I'm very happy with my sex life, but thanks for going straight for the strawman and ad hominem all-in-one.
You may very well be happy with your own sex life, but you were the one who threw "sounds like addiction" on the table in response to a quite positive post about someone else's sex life, which indicates 100% clearly that you are sans clue and paddle with regard to the sex lives of others.
Feel free to protest all you want. You're still wrong.
We certainly can. Tube preamplifier and power amplifier designs almost always suffer from higher noise levels, more pronounced THD, and less dynamic range as compared to more modern semiconductor-based designs. Also, at the actual audio high end, digital completely rules when maximum fidelity is the goal.
On the other hand, tube heaters (and indirectly heater-excited cathodes, when present) glow in the dark. There's just no way around that one.
Plus, tube gets a little gassy... now you likely have purple glow in the dark going on.
That sounds more like an addiction instead of genuinely, fully enjoying that all the way through and just happening to take that amount of time
Honestly, that is hilarious. I had to put my coffee down. You literally have no idea what you're saying. Addiction... for indulging in a basic human need. Good grief. You really need to find a new metaphor for people doing things they enjoy and likely do well.
My advice is to put a lot of effort into losing the psychobabble (also put down the cellphone[s] if that's where you and/or yours are spending significant amounts of time) and put some real effort into romance. Then perhaps you'll also get to participate in one of the most enjoyable, life-affirming, relationship-cementing activities out there at a rate higher than "I think we did that last month, didn't we?"
If not, you need a new partner. Or a partner, period.
Tip: Even if you're really busy, you both have to eat... and even meals can be romantic. Put some effort into it. Offhand / surface approaches aren't the way to go here. In a long-term relationship, when someone really feels cherished, that tends to work out really, really well. Tell your partner how you feel. Figure out how they feel. Proactively address their needs and desires. "Too tired" really means "too lazy, already wasted my free time on something other than you." At which point you deserve what you get. Which may be very little indeed.
Certainly seems reasonable. On the other hand, this is the company that completely missed the brass ring WRT the Alexa interface, so it's not like they don't make mistakes...:)
[IMHO, first company to put a LAN-competent Alexa-like on the market will win the endgame, and will win double if it actually uses AI instead of canned phrasing.]
So... if the whole thing crashed and the inventory is randomized and unreachable during Christmas time... that would suck.... I can hear it now, "Has anyone found the PS5 bin yet??"
Just put a physically printed barcode in a visible slot on the front of the bin when a part is assigned to it.
Now the entire warehouse can be re-indexed if needed by robots running up and down the aisles (or equivalent), just looking at the bins and reporting in to the management system.
Probably not a bad idea to do this on a fairly regular basis anyway. Just in case people got in there and screwed things up somehow.
In this context, popular items are better, in that access to them is more efficient, if they are more easily accessed.
However, popularity is not a stable metric.
So things that used to be popular but are no longer so would be better moved to a higher effort access, while things that are presently popular would be better moved to, or placed in, more efficiently accessed areas. This should increase efficiency, and is essentially equivalent to defragmenting because item packing based on an associated characteristic is going on.
Putting popular things next to other popular things has a benefit; putting all the popular things close to the package assembly point also has a benefit. You can also put more robots in the popular area, and fewer in the less popular areas. Less distance to travel means faster and more efficient response. Robots closer to where they are needed means faster and more efficient response.
That being the case we (as a society) should stop supporting breeding (automatic food stamps, etc... for poor breeders).
No. Doesn't follow. The only reason people should suffer is if they must suffer. If we can make it so that no one suffers, we should do so.
In the above case, I don't want to suffer with a lousy meal; they don't want to suffer without income; neither is a "must", and so that's where I'd prefer we set our goals. Why be the cause of suffering?
Here's an idea. Pay women to get their tubes tied. (It can be reversed when they get the money to do so.)
I have no objection to ladies getting their tubes tied, or to men getting their tubes tied. That's just a matter of personal, consensual choice on their part. However, I'd want to see the cost-benefit analysis before I got behind paying them to do so. Right now, the wealth imbalance is so incredibly skewed that I don't think we have anything even close to an accurate picture of "how many is too many" people.
A cocaine binge and back on the street isn't an option.)
Why not? As long as no once forces them to make that choice, again, I have no problem with it. The reason you give people money -- a general medium of exchange -- is so they can do what they feel advances their interests. If you want to give them a house, then just give them a house. But I think this would be a mistake. If they really want to hit the party circuit and follow a path that lands them in an alley, they'll just sell the house anyway, or rent it to like-minded types, etc. Might as well have just given them the money. After all, their tubes are tied, and that was the goal anyway, if I understand your suggestion.
With automation we have too many f**king people on this planet.
Again, doesn't follow. Either we have too many people, or we don't. Automation of more or less everything means, for those who are taken care of, that the people will be doing things that are not tied to a life of drudge work. The right number is the number that can be healthy and happy. It has nothing inherent to do with the number of drudge work roles available that isn't an artifact of the current situation, which will not be in place that much longer anyway.
Aside from coping with the illusions brought on by some rather silly attitudes that have been inculcated into them, no one actually needs to work. That's just propaganda. For instance, I'm not working for anyone. I'm happy as a clam, and have zero trouble filling my days and nights. This is because I recognize that my self-worth has no inherent connection to drudge work. There's lots of automation in my life, and there will be a lot more as it reaches the market in a form that is practical for my use cases. Bring it on. I definitely don't have enough hours in the day to pursue everything I am interested in doing, and again, that's without having a job to consume eight or more hours of 5/7ths of my days. Or more.
o CAT scanners, MRI, etc. o CGI o DSP (you name it... SDRs, sonar and radar analysis, digital recording studios top to bottom, CD / DVD / Bluray, image processing, etc.) o DSLRs o GPS o Internet o IOT o Robots o Working spacecraft o Working weather prediction o Anything that depends on databases (almost everything)
...unless your definition of "new industry" is that "aircraft aren't a new industry because we had horses before", the list is basically endless. And if that is your definition, then we haven't had a new industry since the first time someone sharpened a rock.
Your mistake here is conflating "new industry" with "new employees"; the latter is certainly coming to an end. And yes, the 1% will gobble up as much of the good that comes out of that as they can (likely, almost all of it.) But it doesn't mean there won't be new industries. It just means we won't be working in them.
claiming a particular ruling is overreach has to rely on more than "I don't like it", which seems to be the source of many complaints.
Ex post facto laws... restriction of political speech and gathering... infringement on right to keep and carry... imprisonment without recourse... inversion of the commerce clause... search and seizure in abject violation of the 4th...
The judicial determinations that impose these specific constitutional lawbreakings, and many more, aren't just "I don't like it", they are decisions (and legislation) expressly prohibited by the constitution. It's pretty straightforward to observe that the rulings that pushed these violations forward are overreach (and oath violation, and a few other unsavory things.)
It's absurd to defend warrantless search and seizure in light of the fact that it flat-out isn't allowed, just as one example.
A great deal of jurisprudence is straight-up sophist twaddle in light of the constitution. It can only be "okay" in the context where the constitution is "advisory", and in which case, it might as well be a comic book some people read, and others don't. Also, welcome to the oligarchy.
Of course it's wrong [...] And all the losers paid for it.
They paid for it in an informed, consensual manner, accepting the risk in exchange for the chance at benefit.
This is why it's 100%not wrong.
In fact, it is you who are wrong: You are attempting to tell these people what they should be doing. You should stop that. Immediately. You are not their mother; you are not my mother. You don't like lotteries? Fine: don't participate.
You want to let them know the odds and the prospects, with the idea that some might choose differently if they had the information you want them to have? Fine. Make the odds and prospects available to them. But stay out of their way. Completely.
There's nothing wrong with educating people as to the facts. There's everything wrong with forcing them to make choices under your boot heel. If people want to create and/or participate in lotteries, they are right, and you are wrong when you tell them they are wrong.
People should really have the maximum amount of personal liberty. You should be free to do whatever you want in an informed, consenting manner, along with others who are equally well informed and consenting. And only along with them. Nothing wrong with these ideas at all, and furthermore, government action in the other direction is outright despicable and evil. This is a portion of libertarianism that is worthy.
In addition, the availability of making such choices for one's self and one's consenting companions confers responsibility for consequences upon those making the choices. This is also worthy, and part of both small-l and large-L libertarianism. But then...
None of that means that people subject to circumstances out of their control ought to be left to suffer every random sling and arrow that comes along "because responsibility", or that a person possessing even a modicum of human decency would be okay with letting such things go on. A comprehensive social safety net is entirely a good thing so that when one falls, one doesn't land head-first on concrete.
However, corporations and businesses should not enjoy even close to the same level of liberty. They are not, despite hyperbole to the contrary, persons. To the (grotesque) extent that corporations and businesses are like people, the people they are like are psychopaths and sociopaths (sometimes both at once.) This we know from observation. It's not a guess, it's a fact. This is the area in which Libertarian ideals are wholly toxic.
Ideally, let the individuals be free; while regulating business and government itself right down to the last jot and tittle. That circumstance, IMHO, is the closest our civilization could ever get to a utopia.
Unfortunately, since in the USA business outright owns congress and the judiciary, this is not a circumstance we're likely to be closing in on any time soon.
I'd say just automate the whole thing and get rid of people altogether, but then they'd just be on welfare.
Well, look. If you keep them around, you get poorly taken orders and poorly prepared meals. They get a wage. You get inconsistent, often poor, meals that may or may not be exactly what you ordered. You aren't grateful to them or particularly appreciative of what they do.
If you let them go off and exist on welfare, they still get a wage. But you get a properly taken order, and a meal cooked in a consistent manner, minus spit and incompetence.
Now I ask you -- where is the difference that concerns you? These are people you don't care about anyway. Why not let them sit at home on the dole? Your life is clearly better if that's the case.
Me, I don't want them to starve, even though I don't particularly appreciate the (cough) skills they bring to the table and the kitchen; but I'd prefer -- by far -- to be delivered the meal I asked for at some consistently acceptable level of quality. And I really don't care if the government sends them a check or not.
I simply don't have the urge to tell other people what they must do to have "worthwhile" lives. But I know my life is more worthwhile if my meals are higher quality.
Slashdot Mirror
You may very well be happy with your own sex life, but you were the one who threw "sounds like addiction" on the table in response to a quite positive post about someone else's sex life, which indicates 100% clearly that you are sans clue and paddle with regard to the sex lives of others.
Feel free to protest all you want. You're still wrong.
Is that your current opinion?
We certainly can. Tube preamplifier and power amplifier designs almost always suffer from higher noise levels, more pronounced THD, and less dynamic range as compared to more modern semiconductor-based designs. Also, at the actual audio high end, digital completely rules when maximum fidelity is the goal.
On the other hand, tube heaters (and indirectly heater-excited cathodes, when present) glow in the dark. There's just no way around that one.
Plus, tube gets a little gassy... now you likely have purple glow in the dark going on.
Is that an African volt, or a European volt?
Honestly, that is hilarious. I had to put my coffee down. You literally have no idea what you're saying. Addiction... for indulging in a basic human need. Good grief. You really need to find a new metaphor for people doing things they enjoy and likely do well.
My advice is to put a lot of effort into losing the psychobabble (also put down the cellphone[s] if that's where you and/or yours are spending significant amounts of time) and put some real effort into romance. Then perhaps you'll also get to participate in one of the most enjoyable, life-affirming, relationship-cementing activities out there at a rate higher than "I think we did that last month, didn't we?"
If not, you need a new partner. Or a partner, period.
Tip: Even if you're really busy, you both have to eat... and even meals can be romantic. Put some effort into it. Offhand / surface approaches aren't the way to go here. In a long-term relationship, when someone really feels cherished, that tends to work out really, really well. Tell your partner how you feel. Figure out how they feel. Proactively address their needs and desires. "Too tired" really means "too lazy, already wasted my free time on something other than you." At which point you deserve what you get. Which may be very little indeed.
That can be difficult with some hardware designs; it also doesn't address various non-wifi signal capture methods.
If you're really concerned, then a properly built Faraday cage combined with excellent physical security is the best answer there is.
How many watts is this amp? Does it have RCA jacks, or balanced jacks? What's the noise floor? The dynamic range? THD?
...you have to love poorly chosen jargon
Here you go: Faraday cage.
Certainly seems reasonable. On the other hand, this is the company that completely missed the brass ring WRT the Alexa interface, so it's not like they don't make mistakes... :)
[IMHO, first company to put a LAN-competent Alexa-like on the market will win the endgame, and will win double if it actually uses AI instead of canned phrasing.]
Yes, spot on.
Just put a physically printed barcode in a visible slot on the front of the bin when a part is assigned to it.
Now the entire warehouse can be re-indexed if needed by robots running up and down the aisles (or equivalent), just looking at the bins and reporting in to the management system.
Probably not a bad idea to do this on a fairly regular basis anyway. Just in case people got in there and screwed things up somehow.
In this context, popular items are better, in that access to them is more efficient, if they are more easily accessed.
However, popularity is not a stable metric.
So things that used to be popular but are no longer so would be better moved to a higher effort access, while things that are presently popular would be better moved to, or placed in, more efficiently accessed areas. This should increase efficiency, and is essentially equivalent to defragmenting because item packing based on an associated characteristic is going on.
Putting popular things next to other popular things has a benefit; putting all the popular things close to the package assembly point also has a benefit. You can also put more robots in the popular area, and fewer in the less popular areas. Less distance to travel means faster and more efficient response. Robots closer to where they are needed means faster and more efficient response.
More complex units require multiple robots doing preventive maintenance.
FTFY. :)
No. Doesn't follow. The only reason people should suffer is if they must suffer. If we can make it so that no one suffers, we should do so.
In the above case, I don't want to suffer with a lousy meal; they don't want to suffer without income; neither is a "must", and so that's where I'd prefer we set our goals. Why be the cause of suffering?
I have no objection to ladies getting their tubes tied, or to men getting their tubes tied. That's just a matter of personal, consensual choice on their part. However, I'd want to see the cost-benefit analysis before I got behind paying them to do so. Right now, the wealth imbalance is so incredibly skewed that I don't think we have anything even close to an accurate picture of "how many is too many" people.
Why not? As long as no once forces them to make that choice, again, I have no problem with it. The reason you give people money -- a general medium of exchange -- is so they can do what they feel advances their interests. If you want to give them a house, then just give them a house. But I think this would be a mistake. If they really want to hit the party circuit and follow a path that lands them in an alley, they'll just sell the house anyway, or rent it to like-minded types, etc. Might as well have just given them the money. After all, their tubes are tied, and that was the goal anyway, if I understand your suggestion.
Again, doesn't follow. Either we have too many people, or we don't. Automation of more or less everything means, for those who are taken care of, that the people will be doing things that are not tied to a life of drudge work. The right number is the number that can be healthy and happy. It has nothing inherent to do with the number of drudge work roles available that isn't an artifact of the current situation, which will not be in place that much longer anyway.
Aside from coping with the illusions brought on by some rather silly attitudes that have been inculcated into them, no one actually needs to work. That's just propaganda. For instance, I'm not working for anyone. I'm happy as a clam, and have zero trouble filling my days and nights. This is because I recognize that my self-worth has no inherent connection to drudge work. There's lots of automation in my life, and there will be a lot more as it reaches the market in a form that is practical for my use cases. Bring it on. I definitely don't have enough hours in the day to pursue everything I am interested in doing, and again, that's without having a job to consume eight or more hours of 5/7ths of my days. Or more.
o CAT scanners, MRI, etc.
...unless your definition of "new industry" is that "aircraft aren't a new industry because we had horses before", the list is basically endless. And if that is your definition, then we haven't had a new industry since the first time someone sharpened a rock.
o CGI
o DSP (you name it... SDRs, sonar and radar analysis, digital recording studios top to bottom, CD / DVD / Bluray, image processing, etc.)
o DSLRs
o GPS
o Internet
o IOT
o Robots
o Working spacecraft
o Working weather prediction
o Anything that depends on databases (almost everything)
Your mistake here is conflating "new industry" with "new employees"; the latter is certainly coming to an end. And yes, the 1% will gobble up as much of the good that comes out of that as they can (likely, almost all of it.) But it doesn't mean there won't be new industries. It just means we won't be working in them.
That's probably in the ballpark. But the mechanics will be robots too.
Ex post facto laws... restriction of political speech and gathering... infringement on right to keep and carry... imprisonment without recourse... inversion of the commerce clause... search and seizure in abject violation of the 4th...
The judicial determinations that impose these specific constitutional lawbreakings, and many more, aren't just "I don't like it", they are decisions (and legislation) expressly prohibited by the constitution. It's pretty straightforward to observe that the rulings that pushed these violations forward are overreach (and oath violation, and a few other unsavory things.)
It's absurd to defend warrantless search and seizure in light of the fact that it flat-out isn't allowed, just as one example.
A great deal of jurisprudence is straight-up sophist twaddle in light of the constitution. It can only be "okay" in the context where the constitution is "advisory", and in which case, it might as well be a comic book some people read, and others don't. Also, welcome to the oligarchy.
No adequate reason they should be illegal, at least as far as the lotteries themselves go.
It's just the government being hypocritical towards it's own ends.
Nothing I said implies anything wrong with checks and balances.
Government requires limits. That's part of what the constitution was supposed to do, and I'm all for those limits, or thoughtful amendments thereof.
Unfortunately, the constitution has been overtaken by bad legislation and worse jurisprudence.
They paid for it in an informed, consensual manner, accepting the risk in exchange for the chance at benefit.
This is why it's 100% not wrong.
In fact, it is you who are wrong: You are attempting to tell these people what they should be doing. You should stop that. Immediately. You are not their mother; you are not my mother. You don't like lotteries? Fine: don't participate.
You want to let them know the odds and the prospects, with the idea that some might choose differently if they had the information you want them to have? Fine. Make the odds and prospects available to them. But stay out of their way. Completely.
There's nothing wrong with educating people as to the facts. There's everything wrong with forcing them to make choices under your boot heel. If people want to create and/or participate in lotteries, they are right, and you are wrong when you tell them they are wrong.
People should really have the maximum amount of personal liberty. You should be free to do whatever you want in an informed, consenting manner, along with others who are equally well informed and consenting. And only along with them. Nothing wrong with these ideas at all, and furthermore, government action in the other direction is outright despicable and evil. This is a portion of libertarianism that is worthy.
In addition, the availability of making such choices for one's self and one's consenting companions confers responsibility for consequences upon those making the choices. This is also worthy, and part of both small-l and large-L libertarianism. But then...
None of that means that people subject to circumstances out of their control ought to be left to suffer every random sling and arrow that comes along "because responsibility", or that a person possessing even a modicum of human decency would be okay with letting such things go on. A comprehensive social safety net is entirely a good thing so that when one falls, one doesn't land head-first on concrete.
However, corporations and businesses should not enjoy even close to the same level of liberty. They are not, despite hyperbole to the contrary, persons. To the (grotesque) extent that corporations and businesses are like people, the people they are like are psychopaths and sociopaths (sometimes both at once.) This we know from observation. It's not a guess, it's a fact. This is the area in which Libertarian ideals are wholly toxic.
Ideally, let the individuals be free; while regulating business and government itself right down to the last jot and tittle. That circumstance, IMHO, is the closest our civilization could ever get to a utopia.
Unfortunately, since in the USA business outright owns congress and the judiciary, this is not a circumstance we're likely to be closing in on any time soon.
Well, look. If you keep them around, you get poorly taken orders and poorly prepared meals. They get a wage. You get inconsistent, often poor, meals that may or may not be exactly what you ordered. You aren't grateful to them or particularly appreciative of what they do.
If you let them go off and exist on welfare, they still get a wage. But you get a properly taken order, and a meal cooked in a consistent manner, minus spit and incompetence.
Now I ask you -- where is the difference that concerns you? These are people you don't care about anyway. Why not let them sit at home on the dole? Your life is clearly better if that's the case.
Me, I don't want them to starve, even though I don't particularly appreciate the (cough) skills they bring to the table and the kitchen; but I'd prefer -- by far -- to be delivered the meal I asked for at some consistently acceptable level of quality. And I really don't care if the government sends them a check or not.
I simply don't have the urge to tell other people what they must do to have "worthwhile" lives. But I know my life is more worthwhile if my meals are higher quality.
Here, have some of mine. :)
It was humor. In support of your point. Apparently, too sharp. Sorry.