been said. The center rocket just didn't have the compatible anchor points needed to secure the rocket in heavy seas. Solved problem, just need to do it next time so they can launch in a wider variety of offshore weather. Sounds like it could add a few pounds here and there, but it should be doable.
I think the concentration of wealth is where libertarians diverge with one another. Some see, as I do, the concentration of wealth in the extreme as being the equivalent of concentration of government power. And therefore something that society has a legitimate concern to regulate against.
Unions are just corporations. People associating and pooling resources towards greater benefit to themselves.
Not fast enough. And not reliably. And the mind is a funny thing... we put all these false memories around traumatic events because we relive the experience over and over because the brain is trying to put it into context and learn, but the truth is once you put a stop watch to people's reaction times in all those various scenarios people talk about there isn't even time for adrenaline to kick in let alone be useful for speeding anything up.
If you take the automated car deaths so far and apply the ratio of regular cars on the road, adjusting for real world randomness/weather, self-driving cars wouldn't look so good.
No fatalities for Waymo. If you compare accident rates just for Waymo it is looking pretty good so far.
The Uber fatality shouldn't count... they aren't in the same league as Waymo. Tesla wasn't fully autonomous so you are comparing apples and oranges.
We don't need human level AI to drive a damn car. People are taking too long to react because they are thinking. Thinking takes time and we haven't evolved to drive cars so our thinking takes too long. We can create AI that doesn't think so much about the problems and can therefore react more quickly than human drivers.
This is a situation replacing thoughtful drivers with dumb drivers is exactly what you want in order to save lives.
Again, nobody gives a shit about the tens of thousands of people dying from today's defective driving technology, but one person dies from an autonomous vehicle and the specific problem is fixed and suddenly the problems are intractable?
Whole planes full of people fell out of the sky in what is supposedly the safest industry because a sensor failed and Boeing is taking a few weeks to fix the problem and yet we haven't grounded all aircraft even when the sky is literally falling.
Tesla and to an even greater extent Waymo should be applauded for pushing forward with this life saving technology.
Airbags killed people too. We just have to fix the problems and move forward.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.
It seems Waymo at least has figured out how to make them safer than human drivers overall. There has to be a point where regulators and the public just stop being ignorant idiots that are going to get tens of thousands of people killed because the technology can't save everyone.
Building above as-is roads are very expensive due to the steel spans, maintenance requirements and air handling requirements not to mention you are blocking natural light from the buildings along the way. Much more expensive than building on solid ground. And really there is no lack of less expensive land except in close proximity to the core of a few select cities.
Compared to building a floating platform, the floating platform might be more economical and the end result more desirable, than building on platforms above roads
And some people want a world government to replace or supersede the nation-state governments. Not me, but it isn't a conspiracy. Some people would want direct elections of our UN representatives... count me in favor of that.
The point is that it isn't a conspiracy to have different viewpoints about what the UN should become and even if there is a one world government conspiracy then people are well within their human and civil rights to conspire to effect political change.
Heck sign me up for the conspiracy to elect UN representatives.
It makes you wander what possible motive would you need to have to fake the title like this. Like, for example, to fuel hatred of the âoeotherâ, the conspiracy theory of UN wanting to be world government and so on. Crackpot is too good a word.
Why is this a "conspiracy theory"? Some people would like the UN to be a world government. And who can blame them when most of the world governments are pretty much shit might as well see if the UN can sort things out or at least send some money their way.
Sometimes I have thought a world government based on Liberty and democracy would be a good idea, but apparently I don't exist in your mind and people that believe in a world government are just fodder for crackpots.
Ultimately I don't think the putting all our eggs in one world government basket approach works out for the other countries where governments and economies are at least mostly working for people. And given most of the world isn't free and democratic and the countries that do think of themselves as free and democratic are barely either of those things, the chances of actually getting a world government that is free and democratic are very very low.
Otherwise, yes maybe the motive of the headline writer is to make the UN look stupid. But the UN does plenty to make itself look stupid so pretty much awash there.
But to dismiss as crackpots those that would dare discuss the pros and cons of world government really does just force the debate into the shadows and creates the very climate of conspiracy that fuels paranoia.
Well if they are anchored within commuting distance of major coastal cities then labor could be their primary export. Fishing and aquaculture could also be viable exports. Otherwise you just have to look at the costs in terms of economic viability and unless the cost per acre is on par with dry land real estate then it won't compete.
These were the leading companies in the industry. They set the upper standard wages for millions of technology workers. I was absolutely impacted in a very negative way over a long period of time.
I would say they owe me 30 thousand dollars probably.
I would be happy to be part of a class action lawsuit, but it is probably too late
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
There is otherwise nothing wrong with someone wanting to discourage most of the kinds of behaviors that China wants to discourage... What is wrong is using force against people who are simply exercising their human rights.
Most of the behaviors that have been cited are things that in the US and many other countries are simply discouraged because of social pressures. But ultimately leaving a job, or finding a new place to live or finding new friends is a way to move on and move forward. Having such a regimented system where you can't move beyond every minor mistake or disagreement with someone more powerful than you is going to ultimately create more discord in society.
...Working in tech field, then you probably have NDAs/claims that you are taking their intellectual property. Failing that, remember when Apple, Adobe, Google, etc. agreed not to hire each other's employees?
Yes, but that was challenged and ruled illegal by the U.S. government. That makes a difference: in the US, the government challenges the anticompetitive "gentleman's agreement". In China, the government enforces it.
Still... where are my back wages? Where were the big fines on these companies who were involved in a criminal conspiracy that affected millions of workers.
"If someone keeps quitting and landing new jobs, his social credit will definitely be a problem," Zhejiang official Ge Pingan said at a local forum, addressing a complaint from one company's human resources department about being unable to do anything when employees want to leave.
This is a really sick viewpoint, although in this case there isn't much cultural difference between the east and west. Plenty of business owners in the US would love to have ways to keep employees other than providing a good work experience and fair pay.
Not too long ago, the big tech companies conspired to not hire tech talent away from each other in order to depress wages in restraint of trade... oh and thanks US Government for doing jack shit about punishing that behavior. Pretty sure the wages of millions of Americans are still depressed years later from that illegal conspiracy.
Unpopular and immoral but illegal? I can't blame Google for eyeing the world's largest market. If you do business in China you have to follow their laws.
If American companies can't ethically do business in China, then Chinese businesses shouldn't be able to sell in America.
Or that time... There have literally been hundreds of man-made releases of material that includes radioactive particles. And natural radiation is all over the place.
I think articles like this undermine our understanding of the world by highlighting something that is of no importance to the public or even very limited use to the scientific community. Just to do a hit job on public trust of the nuclear power industry which is the safest least polluting and least expensive overall mass energy source on the planet by far.
I would agree with the assessment Google by creating their own JVM essentially drove Oracle out of the mobile market place.
That's utter horse shit. Google adopting Java was the one thing that kept Java alive and growing. Java was well adopted on the server side, but that was it. The JVM had a half ass implementation on dumb flip phone mobile devices before the smartphone market took off.
If anything it was Oracle's idiotic move to sue Google for using Java that killed Java as an option on other platforms. Why would other platforms use Java if Oracle is just going to turn around and file a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Oracle shot themselves and Java in their own ass.
I think the great thing about Google has been that they have been the only company to actually tell people how and in what ways people have traded their privacy for convenience.
Look at Verizon. They sold all your phone records (and presumably your internet records) to the government without even telling you. Oh and they made sure to lobby Congress to exempt them from privacy laws and agreements so they couldn't even effectively be sued by the customers they screwed over.
Looks like most of the telecoms did the same, probably. Hard to tell because of how unopen they are about it. Google early on decided to be very transparent about how much data they are collecting and what they are doing with it. And they have paid a PR price, somewhat undeservedly so. Apple I think has been a bit better about it because they do collect a lot of data about people, but have made clear they are not really in that business.
Be a bit more suspicious of Google as they are now too big to avoid being evil, but be a lot more suspicious about all the other companies you do business with and how much they are just selling everything they know about you to the highest and the lowest bidder alike.
Yeah, this would definitely stretch the definition of "PC gaming" to its breaking point.
Well beyond the breaking point since you can play on any device that can access the video stream and these are cloud based servers doing the streaming. Not PC gaming. I mean you could certainly game from a PC, or whatever device. But you can also game from a Chromecast connected to your tv with a specialized controller.
The next question is content and the subscription/purchase/advertising models for paying for it and how the pie gets sliced up between Google and content developers. That really seems critical to the success of the platform.
I mean it really does suck to have to download and patch these huge games and then only to be at a hardware disadvantage with other players. So there is an upside here in the way that Youtube (and competing services) made video streaming work better by streaming video instead of downloading whole video files before you could watch. But there is only so much cost from renting a stadia instance that gamers will want to pay for the convenience of avoiding the downloads and hardware costs.
The other nice thing was that they showed how you can just reconnect to the same game you were playing with another device and pick up where you left off.
It's hard to tell from the article, but Google is obviously running the game on PC's in the backend. It makes way more sense than Google modifying a bunch of consoles to stream games, wouldn't you say?
So you are running the PC version of the game, probably with display settings fixed, and simply receiving the display via video stream, and sending control commands back to the "PC" )probably some kind of virtual PC) that is streaming the game.
So how is this not PC gaming? In theory it would be easy to have access to any PC game this way, at a resolution and quality level maybe better than most people's local PC's could handle.
Watch the video... because it doesn't use a PC in any sense of use of the term "PC". A single stadia instance is a specialized server with specialized software and GPU hardware that you are streaming from. And developers can combine multiple instances to deliver content.
PC gaming is more similar to console gaming than Stadia is to either.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution = Stop making/discarding that crap.
It's not complicated.
Except it is more likely that the real source of these airborne plastics are clothing and carpet fibers rather than single use plastic bags or other sheet plastics. Thin fibers are much more likely to wear off and become airborne. As you can see plainly in a carpeted room when sunlight light streams through a window or when you shake out your threadbare clothing that is falling apart.
So, maybe if we stop making synthetic carpets and using synthetic fibers in clothing... but how would that effect the global demand? And really if these things are a health hazzard, then indoor air quality is where we need to look next.
Literally you could be saying it is simple that we just need some percentage of the world to go naked and have cold feet on slippery floors rather than merely choosing a different kind of bag... so it makes a big difference what is actually happening.
They will fix the problem, which was that the robot which locks down recovered boosters did not work with the center one from a Falcon Heavy.
Yes, that seems about right from what has been said. The center rocket just didn't have the compatible anchor points needed to secure the rocket in heavy seas. Solved problem, just need to do it next time so they can launch in a wider variety of offshore weather. Sounds like it could add a few pounds here and there, but it should be doable.
I think the concentration of wealth is where libertarians diverge with one another. Some see, as I do, the concentration of wealth in the extreme as being the equivalent of concentration of government power. And therefore something that society has a legitimate concern to regulate against.
Unions are just corporations. People associating and pooling resources towards greater benefit to themselves.
Adrenaline makes the mind work a lot faster.
Not fast enough. And not reliably. And the mind is a funny thing... we put all these false memories around traumatic events because we relive the experience over and over because the brain is trying to put it into context and learn, but the truth is once you put a stop watch to people's reaction times in all those various scenarios people talk about there isn't even time for adrenaline to kick in let alone be useful for speeding anything up.
You are using a false and faulty metric.
If you take the automated car deaths so far and apply the ratio of regular cars on the road, adjusting for real world randomness/weather, self-driving cars wouldn't look so good.
No fatalities for Waymo. If you compare accident rates just for Waymo it is looking pretty good so far.
The Uber fatality shouldn't count... they aren't in the same league as Waymo. Tesla wasn't fully autonomous so you are comparing apples and oranges.
Overestimated the ability of the company to work on self-driving cars
Bingo... those that can't do, hire lobbyists and pay for press to try and stop others that can.
We don't need human level AI to drive a damn car. People are taking too long to react because they are thinking. Thinking takes time and we haven't evolved to drive cars so our thinking takes too long. We can create AI that doesn't think so much about the problems and can therefore react more quickly than human drivers.
This is a situation replacing thoughtful drivers with dumb drivers is exactly what you want in order to save lives.
Tesla has oversold the autopilot and people died
Again, nobody gives a shit about the tens of thousands of people dying from today's defective driving technology, but one person dies from an autonomous vehicle and the specific problem is fixed and suddenly the problems are intractable?
Whole planes full of people fell out of the sky in what is supposedly the safest industry because a sensor failed and Boeing is taking a few weeks to fix the problem and yet we haven't grounded all aircraft even when the sky is literally falling.
Tesla and to an even greater extent Waymo should be applauded for pushing forward with this life saving technology.
Airbags killed people too. We just have to fix the problems and move forward.
The complexity of autonomous vehicles is immense, especially since the general public and regulators are expecting them to be better at making decisions and safer than human drivers. I'd be willing to say that it's orders of magnitude bigger than the difference between reusable and non-reusable rockets.
It seems Waymo at least has figured out how to make them safer than human drivers overall. There has to be a point where regulators and the public just stop being ignorant idiots that are going to get tens of thousands of people killed because the technology can't save everyone.
Building above as-is roads are very expensive due to the steel spans, maintenance requirements and air handling requirements not to mention you are blocking natural light from the buildings along the way. Much more expensive than building on solid ground. And really there is no lack of less expensive land except in close proximity to the core of a few select cities.
Compared to building a floating platform, the floating platform might be more economical and the end result more desirable, than building on platforms above roads
And some people want a world government to replace or supersede the nation-state governments. Not me, but it isn't a conspiracy. Some people would want direct elections of our UN representatives... count me in favor of that.
The point is that it isn't a conspiracy to have different viewpoints about what the UN should become and even if there is a one world government conspiracy then people are well within their human and civil rights to conspire to effect political change.
Heck sign me up for the conspiracy to elect UN representatives.
It makes you wander what possible motive would you need to have to fake the title like this. Like, for example, to fuel hatred of the âoeotherâ, the conspiracy theory of UN wanting to be world government and so on. Crackpot is too good a word.
Why is this a "conspiracy theory"? Some people would like the UN to be a world government. And who can blame them when most of the world governments are pretty much shit might as well see if the UN can sort things out or at least send some money their way.
Sometimes I have thought a world government based on Liberty and democracy would be a good idea, but apparently I don't exist in your mind and people that believe in a world government are just fodder for crackpots.
Ultimately I don't think the putting all our eggs in one world government basket approach works out for the other countries where governments and economies are at least mostly working for people. And given most of the world isn't free and democratic and the countries that do think of themselves as free and democratic are barely either of those things, the chances of actually getting a world government that is free and democratic are very very low.
Otherwise, yes maybe the motive of the headline writer is to make the UN look stupid. But the UN does plenty to make itself look stupid so pretty much awash there.
But to dismiss as crackpots those that would dare discuss the pros and cons of world government really does just force the debate into the shadows and creates the very climate of conspiracy that fuels paranoia.
Well if they are anchored within commuting distance of major coastal cities then labor could be their primary export. Fishing and aquaculture could also be viable exports. Otherwise you just have to look at the costs in terms of economic viability and unless the cost per acre is on par with dry land real estate then it won't compete.
These were the leading companies in the industry. They set the upper standard wages for millions of technology workers. I was absolutely impacted in a very negative way over a long period of time.
I would say they owe me 30 thousand dollars probably.
I would be happy to be part of a class action lawsuit, but it is probably too late
An interesting aspect of this social credit thing is that each step mirrors things that already exist today... it's well understood that changing jobs too often looks bad on a resume. Or at least, it did before lots of people started doing that, don't even know if it's that bad these days...
That's the bad thing about a system like social credit codifying rules, is that the rules that affect your score probably change a lot more slowly than socially accepted behavior. I wonder what happens when you try to trap the unwritten morals of a society in amber at one point in time, never to change again (or to change so slowly it's essentially the case). Will that bottle up repression in the people? Or create a kind of mindless utopia that lasts forever? So far, nothing has lasted forever... or even close.
There is otherwise nothing wrong with someone wanting to discourage most of the kinds of behaviors that China wants to discourage... What is wrong is using force against people who are simply exercising their human rights.
Most of the behaviors that have been cited are things that in the US and many other countries are simply
discouraged because of social pressures. But ultimately leaving a job, or finding a new place to live or finding new friends is a way to move on and move forward. Having such a regimented system where you can't move beyond every minor mistake or disagreement with someone more powerful than you is going to ultimately create more discord in society.
...Working in tech field, then you probably have NDAs/claims that you are taking their intellectual property. Failing that, remember when Apple, Adobe, Google, etc. agreed not to hire each other's employees?
Yes, but that was challenged and ruled illegal by the U.S. government. That makes a difference: in the US, the government challenges the anticompetitive "gentleman's agreement". In China, the government enforces it.
https://www.cnet.com/news/appl...
https://www.mintz.com/insights...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Still... where are my back wages? Where were the big fines on these companies who were involved in a criminal conspiracy that affected millions of workers.
"If someone keeps quitting and landing new jobs, his social credit will definitely be a problem," Zhejiang official Ge Pingan said at a local forum, addressing a complaint from one company's human resources department about being unable to do anything when employees want to leave.
This is a really sick viewpoint, although in this case there isn't much cultural difference between the east and west. Plenty of business owners in the US would love to have ways to keep employees other than providing a good work experience and fair pay.
Not too long ago, the big tech companies conspired to not hire tech talent away from each other in order to depress wages in restraint of trade... oh and thanks US Government for doing jack shit about punishing that behavior. Pretty sure the wages of millions of Americans are still depressed years later from that illegal conspiracy.
Unpopular and immoral but illegal? I can't blame Google for eyeing the world's largest market. If you do business in China you have to follow their laws.
If American companies can't ethically do business in China, then Chinese businesses shouldn't be able to sell in America.
Or that time... There have literally been hundreds of man-made releases of material that includes radioactive particles. And natural radiation is all over the place.
I think articles like this undermine our understanding of the world by highlighting something that is of no importance to the public or even very limited use to the scientific community. Just to do a hit job on public trust of the nuclear power industry which is the safest least polluting and least expensive overall mass energy source on the planet by far.
I would agree with the assessment Google by creating their own JVM essentially drove Oracle out of the mobile market place.
That's utter horse shit. Google adopting Java was the one thing that kept Java alive and growing. Java was well adopted on the server side, but that was it.
The JVM had a half ass implementation on dumb flip phone mobile devices before the smartphone market took off.
If anything it was Oracle's idiotic move to sue Google for using Java that killed Java as an option on other platforms. Why would other platforms use Java if Oracle is just going to turn around and file a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Oracle shot themselves and Java in their own ass.
I think the great thing about Google has been that they have been the only company to actually tell people how and in what ways people have traded their privacy for convenience.
Look at Verizon. They sold all your phone records (and presumably your internet records) to the government without even telling you. Oh and they made sure to lobby Congress to exempt them from privacy laws and agreements so they couldn't even effectively be sued by the customers they screwed over.
Looks like most of the telecoms did the same, probably. Hard to tell because of how unopen they are about it. Google early on decided to be very transparent about how much data they are collecting and what they are doing with it. And they have paid a PR price, somewhat undeservedly so. Apple I think has been a bit better about it because they do collect a lot of data about people, but have made clear they are not really in that business.
Be a bit more suspicious of Google as they are now too big to avoid being evil, but be a lot more suspicious about all the other companies you do business with and how much they are just selling everything they know about you to the highest and the lowest bidder alike.
And of course: https://duckduckgo.com/
Don't become too dependent on any Google product because they could yank it at any time.
In other words... which of their competitors paid for the article?
Yeah, this would definitely stretch the definition of "PC gaming" to its breaking point.
Well beyond the breaking point since you can play on any device that can access the video stream and these are cloud based servers doing the streaming. Not PC gaming. I mean you could certainly game from a PC, or whatever device. But you can also game from a Chromecast connected to your tv with a specialized controller.
The next question is content and the subscription/purchase/advertising models for paying for it and how the pie gets sliced up between Google and content developers. That really seems critical to the success of the platform.
I mean it really does suck to have to download and patch these huge games and then only to be at a hardware disadvantage with other players. So there is an upside here in the way that Youtube (and competing services) made video streaming work better by streaming video instead of downloading whole video files before you could watch. But there is only so much cost from renting a stadia instance that gamers will want to pay for the convenience of avoiding the downloads and hardware costs.
The other nice thing was that they showed how you can just reconnect to the same game you were playing with another device and pick up where you left off.
This isn't PC gaming.
It's hard to tell from the article, but Google is obviously running the game on PC's in the backend. It makes way more sense than Google modifying a bunch of consoles to stream games, wouldn't you say?
So you are running the PC version of the game, probably with display settings fixed, and simply receiving the display via video stream, and sending control commands back to the "PC" )probably some kind of virtual PC) that is streaming the game.
So how is this not PC gaming? In theory it would be easy to have access to any PC game this way, at a resolution and quality level maybe better than most people's local PC's could handle.
Watch the video... because it doesn't use a PC in any sense of use of the term "PC". A single stadia instance is a specialized server with specialized software and GPU hardware that you are streaming from. And developers can combine multiple instances to deliver content.
PC gaming is more similar to console gaming than Stadia is to either.