I think to me the funniest thing about gender pronouns is that the those who want to play dress up as the opposite sex *want* to be called 'they'. That's hilarious to me because it was a slur when I was in school as it implied multiple personalities. Now they ask for it, though I guess it still is multiple personalities so maybe it's the most accurate.
Given that the diameter of a silicon atom is around 0.2nm, that means they are now building transistors out of something like 30-35 atoms across. How far down can this go before it all disappears in some kind of quantum uncertainty blob?
As I understand it there are few enough atoms that allegedly Micron has named them. Not kidding.
I wouldn't count psychological differences, while there are a huge amount of cultural pressures on women.
The aggressive man negotiating for himself shows strength and confidence. While if a woman who does the same thing society will say they seem mean spirited and bossy.
Good call, ignore evidence and stick with the strategy of it's societies fault. Do you also still point out often and incorrectly that women make $.78 cents for every dollar a man makes?
We know who to make an example of from TFS: Scott Beaumont, Google's head of operations in China and one of the key architects of Dragonfly. Nothing a good public hanging couldn't fix. Get a couple of people above and below him too for good measure.
Plus very limited immigration and enforcing cultural norms like everyone speaks the language. Common sense stuff really but it eludes many here, especially in California.
And this is why tariffs are mostly bad. Frequently foreign competition wins because it is making a BETTER PRODUCT. This means by slapping a tariff on it you are hurting the competitiveness of all users of that product to reward the poor management of those that make it domestically.
Somehow lost in the debate is that before the income tax tariffs were a key, maybe even primary, form of paying for government. If the tariff debate were re-framed as applying to all imported goods (no exceptions!!) and the income tax being abolished for example that would be a great trade that most people could get behind.
We want interdependent economies because they increase efficiency, prevent wars, and make the world more equal.
That was the thinking behind the world not having WW1. It wasn't true then and still isn't true now.
I'm seriously considering funding a development of the wireless light switch done right - it'll behave like a regular switch but will have a mechanical actuator to flip it remotely.
As for the price of this stuff, isn't the Z-Wave license fee a big part of that? Also: some jackass holds a patent on "instant notification", the idea that if you switch a light on using the wall switch, the central controller is instantly notified of the change rather than learning of it through a periodic status poll. That patent alone adds €s to the price; these days people expect that switches support that functionality.
The Z-Wave cost isn't too bad of an adder, and it's coming down. They got bought recently and that should help both the cost and performance. Z-Wave as a stack was great, as a radio it was years behind. Their new owner will fix that since Silabs makes solid radios. If I were to guess Z-Wave will be the one ring that rules them all before it's over.
Because let's be honest, a wireless light switch does not cost more than 3 bucks to produce. It just doesn't.
Actually, it just does. As someone who has been intimately involved in this area the cost is >$3. It's often >$6. And that's just the cost, not including any profit. They could focus on making something that would cost less but have no security, not unlike the one way security sensors of old. But then you'd likely complain about the lack of security;-)
When Democrats abandoned the working class (ie most people) for ever more niche groups, like transgenders, that gave them a loss
I'm curious to know how you figure they did this. Their economic policies didn't change; the democrats are still the party that aims to reduce taxes on the 99% while the republicans still aim to reduce taxes for the top 1%. Their education policies didn't change; they still favor funding public education while the republicans still favor various "market based solutions" and other such tactics that are shown to reduce accessibility to education. What exactly do you think they did that favored "niche groups" over the working class?
Their economic policies most certainly did change. Supply and demand is a basic thing. By increasing how many H1B and other visas you increase supply. By favoring free trade you decrease job demand. You realize that Bill Clinton let China in the WTO and signed NAFTA into law. Thus we have less in real wages than in the 70s. I'll provide links, but despite all the talk about increasing productivity the reality is that most of the gains have gone to the top 1%. To be fair to the Democrats, this trend is consistent across both D and R administrations. Still, they have done exactly *nothing* to try and turn it around other than lip service about training for the new economy. Want to see Democrats that really pushed for the little guy (ie the 99%)? Think Teddy Roosevelt and breaking up trusts, which today would be more like huge corporations. Think FDR who despite his *many* faults was at least trying to do something. Think Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The Democrats were at one time the party of the little guy. No more.
Turns out that hating white males
Where did you see them doing this? What policies or proposals did you see that could be said to be aiming for that to happen?
If I say that preference will be given to women and minorities then what I have really said is that everyone other than white males will be given an advantage. That could be restated as everyone is equal but white males get penalized. Can it be more clear? In case that isn't clear enough they have run job descriptions that specifically asked for no white straight males.
They tried that, but they were sure the people harming society were the Jews. I doubt your "people with tattoos" solution will be any better.
I think your error was generalizing gang members with tatoos, which are easy to spot as they literally tatoo the gang info on themselves, to all people with tatoos.
are pretty much admitting that they aren't having any effect on local crime.
Most police know who their local criminals are, and where crimes happen.
They don't have enough man-power or support to wade into a bad area and clean it up without trampling on any rights of the people in that neighborhood.
This type of AI analytics seems to just be a justification for doing more than reacting after a crime is committed.
Ever watched a nature show where a herd of something runs away from predators losing a few in the process? They could simply surround the predators and trample them to death ending the threat once and for all. But instead it's in their nature to run away and suffer some losses. Mankind seems similar. We know who the bad apples are but just choose to ignore them, taking some losses in the process.
Think how quickly someone who *tatoos* themselves like gang members do could be eliminated. They self identify making it easy. All that's lacking is the will to eliminate them.
Buying a house used to be affordable to all. And buying is almost always better than renting. My TOTAL expenditures on mortgage/insurance/taxes for my condo is still 1000 less per month than the guy living next to me renting the same place. And I bought it in 2013. Yes, I might have moved. IN which case I"d have sold this place and made roughly 150 K.
You're obviously correct however rather than face the wrath of locked out millennials they instead convinced them that renting while living downtown was trendy and only stodgy old folks actually had a home. It worked for a decade or so. I can't speak to other states but in CA the fees have made new construction *very* expensive. Yes the land is expensive but if you drill down the fees are often >$50k.
My opinion is that oil prices will remain "low" for at least the next 3 years. The oil industry is in a steady "boom" time, oil prices don't usually go up dramatically until halfway through the "bust". And fuel economy of large vehicles is much better than it used to be. My 1/2 ton truck gets 19MPG, which is bad compared to a car but is much better than the 13MPG that the same truck got in 2008.
Moreover electric cars are reducing demand for oil. Oil output could decline and yet still there's enough supply if demand shrinks fast enough. Also as you note fuel efficiency is up overall. Demographics world wide are aging so there's less driving due to that as well. The peak oil doomsday scenarios were increased demand and dwindling supply. At this point lower supply but also lower demand looks more likely.
That's the worst you can come up with?
Trump beat that out with a single pussy grabbing tape before he was elected.
If Nixon were still alive he'd be jumping with joy at no longer being the most corrupt president.
There are scandals at a personal level and there are scandals at a larger level. Womanizers like Trump, JFK, and Bill Clinton are personal level scandals. Not good but not as corrosive as gaining / maintaining power type scandals. Nixon, as well as Obama targeting political opponents via the IRS, are the latter and are far worse in the big picture / long run. That's why Nixon was properly considered so bad.
This is a huge problem, and one that liberals in particular should have capitalized on this election cycle.
Indeed, they should have capitalized on it. But we're talking about the party that lost the white house to the man who is arguably the least qualified politician since the dawn of our democracy. The democrats are practically synonymous with "pulling failure from the jaws of victory". Being as truth doesn't get votes any more, they ended up pretty much where we expected - they now control one half of one third of the government.
When Democrats abandoned the working class (ie most people) for ever more niche groups, like transgenders, that gave them a loss. Turns out that hating white males, which is a larger group than all the gays + trans + blacks combined, won't win you elections. If you went back to a Democratic party that focused on all working people and not just the favored oppressed group of the month they would have won easily.
Obvious yet overlooked point - focusing on improving the economics for the 99% would help minorities too.
FTA: with retirement dependent almost entirely on how well they manage savings.
The people who seem to have the happiest retirements never managed their savings. They just managed to work for the government until they retire. Double points if you are in the "life and safety" group like police and fire and retire at 55 with full everything.
Or are you a social Darwinist who believes the unproductive/lazy should be allowed to just wither & die so that we breed more productive humans?
Trust fund babies disprove that approach. If you want to ensure that the next generation is productive then greatly limit inheritance and eliminate trust funds.
Ah, the old "my guy's bad but what about yours?" argument. Regardless of Hillary's sins, your guy remains a grifter.
Both are corrupt. If you want to MAGA both should be locked up, as well as a great many other politicians. That it came down to these two candidates explains a lot about why America isn't nearly as great as it used to be.
...But it is like software engineering, where if you don't take care of the technical debt in managable chunks as you go along, you end up drowning in broken unmaintainable shit and buggy hard to use product that users hate.
Because forcing people to use run-down and broken public transportation doesn't fix the problem of a systematic, long-term lack of investment in the transportation infrastructure. What fixes that is more money. Where that money comes from used to be the economic engine of the middle class, but that's pretty much gone. Where did the money go? To the 1%. So if we need money to fix problems, that's where it's going to have to come from.
If the rich had been content to be rich, life would go on as usual. But they weren't content with that. They needed to have it all while everyone else got pretty much nothing. Right now, the top 1% richest people in the US own 35% of the wealth. If you look at the top 5% of the richest people in the US, they have 62% of the wealth in the country. That's absurd. And the bottom 40% of people, the bottom half of what used to be the middle class and the poor, own less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
40% of our country collectively owns 1% of the wealth of the whole country. I get that you've got yours and fuck everyone else, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. It's not "soaking the rich" when they're so wealthy they don't know what to do with it, and we literally can't get any more money out of 40% of the population.
We are the 99% is a brilliant slogan and a great concept. Too bad the racists couldn't get past the fact that 99% includes white males, Christians, and other groups that liberals just can't stand. I can put aside my differences to work on a 99% that includes many people I disagree with. The 1% thrives by supporting the aggrieved groups that constantly choose to make it all about them instead of working together.
Slashdot Mirror
I think to me the funniest thing about gender pronouns is that the those who want to play dress up as the opposite sex *want* to be called 'they'. That's hilarious to me because it was a slur when I was in school as it implied multiple personalities. Now they ask for it, though I guess it still is multiple personalities so maybe it's the most accurate.
Given that the diameter of a silicon atom is around 0.2nm, that means they are now building transistors out of something like 30-35 atoms across. How far down can this go before it all disappears in some kind of quantum uncertainty blob?
As I understand it there are few enough atoms that allegedly Micron has named them. Not kidding.
Intel has provided microcode updates for most CPU lines.
For odd definitions of "most". Out of the 221 processors Intel have microcode updates for, 49 have updates from 2018. The rest do not.
Really it depends on which chips sell the most. The top 20 of that 221 probably account for over half the sales.
I wouldn't count psychological differences, while there are a huge amount of cultural pressures on women. The aggressive man negotiating for himself shows strength and confidence. While if a woman who does the same thing society will say they seem mean spirited and bossy.
Good call, ignore evidence and stick with the strategy of it's societies fault. Do you also still point out often and incorrectly that women make $.78 cents for every dollar a man makes?
We know who to make an example of from TFS: Scott Beaumont, Google's head of operations in China and one of the key architects of Dragonfly. Nothing a good public hanging couldn't fix. Get a couple of people above and below him too for good measure.
Plus very limited immigration and enforcing cultural norms like everyone speaks the language. Common sense stuff really but it eludes many here, especially in California.
And this is why tariffs are mostly bad. Frequently foreign competition wins because it is making a BETTER PRODUCT. This means by slapping a tariff on it you are hurting the competitiveness of all users of that product to reward the poor management of those that make it domestically.
Somehow lost in the debate is that before the income tax tariffs were a key, maybe even primary, form of paying for government. If the tariff debate were re-framed as applying to all imported goods (no exceptions!!) and the income tax being abolished for example that would be a great trade that most people could get behind.
We want interdependent economies because they increase efficiency, prevent wars, and make the world more equal.
That was the thinking behind the world not having WW1. It wasn't true then and still isn't true now.
I'm seriously considering funding a development of the wireless light switch done right - it'll behave like a regular switch but will have a mechanical actuator to flip it remotely.
I'll save you some time, it's already been done.
As for the price of this stuff, isn't the Z-Wave license fee a big part of that? Also: some jackass holds a patent on "instant notification", the idea that if you switch a light on using the wall switch, the central controller is instantly notified of the change rather than learning of it through a periodic status poll. That patent alone adds €s to the price; these days people expect that switches support that functionality.
The Z-Wave cost isn't too bad of an adder, and it's coming down. They got bought recently and that should help both the cost and performance. Z-Wave as a stack was great, as a radio it was years behind. Their new owner will fix that since Silabs makes solid radios. If I were to guess Z-Wave will be the one ring that rules them all before it's over.
Because let's be honest, a wireless light switch does not cost more than 3 bucks to produce. It just doesn't.
Actually, it just does. As someone who has been intimately involved in this area the cost is >$3. It's often >$6. And that's just the cost, not including any profit. They could focus on making something that would cost less but have no security, not unlike the one way security sensors of old. But then you'd likely complain about the lack of security ;-)
When Democrats abandoned the working class (ie most people) for ever more niche groups, like transgenders, that gave them a loss
I'm curious to know how you figure they did this. Their economic policies didn't change; the democrats are still the party that aims to reduce taxes on the 99% while the republicans still aim to reduce taxes for the top 1%. Their education policies didn't change; they still favor funding public education while the republicans still favor various "market based solutions" and other such tactics that are shown to reduce accessibility to education. What exactly do you think they did that favored "niche groups" over the working class?
Their economic policies most certainly did change. Supply and demand is a basic thing. By increasing how many H1B and other visas you increase supply. By favoring free trade you decrease job demand. You realize that Bill Clinton let China in the WTO and signed NAFTA into law. Thus we have less in real wages than in the 70s. I'll provide links, but despite all the talk about increasing productivity the reality is that most of the gains have gone to the top 1%. To be fair to the Democrats, this trend is consistent across both D and R administrations. Still, they have done exactly *nothing* to try and turn it around other than lip service about training for the new economy. Want to see Democrats that really pushed for the little guy (ie the 99%)? Think Teddy Roosevelt and breaking up trusts, which today would be more like huge corporations. Think FDR who despite his *many* faults was at least trying to do something. Think Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The Democrats were at one time the party of the little guy. No more.
Turns out that hating white males
Where did you see them doing this? What policies or proposals did you see that could be said to be aiming for that to happen?
If I say that preference will be given to women and minorities then what I have really said is that everyone other than white males will be given an advantage. That could be restated as everyone is equal but white males get penalized. Can it be more clear? In case that isn't clear enough they have run job descriptions that specifically asked for no white straight males.
Citations:
https://www.epi.org/productivi... https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... https://www.spiked-online.com/... https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu...
They tried that, but they were sure the people harming society were the Jews. I doubt your "people with tattoos" solution will be any better.
I think your error was generalizing gang members with tatoos, which are easy to spot as they literally tatoo the gang info on themselves, to all people with tatoos.
are pretty much admitting that they aren't having any effect on local crime.
Most police know who their local criminals are, and where crimes happen.
They don't have enough man-power or support to wade into a bad area and clean it up without trampling on any rights of the people in that neighborhood.
This type of AI analytics seems to just be a justification for doing more than reacting after a crime is committed.
Ever watched a nature show where a herd of something runs away from predators losing a few in the process? They could simply surround the predators and trample them to death ending the threat once and for all. But instead it's in their nature to run away and suffer some losses. Mankind seems similar. We know who the bad apples are but just choose to ignore them, taking some losses in the process.
Think how quickly someone who *tatoos* themselves like gang members do could be eliminated. They self identify making it easy. All that's lacking is the will to eliminate them.
So researchers have discovered that short term gains can come at the expense of long term success? *gasp* Say it isn't so!
To be fair many an MBA hasn't gotten this internalized so it is progress.
Buying a house used to be affordable to all. And buying is almost always better than renting. My TOTAL expenditures on mortgage/insurance/taxes for my condo is still 1000 less per month than the guy living next to me renting the same place. And I bought it in 2013. Yes, I might have moved. IN which case I"d have sold this place and made roughly 150 K.
You're obviously correct however rather than face the wrath of locked out millennials they instead convinced them that renting while living downtown was trendy and only stodgy old folks actually had a home. It worked for a decade or so. I can't speak to other states but in CA the fees have made new construction *very* expensive. Yes the land is expensive but if you drill down the fees are often >$50k.
My opinion is that oil prices will remain "low" for at least the next 3 years. The oil industry is in a steady "boom" time, oil prices don't usually go up dramatically until halfway through the "bust". And fuel economy of large vehicles is much better than it used to be. My 1/2 ton truck gets 19MPG, which is bad compared to a car but is much better than the 13MPG that the same truck got in 2008.
Moreover electric cars are reducing demand for oil. Oil output could decline and yet still there's enough supply if demand shrinks fast enough. Also as you note fuel efficiency is up overall. Demographics world wide are aging so there's less driving due to that as well. The peak oil doomsday scenarios were increased demand and dwindling supply. At this point lower supply but also lower demand looks more likely.
That's the worst you can come up with? Trump beat that out with a single pussy grabbing tape before he was elected. If Nixon were still alive he'd be jumping with joy at no longer being the most corrupt president.
There are scandals at a personal level and there are scandals at a larger level. Womanizers like Trump, JFK, and Bill Clinton are personal level scandals. Not good but not as corrosive as gaining / maintaining power type scandals. Nixon, as well as Obama targeting political opponents via the IRS, are the latter and are far worse in the big picture / long run. That's why Nixon was properly considered so bad.
This is a huge problem, and one that liberals in particular should have capitalized on this election cycle.
Indeed, they should have capitalized on it. But we're talking about the party that lost the white house to the man who is arguably the least qualified politician since the dawn of our democracy. The democrats are practically synonymous with "pulling failure from the jaws of victory". Being as truth doesn't get votes any more, they ended up pretty much where we expected - they now control one half of one third of the government.
When Democrats abandoned the working class (ie most people) for ever more niche groups, like transgenders, that gave them a loss. Turns out that hating white males, which is a larger group than all the gays + trans + blacks combined, won't win you elections. If you went back to a Democratic party that focused on all working people and not just the favored oppressed group of the month they would have won easily. Obvious yet overlooked point - focusing on improving the economics for the 99% would help minorities too.
FTA: with retirement dependent almost entirely on how well they manage savings.
The people who seem to have the happiest retirements never managed their savings. They just managed to work for the government until they retire. Double points if you are in the "life and safety" group like police and fire and retire at 55 with full everything.
Or are you a social Darwinist who believes the unproductive/lazy should be allowed to just wither & die so that we breed more productive humans?
Trust fund babies disprove that approach. If you want to ensure that the next generation is productive then greatly limit inheritance and eliminate trust funds.
Corporations don't have to be moral. Too bad for everyone.
Corporations don't have to exist either. They are a legal fiction, not a guaranteed right.
Ah, the old "my guy's bad but what about yours?" argument. Regardless of Hillary's sins, your guy remains a grifter.
Both are corrupt. If you want to MAGA both should be locked up, as well as a great many other politicians. That it came down to these two candidates explains a lot about why America isn't nearly as great as it used to be.
...But it is like software engineering, where if you don't take care of the technical debt in managable chunks as you go along, you end up drowning in broken unmaintainable shit and buggy hard to use product that users hate.
That explains the California freeways.
The passengers arrive within in 2 days for Prime members. Sometimes 1 day if you order enough qualifying items.
Because forcing people to use run-down and broken public transportation doesn't fix the problem of a systematic, long-term lack of investment in the transportation infrastructure. What fixes that is more money. Where that money comes from used to be the economic engine of the middle class, but that's pretty much gone. Where did the money go? To the 1%. So if we need money to fix problems, that's where it's going to have to come from.
If the rich had been content to be rich, life would go on as usual. But they weren't content with that. They needed to have it all while everyone else got pretty much nothing. Right now, the top 1% richest people in the US own 35% of the wealth. If you look at the top 5% of the richest people in the US, they have 62% of the wealth in the country. That's absurd. And the bottom 40% of people, the bottom half of what used to be the middle class and the poor, own less than 1% of the wealth in the country.
40% of our country collectively owns 1% of the wealth of the whole country. I get that you've got yours and fuck everyone else, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. It's not "soaking the rich" when they're so wealthy they don't know what to do with it, and we literally can't get any more money out of 40% of the population.
We are the 99% is a brilliant slogan and a great concept. Too bad the racists couldn't get past the fact that 99% includes white males, Christians, and other groups that liberals just can't stand. I can put aside my differences to work on a 99% that includes many people I disagree with. The 1% thrives by supporting the aggrieved groups that constantly choose to make it all about them instead of working together.