Right, but the price of failure is not "You have died of dysentery". There is some chance the car could crash, but it's less than the risk of a human driver crashing a car on a sleep-deprived long drive. It's not even "crashing this plane with no survivors". It would take deliberate malfeasance to make a self-driving car more dangerous than one piloted by your average human. (I don't care what race drivers can do, because very few of us will ever get there.)
Even the Wright brothers risked death or serious injury from the machinery itself (hand-starting an engine is hazardous), more than from the ten foot drop if it should fall out of the air.
Self-driving works the vast majority of the time. How many attempts were made (by him and/or others) that we're not hearing about because they had to be aborted? Just doing it once is not exactly Lewis & Clark territory here.
No, you should be glad you did it the way you did. The price you paid for that SSD is going to hold you over until this stuff or at least something better than current SSDs reaches the market. If you need hardware now, you need hardware now. It doesn't matter what's coming down the pipeline in five or ten years.
Everything Verizon touches eventually turns to shit. Newgrounds has spun up some more servers to take up the exodus of lewd artists and their fans, which they were prepared to do because they saw this coming a few weeks ago, when accounts started getting nuked. Although they were deemed "accidents" and reinstated, the common thread among all of them was that they had the adult tag on. There was a brief, half-hearted migration then, so when it was announced that Tumblr really was going to shoot itself in the foot, Newgrounds (and presumably DeviantArt as well) got ready for a flood of new users, and today they started showing up.
No, there's a formula to making movie trailers. That's why they all look about equally appealing, but prove not to be when actually viewed: it's easy to make an excerpt that makes you look good, and practically every movie has enough material to do so. This doesn't necessarily translate into having enough to sustain interest for two hours, though.
News pieces are sensationalized, which is not the same as "being cool". It's much more akin to clickbait.
Advertising is not the same either. Very few, if any, companies make ONE ad and run it around the world. At the very least, they make localizations, but usually there are multiple ads for the same company running in the same market at the same time, each one aimed at a different demographic.
People don't like knowingly being told what is cool and what isn't. I mean when it's a friend or even a complete stranger saying "check this out, it's cool", that's all well and good (provided it actually is, and not a rickroll). A friend knows your tastes to some degree. A stranger can assume some things about you by where you are and how you're dressed and such. YouTube can't do any of these things, because they're only making one video, aimed at billions of people.
And that would be a best case scenario, where YouTube really does just want to promote what's cool. However, it is incredibly obvious that what they really want to promote is advertiser-friendly content, much of which is quite good, while silently glossing over the parts they don't like. Unfortunately for them, the parts they don't like are the parts their various viewing populations do like. This is why television could only be cool in small batches, the world is simply too big to all have the same tastes.
Well they would, at the very least, have to remove the packaging to determine the extent of the damage. Once they've taken the expense to do that, why shouldn't they just repackage the viable ones? You still get no donation, they aren't going to give out anything with visible damage or known invisible hazards like mold spores.
This same company was held liable when kids got sick because the Chinese supplier switched from the specified material to a cheaper one without admitting it, so their legal department is constantly running around like their hair is on fire. When there isn't something to do, they invent it.
I'll go with greed as an explanation for the toy company too. I mean, let's look at this Machiavelli style. There are two options:
1. You get $3 in insurance money for a damaged widget, provided it is completely written off.
OR
2. You only get $2 if you give it away and claim a $1 value for the donation, and $0 is not an option (for lots of accounting reasons). Every kid that gets a donated toy now is guaranteed not to need to buy one new. Whether they would have is irrelevant in this line of thought, because even the slimmest margin beats "not happening".
You take the $3 and deprive the kid, because you don't care about the kid, you only care about whether or not you can tap him for money.
Thank you for being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. I was not in a position to change their policies, although I did clue them into using laser rangefinders to count the number of stacks between two points, greatly reducing the time required to do inventory audits.
Then they wouldn't be "destroyed" and they wouldn't get full insurance value for them. Also, they're super-paranoid someone will sue over mold-induced sickness.
If you can't see something before buying, the only way to comparison shop is to buy one of everything you're considering, and send back all the ones you don't want. I've done this with musical instruments and parts thereof, where this is actually expected practice (to the point where they don't charge immediately, as they expect most of it back). They'd rather support what I'm trying to do, make one shipment to me, and get one shipment back. Prior to such policies being implemented, people often would buy and exchange multiple times to get what they wanted.
For example, if I wanted to buy a Chibson (which I don't, I do think counterfeiting logos is a bridge too far -- but if they'd stop doing that I'd be fine with leftover Epiphone parts being assembled and sold as some other brand Les Paul, because that name has moved from company to company in the past), I would probably order three or maybe more to make it likely I'll get a good one. On the chance that there are multiple good ones, I'd order them in a variety of colors so I'd have a tie breaker based on looks. This means I could be sending back a perfectly nice instrument, if I found another one I like slightly better. I generally perform the courtesy of letting them know which of the returns are good and which are crap, since they don't have a problem with good items being returned. They've built it into their business model at this point. It looks like Amazon has too.
Wrong weight? Wrong type of hammer (they wanted a peen and got a claw, for example)? The handle doesn't fit their hand? It has a sound they find particularly disagreeable (which might not bother other people)? They whacked themselves on the thumb and decided to blame the hammer? They actually needed a spark-free hammer? I can think of a lot of reasons people might return a perfectly functional hammer.
I know of a toy company that destroys all products whose packaging gets wet, out of mold fears. Taking the toys out of the packaging to give them away costs more than the toys are worth, since they can no longer be written off at MSRP, so instead they crush and shred them. Sometimes destroying no-longer-new (hard to call something unpackaged at the warehouse "used") items is cheaper than reselling them.
You're assuming that just because they don't have the latest fab tech (because it will be expensive and large), that they can't do reasonably well with older, larger-process tech for which the machines are smaller and likely being dumped by commercial entities.
And when you say "a long time", who cares? If you're positing an 86,000 year journey, what's another few hundred or even few thousand before leaving?
2. and 3. are both subject to drift, which is exactly what we're trying to solve, so they're right out. 4. probably fails for political reasons, although I'm sure the National Weather Service would love it.
Right now, making something that lasts 86 millennia is out of our capabilities, but it would be foolish to assume it always will be. I'd argue that (assuming we survive long enough) any spacefaring civilization is going to set up shop on places (like inside asteroids) that would be just as well served with their own power source to replace the sun. Those asteroids have been there billions of years, so they're "proven space-worthy".
Say we have a self-sufficient colony on a 100 meter asteroid that decides they want to just wander the system and possibly beyond by strapping motors to their rock, collecting smaller objects as they go for raw materials and fuel. Unless they make a habit of buzzing other inhabited objects and jumping claims, I doubt that anyone is going to stop them, and they may reach a point where they don't absolutely require being near any star, at which point the travel time between them becomes less of an obstacle. So if it even reaches "long shot" status, ordinarily not enough to get a society to unite behind something, it may still happen by acts of sufficiently motivated groups that have nothing to lose.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why you shoot a man before throwing him out of an airplane.
Right, but the price of failure is not "You have died of dysentery". There is some chance the car could crash, but it's less than the risk of a human driver crashing a car on a sleep-deprived long drive. It's not even "crashing this plane with no survivors". It would take deliberate malfeasance to make a self-driving car more dangerous than one piloted by your average human. (I don't care what race drivers can do, because very few of us will ever get there.)
Even the Wright brothers risked death or serious injury from the machinery itself (hand-starting an engine is hazardous), more than from the ten foot drop if it should fall out of the air.
Riiiight. That's why Amazon is building massive data centers in Virginia to feed the appetite of the Federal government, and YOU'RE NOT.
If all you're doing is producing meme-worthy mashups from existing photos online, who cares if they mine them?
I tossed this together in five minutes, with some fairly minor editing to remove one blob remove.bg left in.
Self-driving works the vast majority of the time. How many attempts were made (by him and/or others) that we're not hearing about because they had to be aborted? Just doing it once is not exactly Lewis & Clark territory here.
No, you should be glad you did it the way you did. The price you paid for that SSD is going to hold you over until this stuff or at least something better than current SSDs reaches the market. If you need hardware now, you need hardware now. It doesn't matter what's coming down the pipeline in five or ten years.
Everything Verizon touches eventually turns to shit. Newgrounds has spun up some more servers to take up the exodus of lewd artists and their fans, which they were prepared to do because they saw this coming a few weeks ago, when accounts started getting nuked. Although they were deemed "accidents" and reinstated, the common thread among all of them was that they had the adult tag on. There was a brief, half-hearted migration then, so when it was announced that Tumblr really was going to shoot itself in the foot, Newgrounds (and presumably DeviantArt as well) got ready for a flood of new users, and today they started showing up.
Well, when you think about it, why should a genie have a belly button?
No, there's a formula to making movie trailers. That's why they all look about equally appealing, but prove not to be when actually viewed: it's easy to make an excerpt that makes you look good, and practically every movie has enough material to do so. This doesn't necessarily translate into having enough to sustain interest for two hours, though.
News pieces are sensationalized, which is not the same as "being cool". It's much more akin to clickbait.
Advertising is not the same either. Very few, if any, companies make ONE ad and run it around the world. At the very least, they make localizations, but usually there are multiple ads for the same company running in the same market at the same time, each one aimed at a different demographic.
People don't like knowingly being told what is cool and what isn't. I mean when it's a friend or even a complete stranger saying "check this out, it's cool", that's all well and good (provided it actually is, and not a rickroll). A friend knows your tastes to some degree. A stranger can assume some things about you by where you are and how you're dressed and such. YouTube can't do any of these things, because they're only making one video, aimed at billions of people.
And that would be a best case scenario, where YouTube really does just want to promote what's cool. However, it is incredibly obvious that what they really want to promote is advertiser-friendly content, much of which is quite good, while silently glossing over the parts they don't like. Unfortunately for them, the parts they don't like are the parts their various viewing populations do like. This is why television could only be cool in small batches, the world is simply too big to all have the same tastes.
You could fork Ook to use whatever word you want.
P.S. The company is not Disney, although their legal department operates pretty much the same way.
Well they would, at the very least, have to remove the packaging to determine the extent of the damage. Once they've taken the expense to do that, why shouldn't they just repackage the viable ones? You still get no donation, they aren't going to give out anything with visible damage or known invisible hazards like mold spores.
This same company was held liable when kids got sick because the Chinese supplier switched from the specified material to a cheaper one without admitting it, so their legal department is constantly running around like their hair is on fire. When there isn't something to do, they invent it.
I'll go with greed as an explanation for the toy company too. I mean, let's look at this Machiavelli style. There are two options:
1. You get $3 in insurance money for a damaged widget, provided it is completely written off.
OR
2. You only get $2 if you give it away and claim a $1 value for the donation, and $0 is not an option (for lots of accounting reasons). Every kid that gets a donated toy now is guaranteed not to need to buy one new. Whether they would have is irrelevant in this line of thought, because even the slimmest margin beats "not happening".
You take the $3 and deprive the kid, because you don't care about the kid, you only care about whether or not you can tap him for money.
And people wonder why capitalism is sick.
Thank you for being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. I was not in a position to change their policies, although I did clue them into using laser rangefinders to count the number of stacks between two points, greatly reducing the time required to do inventory audits.
Then they wouldn't be "destroyed" and they wouldn't get full insurance value for them. Also, they're super-paranoid someone will sue over mold-induced sickness.
Simply put: there are almost certainly people who aren't going to like living in the Matrix. Perhaps they'll be allowed to leave peacefully.
If you can't see something before buying, the only way to comparison shop is to buy one of everything you're considering, and send back all the ones you don't want. I've done this with musical instruments and parts thereof, where this is actually expected practice (to the point where they don't charge immediately, as they expect most of it back). They'd rather support what I'm trying to do, make one shipment to me, and get one shipment back. Prior to such policies being implemented, people often would buy and exchange multiple times to get what they wanted.
For example, if I wanted to buy a Chibson (which I don't, I do think counterfeiting logos is a bridge too far -- but if they'd stop doing that I'd be fine with leftover Epiphone parts being assembled and sold as some other brand Les Paul, because that name has moved from company to company in the past), I would probably order three or maybe more to make it likely I'll get a good one. On the chance that there are multiple good ones, I'd order them in a variety of colors so I'd have a tie breaker based on looks. This means I could be sending back a perfectly nice instrument, if I found another one I like slightly better. I generally perform the courtesy of letting them know which of the returns are good and which are crap, since they don't have a problem with good items being returned. They've built it into their business model at this point. It looks like Amazon has too.
Wrong weight? Wrong type of hammer (they wanted a peen and got a claw, for example)? The handle doesn't fit their hand? It has a sound they find particularly disagreeable (which might not bother other people)? They whacked themselves on the thumb and decided to blame the hammer? They actually needed a spark-free hammer? I can think of a lot of reasons people might return a perfectly functional hammer.
I know of a toy company that destroys all products whose packaging gets wet, out of mold fears. Taking the toys out of the packaging to give them away costs more than the toys are worth, since they can no longer be written off at MSRP, so instead they crush and shred them. Sometimes destroying no-longer-new (hard to call something unpackaged at the warehouse "used") items is cheaper than reselling them.
You're assuming that just because they don't have the latest fab tech (because it will be expensive and large), that they can't do reasonably well with older, larger-process tech for which the machines are smaller and likely being dumped by commercial entities.
And when you say "a long time", who cares? If you're positing an 86,000 year journey, what's another few hundred or even few thousand before leaving?
2. and 3. are both subject to drift, which is exactly what we're trying to solve, so they're right out. 4. probably fails for political reasons, although I'm sure the National Weather Service would love it.
Right now, making something that lasts 86 millennia is out of our capabilities, but it would be foolish to assume it always will be. I'd argue that (assuming we survive long enough) any spacefaring civilization is going to set up shop on places (like inside asteroids) that would be just as well served with their own power source to replace the sun. Those asteroids have been there billions of years, so they're "proven space-worthy".
Say we have a self-sufficient colony on a 100 meter asteroid that decides they want to just wander the system and possibly beyond by strapping motors to their rock, collecting smaller objects as they go for raw materials and fuel. Unless they make a habit of buzzing other inhabited objects and jumping claims, I doubt that anyone is going to stop them, and they may reach a point where they don't absolutely require being near any star, at which point the travel time between them becomes less of an obstacle. So if it even reaches "long shot" status, ordinarily not enough to get a society to unite behind something, it may still happen by acts of sufficiently motivated groups that have nothing to lose.
I agree that this should be standard functionality. I was just pointing out that there's a whole class of products devoted to solving this problem.