So Musk promised more Model 3's than he ended up delivering, and bigger SpaceX rockets and spacecraft than he ended up delivering, but I still don't see the competition quite catching up. The rockets that he did deliver still dominate the launch market and manage to land their first stages ass-first, intact. So it's not like Elon is all fake, instead it's all about managing expectations. The guy promises you a city on Mars next year, and delivers only a village on the Moon five years late, while all the others give you a hut in Alaska.
So, on one hand we have people who believe that Utopia is impossible, and on the other we have people who believe that creating Utopia is the highest (perhaps only) moral priority. The first group believes the second group is deluded in their belief that Utopia is possible; the second group believes the first group is immoral for opposing their efforts to create one at any cost.
Last time I checked, conservatives (at least those in Congress and in the WH) believed that a health care system that's twice as expensive per capita as every other civilised country's and failed to insure a large group of people was the best thing you can have, and they believed that increased defense spending and further tax cuts for the rich, starting from a historically low base, would lower the national debt.
do not enable wifi, do not connect cat-5, do not collect internet. it's that simple. if it worked out of the box, and can't get to the bad things, it should not become corrupted.
One problem with that is that even the "dumb" functions like, say, switching the TV channel, are implemented like shit on "Smart TVs" these days. On Samsung TVs it can literally take you 10 seconds to switch to another channel because the onscreen UI is such a monumentally slow piece of crap. So you have to use an external tuner too, preferably one with a decent UI and remote/app and speech recognition or something because tapping buttons may have worked decently 30 years ago when you had like 5 TV stations, but it's definitely not the best way to choose from 50+ cable channels. I'm not even sure whether something like this exists. Maybe we'll have to tough it out until absolutely everything can be streamed over the net, where people tend to build somewhat less sucky user interfaces.
There is NO PASSENGER-CARRYING AIRCRAFT certified anywhere in the world that hasn't been proven to survive a power off
If they lose power over the middle of the Pacific, everybody will drown. Still there are aircraft being certified to fly there. So the certification in that case is based not on the survivability of a "power off", but on its (un)likeliness.
There is this "extreme programming" rule that a program should be written twice (starting from scratch both times) because you need the first version to gain a good understanding of the problem domain, which you can then utilize in the second version to actually produce a proper implementation, which will end up being much cleaner than if you had tried to use your deeper understanding of the problem to refactor the first version (in which case the code you're starting from would constrain your thinking too much). So just stop complaining and start over, and you'll end up being glad that you lost the first version.
Oh, and in the future, he might still want to use backups and proper version control.:P
A person who is not a white male will absolutely get paid attention to almost immediately.
That's true when discussing being stopped by police.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century. However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
You deduced from the guy's memo that he's an "alt-rightist" and a "Trumpist"? How the hell did you do that? Did you even read the thing? You can't always choose whose "hero" you become, nor should you. I literally am as anti-Trump as you can get (and I'm white and male too), but I value science (that's one of many reasons to be anti-Trump), and all the guy said was that there are biological differences between the sexes (and that's statistical differences, not differences between all individuals, a fact that he pointed out explicitly and elaborately), and that those differences probably explain why we don't have 50% women in all tech jobs, even in the absence of any real obstacles. And he concluded that it might make little sense to try to artificially raise that number above such a "natural" limit. You may debate the conclusions (which are essentially policy proposals), but you can't reasonably debate his facts; the whole memo cites numerous scientific papers on the subject and largely reads more like a paper itself rather than just an opinion piece. Four of the scientists he quoted have responded by now,
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production. Humans at current population and technology levels can handle getting warmer a lot better that we can handle getting colder.
And looking down the road at technology mitigating it, pretty sure it's easier to cool the earth on a global scale than it is warming it up.
Nuclear winter FTW!
We're kinda adapted to current temperature levels. For example, we've built our coastal cities where the coasts are currently, not where they would be if sea levels were a few meters higher.
"The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years"
Ok, and there were glaciers down to what like Ohio less than 10,000 years ago. Pretty sure humans had nothing to do with the warming of the last 9900 years, where is the evidence that we affected the last 100 years of warming?
It's in the report. And in many other reports. You're simply saying that because there's natural warming, there can't be man-made warming. Are you also saying that because there's natural fires, there can't be man-made fires?
Yeah I realize that and I'm all for it, but wouldn't they still decide this on a case-by-case basis? And wouldn't the decision be taken by qualified personnel rather than the president? (and yes I know the decision to allow trans people in the military in the first place was taken by the (previous) president too)
A video advocating violence against a news organisation from the head of the executive branch is highly problematic. I just don't see why it would matter who created the video originally. Who cares what memes a random Reddit user creates, and what his identity is? The real problem here is the President, and his identity is already known.
If the Democrats had publicly opposed regulation, taxes and state-run company restructurings, Trump would be nationalizing banks and proposing soviet-style five-year plans right now just to "win" against Obama.
No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else.
If you want a two tiered immigration system that only caters to the rich, win an election. I think the majority of the country is fed up with two sets of rules depending on how much money you have or how high up your contacts in the government are.
Strange. Isn't catering to the rich all the Republicans do these days? That's what "trickle down" is all about, right?
I hope they quit supporting the idea of every nut job having a gun.
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
We do prevent "nut jobs" from having automobiles. Even take them away from people if they've demonstrated a fundamental inability to use them responsibly. There is no constitutional amendment allowing everyone to drive a car.
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known.
Did Michael Flynn resign or not?
Flynn was fired for not telling the whole truth to Pence. Apparently Flynn didn't fully disclose his foreign financial dealings as required and may pay the price for his omissions. However, other than a side show, how does Flynn's mess reflect directly onto Trump or his administration? They canned him when they became aware of the problem,
No. They kept him in charge when they became aware of the problem and only fired him after it was leaked to the press.
what else would you suggest they should have done? They made a mistake and hired the wrong guy (who was approved by the Senate by the way, including democratic votes) and let him go when the mistake became known. Obama hired this guy too you recall....
I recall that Obama fired this guy, and warned Trump about him.
LOL.. Ever heard of a "pull quote" and know what a "sound bite" is?
Look, If Trump *really* fired Comey to stop an investigation into something, it was a really, really stupid blundering attempt to do so and would have been obviously doomed to failure.
Exactly. It was stupid.
If you hold Trump in *that* much distain and think he is *really* that stupid and clueless, I don't see how you can believe he would be smart enough to be colluding with the Russians to throw the election,
If you want to hear my take: He's not. People in his team "colluded", Trump did not, because indeed he'd be too stupid to pull it off. Look at how he inadvertently boasts about state secrets in front of foreign officials/ex-spies without even realising it. He's really giddy that the grownups told him so many secrets things, and he can't stop telling everyone about it. The guy is a child.
If you really think Trump did NOT fire Comey because of "the Russia thing", you have to present a plausible alternative theory. There is none. And btw., this doesn't mean that he himself was involved in the collusion, it just means he can't stand any bad press or anyone not praising him constantly. He wanted the whole thing gone. The fact that he thought firing Comey would achieve that is another testament to his stupidity.
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known.
People actually believed that fan fiction and upvoted this?
I wouldn't have believed until a few days ago that Trump would like to talk to Kim Jong Un not because he wants to avert a war but because HE ACTUALLY ADMIRES HIM (just like he admires other strongmen like Putin, Erdogan, Duerte). But that's exactly what he does. I've always been as anti-Trump as it gets. But even I am still thinking too conventional when it comes to Trump. Too rational, too strategic. Whenever you believed Trump was doing something out of strategic consideration or rational insight, chances are you'd be proven wrong at some point. You tend to assume that Trump would make decisions like normal politicians or just normal reasonable adults do, and you tend to be proven wrong. Trump is making decisions like an eight year old, fawning over friends and hating "bad people". He can be talked into and out of things in ten minutes and he believes whatever adult he's last spoken to.
So yeah, you'd assume he didn't do that thing in the Moscow hotel bed, because adults don't do such things. And then, you might be proven wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful posting targeted by weaponized moderation detected. Mod the parent up, please.
So Musk promised more Model 3's than he ended up delivering, and bigger SpaceX rockets and spacecraft than he ended up delivering, but I still don't see the competition quite catching up. The rockets that he did deliver still dominate the launch market and manage to land their first stages ass-first, intact. So it's not like Elon is all fake, instead it's all about managing expectations. The guy promises you a city on Mars next year, and delivers only a village on the Moon five years late, while all the others give you a hut in Alaska.
So, on one hand we have people who believe that Utopia is impossible, and on the other we have people who believe that creating Utopia is the highest (perhaps only) moral priority. The first group believes the second group is deluded in their belief that Utopia is possible; the second group believes the first group is immoral for opposing their efforts to create one at any cost.
Last time I checked, conservatives (at least those in Congress and in the WH) believed that a health care system that's twice as expensive per capita as every other civilised country's and failed to insure a large group of people was the best thing you can have, and they believed that increased defense spending and further tax cuts for the rich, starting from a historically low base, would lower the national debt.
So who is into Utopias here?
I'd need to see your sources on Middle Age and Stone Age homicide rates.
https://youtu.be/ramBFRt1Uzk
There are other (original) sources of course, but this one is pretty comprehensible.
Humanity always results in war.
Homicide rates have come down 90% since the middle ages, 95% since the stone age. Those were humans back then too. They were just like us at birth.
do not enable wifi, do not connect cat-5, do not collect internet. it's that simple. if it worked out of the box, and can't get to the bad things, it should not become corrupted.
One problem with that is that even the "dumb" functions like, say, switching the TV channel, are implemented like shit on "Smart TVs" these days. On Samsung TVs it can literally take you 10 seconds to switch to another channel because the onscreen UI is such a monumentally slow piece of crap. So you have to use an external tuner too, preferably one with a decent UI and remote/app and speech recognition or something because tapping buttons may have worked decently 30 years ago when you had like 5 TV stations, but it's definitely not the best way to choose from 50+ cable channels. I'm not even sure whether something like this exists. Maybe we'll have to tough it out until absolutely everything can be streamed over the net, where people tend to build somewhat less sucky user interfaces.
There is NO PASSENGER-CARRYING AIRCRAFT certified anywhere in the world that hasn't been proven to survive a power off
If they lose power over the middle of the Pacific, everybody will drown. Still there are aircraft being certified to fly there. So the certification in that case is based not on the survivability of a "power off", but on its (un)likeliness.
There is this "extreme programming" rule that a program should be written twice (starting from scratch both times) because you need the first version to gain a good understanding of the problem domain, which you can then utilize in the second version to actually produce a proper implementation, which will end up being much cleaner than if you had tried to use your deeper understanding of the problem to refactor the first version (in which case the code you're starting from would constrain your thinking too much). So just stop complaining and start over, and you'll end up being glad that you lost the first version. Oh, and in the future, he might still want to use backups and proper version control. :P
That's true when discussing being stopped by police.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century. However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
You deduced from the guy's memo that he's an "alt-rightist" and a "Trumpist"? How the hell did you do that? Did you even read the thing? You can't always choose whose "hero" you become, nor should you. I literally am as anti-Trump as you can get (and I'm white and male too), but I value science (that's one of many reasons to be anti-Trump), and all the guy said was that there are biological differences between the sexes (and that's statistical differences, not differences between all individuals, a fact that he pointed out explicitly and elaborately), and that those differences probably explain why we don't have 50% women in all tech jobs, even in the absence of any real obstacles. And he concluded that it might make little sense to try to artificially raise that number above such a "natural" limit. You may debate the conclusions (which are essentially policy proposals), but you can't reasonably debate his facts; the whole memo cites numerous scientific papers on the subject and largely reads more like a paper itself rather than just an opinion piece. Four of the scientists he quoted have responded by now,
The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond
that should tell you something. I'm pretty sure Trump has never read a scientific paper in his whole life, nor does he want to and care about it.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production. Humans at current population and technology levels can handle getting warmer a lot better that we can handle getting colder.
And looking down the road at technology mitigating it, pretty sure it's easier to cool the earth on a global scale than it is warming it up.
Nuclear winter FTW!
We're kinda adapted to current temperature levels. For example, we've built our coastal cities where the coasts are currently, not where they would be if sea levels were a few meters higher.
"The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years"
Ok, and there were glaciers down to what like Ohio less than 10,000 years ago. Pretty sure humans had nothing to do with the warming of the last 9900 years, where is the evidence that we affected the last 100 years of warming?
It's in the report. And in many other reports. You're simply saying that because there's natural warming, there can't be man-made warming. Are you also saying that because there's natural fires, there can't be man-made fires?
Well, when an aircraft crashed, you never had to evacuate and cordon off 2,000 square miles around the crash site for the next 50 years.
Nuclear energy is really only good for one thing.
I think the Russkies once had a plan to power turbines with hydrogen bombs or something like that.
You do realize there's a huge list of disqualifying medical conditions for serving in the military:
http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html
Yeah I realize that and I'm all for it, but wouldn't they still decide this on a case-by-case basis? And wouldn't the decision be taken by qualified personnel rather than the president? (and yes I know the decision to allow trans people in the military in the first place was taken by the (previous) president too)
If medical costs are the issue, are they going to ban all people with chronic diseases too?
A video advocating violence against a news organisation from the head of the executive branch is highly problematic. I just don't see why it would matter who created the video originally. Who cares what memes a random Reddit user creates, and what his identity is? The real problem here is the President, and his identity is already known.
If the Democrats had publicly opposed regulation, taxes and state-run company restructurings, Trump would be nationalizing banks and proposing soviet-style five-year plans right now just to "win" against Obama.
No, it is 30 (+30) month visas for people with $250,000, nothing else. If you want a two tiered immigration system that only caters to the rich, win an election. I think the majority of the country is fed up with two sets of rules depending on how much money you have or how high up your contacts in the government are.
Strange. Isn't catering to the rich all the Republicans do these days? That's what "trickle down" is all about, right?
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
We do prevent "nut jobs" from having automobiles. Even take them away from people if they've demonstrated a fundamental inability to use them responsibly. There is no constitutional amendment allowing everyone to drive a car.
Because plutonium is safer than carbon?
If Trump wanted to replace coal with nuclear, he could've stuck with the agreement. The nuclear industry was massively in favor of it.
There is no reason to fire Comey?
No, there is no alternative theory why TRUMP would've fired him, at the point in time when he did. Trump doesn't care about "reasons".
For example...
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known.
Did Michael Flynn resign or not?
Flynn was fired for not telling the whole truth to Pence. Apparently Flynn didn't fully disclose his foreign financial dealings as required and may pay the price for his omissions. However, other than a side show, how does Flynn's mess reflect directly onto Trump or his administration? They canned him when they became aware of the problem,
No. They kept him in charge when they became aware of the problem and only fired him after it was leaked to the press.
what else would you suggest they should have done? They made a mistake and hired the wrong guy (who was approved by the Senate by the way, including democratic votes) and let him go when the mistake became known. Obama hired this guy too you recall....
I recall that Obama fired this guy, and warned Trump about him.
LOL.. Ever heard of a "pull quote" and know what a "sound bite" is?
Look, If Trump *really* fired Comey to stop an investigation into something, it was a really, really stupid blundering attempt to do so and would have been obviously doomed to failure.
Exactly. It was stupid.
If you hold Trump in *that* much distain and think he is *really* that stupid and clueless, I don't see how you can believe he would be smart enough to be colluding with the Russians to throw the election,
If you want to hear my take: He's not. People in his team "colluded", Trump did not, because indeed he'd be too stupid to pull it off. Look at how he inadvertently boasts about state secrets in front of foreign officials/ex-spies without even realising it. He's really giddy that the grownups told him so many secrets things, and he can't stop telling everyone about it. The guy is a child.
If you really think Trump did NOT fire Comey because of "the Russia thing", you have to present a plausible alternative theory. There is none. And btw., this doesn't mean that he himself was involved in the collusion, it just means he can't stand any bad press or anyone not praising him constantly. He wanted the whole thing gone. The fact that he thought firing Comey would achieve that is another testament to his stupidity.
For example...
Russian Collusion..... Do you think it actually happened? If you think "yes", Chances are you are anti-Trump. However, after 10 months, we have no evidence of this when you look at what's actually known.
Did Michael Flynn resign or not?
The piss on the Moscow hotel bed Obama slept in.
People actually believed that fan fiction and upvoted this?
I wouldn't have believed until a few days ago that Trump would like to talk to Kim Jong Un not because he wants to avert a war but because HE ACTUALLY ADMIRES HIM (just like he admires other strongmen like Putin, Erdogan, Duerte). But that's exactly what he does. I've always been as anti-Trump as it gets. But even I am still thinking too conventional when it comes to Trump. Too rational, too strategic. Whenever you believed Trump was doing something out of strategic consideration or rational insight, chances are you'd be proven wrong at some point. You tend to assume that Trump would make decisions like normal politicians or just normal reasonable adults do, and you tend to be proven wrong. Trump is making decisions like an eight year old, fawning over friends and hating "bad people". He can be talked into and out of things in ten minutes and he believes whatever adult he's last spoken to.
So yeah, you'd assume he didn't do that thing in the Moscow hotel bed, because adults don't do such things. And then, you might be proven wrong.