Well I've ready before about how the RAND() function of Excel 2003 and 2007 wasn't good enough for scientist purpose. But I seriously wonder what's the bias and how it'll affect a 10 000 number scale. I don't think it's candidate #1455 have 5 time more chance to be picked than candidate #976. I guess it's more in the "0.0001 time more" scale.
Furthermore, how is the list order selected? Because if the order of the list is "kinda" random, it add the the randomness of the process. In other word, if the list order is a "little" random and the RAND is a "little" random, then the whole thing is "better" random.
Crossover is (mostly) fixed by automatic MDI/MDI-X detection in GbE. Has been a while since I ran into that problem. I do fully agree though. The problem is that the USB-C spec tries to do _everything_, and that cannot work. It is also a stellar example of a really bad design done by smart, but inexperienced engineers. Or by engineers that ignored their experience because they were part of a committee. Kiss rules all engineering that needs to survive in practice. There is no KISS at all in USB-C.
SpaceX were able to land their booster on a tiny boat and a symmetrical connector that can Charge/Send Data/Video & Audio Transmission is the definition of "anything but KISS"?
I mean, come on. This is this isn't rocket science, stop messing with the damn standard with all those proprietary charging technology.
Next, the doctors extracted immune cells known as tumour infiltrating lymphocytes, or TILs, from the tumour biopsies. These are cells from the patient’s immune system that have invaded the tumour in a bid to kill it, but which failed in the task by being either too weak or too few in number.
After growing billions of these immune cells in the lab, the researchers screened them to find which ones would most effectively find and destroy the woman’s cancer cells by recognising their abnormal proteins.
Question, how do you "grow" lymphocytes? Are they like Bacteria that you grow in a Petri Dish?
Apple : 63% of the revenue come from iPhone Sales (Hardware), 11% from iPad (Hardware), 11% from Mac (Hardware) and 5% from other product (Hardware). Only 11% are from services (software). So it's 89% Hardware and 11% Software.
That's ignoring that the major selling point of the hardware is the software that comes with it - IOW half of the hardware revenue should actually be counted as software revenue.
If you want to enter an argument, at least take the time to read it from the beginning.
The original argument was that Apple high markup margin wasn't impressing compared to other Tech company. My Argument is that comparing Apple to Microsoft is bad since Apple make a damn lot more hardware than MS. It mean that for each iPhone, there's a great portion of the expense for manufacturing them.
So, back to your point, it's irrelevant to the original argument. No matter how much software they put on the iPhone (It's only more expense), it's still damn impressive for an Hardware company to make such a high profit margin. If you take LG (or all other cellphone maker), their profit margin are way more thin.
To be fair, you're comparing a software company to a hardware one.
No I am not. Apple is a software company at its core. No less an authority than Steve Jobs himself has said so publicly. Not a traditional one to be sure but they don't actually make any of the hardware they sell so they by definition cannot be a hardware company. A company is what it makes and for all practical purposes the only thing Apple actually makes themselves is software. They design some of the hardware but that's not the same thing.
Apple : 63% of the revenue come from iPhone Sales (Hardware), 11% from iPad (Hardware), 11% from Mac (Hardware) and 5% from other product (Hardware). Only 11% are from services (software). So it's 89% Hardware and 11% Software.
Microsoft : 11% are from XBox (Hardware) and 5% are from Surface. Then there's 28% from Office Products (Software), 22% from Windows Server & Azure (Software), 18% from others (Most of it is Software), 9% from Windows (Software), and 7% from Ads (Software). So it's 16% Hardware and 84% Software.
They probably have the highest markup margin in tech.
No they do not. It's not at all uncommon for software companies to have higher margins than Apple. Microsoft routinely has higher net margins than Apple. On average around 5% higher which is a HUGE amount.
To be fair, you're comparing a software company to a hardware one.
Google (~30%), Facebook (~40%) and many other emerging software company have huge profit margin. This is comparing Apple and Orange.
What is electric power steering for $500, Alex? I'm not exactly new to OBD-II tinkering. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/... "Unintended acceleration and slamming on the car's brakes or turning the vehicle's steering wheel at any speed"
It will look quite hilarious seeing 2 guys with a laptop running beside me trying to physically plug it into the onboard systems while i'm driving and then to try and hack it.
It is pretty serious when someone with wireless OBD-II access can disable your brakes or remotely steer your car off the road. I don't know about Tesla specifically, but this has been tested on newer cars. Scary shit. Makes you wonder.
Well since you're talking about wireless OBD-II and steering the wheel remotely I'll assume you have no idea what's you're talking about so I'll save my breath for someone who does.
Maybe not Tesla. Maybe the CIA doesn't like someone and makes Tesla send an update the disables their brakes. Maybe the russians hack Tesla and kill some politician.
Well if you're that worried about this kind of "Hollywood" hacking, you better not read too much about IoT or you'll start running in the wood in fear that a toaster will attack you.
The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?
From CR website :
Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results. Between each test, the vehicle is driven approximately a mile to cool the brakes and make sure they don’t overheat. In our testing of the Model 3, the first stop we recorded was significantly shorter (around 130 feet, similar to Tesla’s findings), but that distance was not repeated, even after we let the brakes cool overnight
CR did let the brakes cool off between each test. And unless you want emergency brakes that work fine "only the first time", I would said that CR was right to consider this a brake performance issue.
I'm glad Tesla took it seriously. Going from a bad braking review to a fix for all vehicles in a week is really amazing. Compare and contrast to the GM ignition switch scandal, where they played the denial game for over a decade.
Yes, the speed of the fix is quite impressing. But, to be fair, if GM ignition switch caused CR to no give a recommendation on it's vehicle during the launch (and affecting sales), I'm quite sure they would have worked on the problem way more quickly...
...or maybe not (Taking the Chevrolet Citation into consideration. Even with bad CR review, they didn't change much and the car went from #1 in NA to the scrap yard).
... and over-the-air update can also break it. Or take away the "feature" once the car leaves the showroom.
Really, are you serious?
And why would anyone in Tesla do that?
If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place? Why did it take a third party tester to find it?
First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement so it's not like the brake were completely unsafe neither.
Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough. Not exactly a simple "bit 0 to 1" fix, it would take a lot of on-road testing to find the most optimal value.
My guess is that the car production was rushed and they decided that the brake performance were "good enough" for now. But it was until CR bashed on it by comparing the brake performance to a F-150.
It depends of your need. In Québec for instance, electricity is very cheap, having a car that do ~50 miles and you can easily commute with it everyday and do all your standard groceries/shopping the week-end. All this with 0 gasoline (gas price is $4.50/gallon here). A lot of people have a second car with an ICE, like a Grand Caravan or whatever to haul the kids. EV cars are an efficient means of transportation
Exactly,
Let's take my case for example.
I live in Quebec and I've calculated that I travel around 2500-3000 km per month (I live at 52 km from work, so 2 time that for 21.75 work day per month in average + some commune and visiting friends). Right now I have an used car with a ~7.5L/100km efficiency (probably worst than that). So, with the gas around 1.4$/L right now, it mean a total of around 250-300$ per month only for the gas right now. Or course, let's not forget that the gas price will increase in the future.
Sadly, EV vehicule are still quite expensive (even in the used market) but, in the case of used PHEV, there's some interesting option.
I decided to get a used 85000 km Volt 2013 for about 19k$ taxes included. An Gas equivalent would cost me around 8k$. Even if it's 5 years old and got some mileage, I was able to travel 66 km before using gas if I were very, very efficient.
Since then, about 98% of my trip are completely on electric mode and my boss allow me to plug my car at my job free of charge. The car have a battery used capacity of ~10.9 kWh. The residential electricity cost 9.12/kWh and we got about 15% lost with the standard 120v outlet (I don't need the 240v, doesn't worth the investment). So, if my calculation are right, it cost me about 1.14$ to charge my car and I charge it at home about 25 time per month so about 28-30$ of electricity per month. You can always double that value if we forget that my boss give me free electricity it's pretty common that job offer free charging advantage. It's pretty cheap for them to look green.
So, to wrap things up, right now I save about 220-270$ per month for a car that cost me ~11k$ more.
I was able to get a loan of 20k$ at an great interest rate of 3.5% (damn, at that rate I should ask them 1 million and invest it. 3.5% is pretty easy to beat). If we take the initial 19k$, it will take me about 7 years to refund the loan if I put that ~250$ saving on it each month and, in the end, I'll have a 10 years old Chevrolet 2013 for the money that I'm paying for gas. And if we're fair and take the 11k$ investment instead (to be fair, I'll need a car either way), we're talking about a 4 years ROI. The only difference if that I put money in the loan instead of the gas station.
I've wrapped my mind a lot and it's almost impossible to have a more economic choice than this. And on the plus side, I do my part for the environment and I can use toll bridge, reserved parking. reserved lane etc. for free.
So, in the end, for some EV/PHEV is the economical choice...if the condition are right.
DeBeers already holds back the majority of the supply of diamonds to artificially inflate the cost. They do plenty of other things to do that as well. The other lab grown diamond manufacturers have gotten in the business and sold so high because the costs of mined diamonds is so high it's like honey to a bear.
Yes, they are all just as real and special, and often the lab diamonds have less inclusions than the mined diamonds, which is considered a better diamond. Of course DeBeers is fighting that because they control the bulk of mined diamonds and don't want to lose their ultra premium profits.
Unless you have an imperfect mined diamond, or recognize the serial number markings, even a jeweler can't tell mined from lab diamonds because the only thing different from them is age and origin.
You know, having the consistency of lab diamonds is considered a big boon for anyone making jewelry needing matched stones.
DeBeers is just freaking out because they are slowly (maybe not so slowly now) losing control over a market they've had a near monopoly on for over a century.
Dream on. Foreign box office totals have been grisly so far.
A lot of people don't realize how severely The Last Jedi harmed the franchise as a whole by souring audience expectations (and it won't get fixed before this Boba Fett flick, if ever).
Exactly,
It's quite hard to explain for me, but even if The Last Jedi was a pretty decent movie (especially considering the E1-3), there's many moments in the movie that hurt the Star War fan inside of me.
Hyperspace Kamikaze destroying the logic of the franchise aside (why didn't they hyperspace their capital ship on the Death Star?), one of those was how little respect the new directors have for admiral Ackbar.
He's one of the most important hero of the rebellion and is (was?) the strategic mind behind every major battle of the rebellion (well, he's the admiral duh!).
But in new episode 7 and 8 (especially 8), princess Leia is the strategic mind and she made decision without the Admiral advice. Worst, he was cheaply discarded and replaced by the mediocre Vice Admiral Holdo. Ackbar should have took that role in the movie.
Sure, Bitcoin (especially mining) use a lot of energy, but how does it compare to other currency?
- How much energy are used to print/make money and get the raw materia?
- How much energy is used to store money? (Bank and others)
- How much energy is used to do transaction with money?
- What about Wall Street? etc.
I got one of the original Surface Pro. In fact, I pre-ordered it since, at the time, it was the first real product that allowed me to take my note on a laptop while I was at the university.
Sadly, it's not the case anymore.
My Surface Pro is getting old and I'll probably replace it soon. Right now, I have my eye on the Dell XPS 15 2-in-1. Compared to the Surface pro, the XPS :
- Look sharp and got a real work potential (I always hated the Type Cover of Surface Pro and it's a mediocre laptop at best)
- Got some real CPU/GPU power
- USB-C Port, and there's 4 of them
- It's a good laptop first. I don't care about the tablet mode except when I'm writing on One Note.
So unless there's some major changes on this new line of Surface Tablet, I'm going to pass.
I think that our life spans are meant to be finite and I think if we embrace this understanding, we will lose our fear of death. IMHO, people concerned about living forever are not enjoying their lives presently. I would rather enjoy the life that I have then try to spend life looking for the fountain of youth. As someone who has seen people in various states of death and decline, I would sooner die than experience that pain and suffering. The world is also pretty inhospitable so I am not terribly attached to this life.
Well, I'm the perfect example of that assessment.
I Atheist so I believe in total oblivion after death. Some other think of this as peaceful (returning from where we came from) but, in my case, it scare me. And one of those reason for that difference is that I enjoy life.
People seem to focus on the negative side of humanity (like you apparently) but I find that the vast majority of people in the world have good heart. We just like to focus on the few very bad one. And if you don't like people around you, well just move to a different place and start anew. And if there's a cure to aging, there's no urge to settle down "before it's too late".
The world is overpopulated now. Imagine if people started living vastly longer lives. The world's problems would only get worse.
I don't agree. First, the aging population is going to be a far bigger problem (IMO) for developed countries (Look at Japan, their population have started to decrease because they don't like immigrant). Second, I've asked around me about that question (if I offered you a pill that reverse and and stop aging, will you take it?) and you'll be amazed how many people will just reject it for variety of reasons, ranging from "It's Sinful" to "it's innatural" to simply "I don't want to live forever". For a start, I think that most person with a strongly follow their religion will reject this (at least for a while). Also, I think this pill is going to be very expensive for a while so, again, most people won't have access to it.
Maybe one day, in a long LONG time, most people will start to take it, but a lot of things will be completly different then.
Anybody who read the NHTSA report should clearly understand that the Autopilot safety data comparison was not done to demonstrate the safety of Autopilot, but rather to decide if there was indication that AP caused an increase. Also, 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any pre-AP data at all. It was entirely useless for the purpose of making any kind of safety claim. The NHTSA should not have had to clarify, but too many idiots made stupid claims based on that information. The media in general can be really stupid with statistics.
One thing though,
I thought those number were about Tesla autopilot on *almost ideal condition* VS people on *all condition* no?
Slashdot Mirror
Well I've ready before about how the RAND() function of Excel 2003 and 2007 wasn't good enough for scientist purpose. But I seriously wonder what's the bias and how it'll affect a 10 000 number scale. I don't think it's candidate #1455 have 5 time more chance to be picked than candidate #976. I guess it's more in the "0.0001 time more" scale.
Furthermore, how is the list order selected? Because if the order of the list is "kinda" random, it add the the randomness of the process. In other word, if the list order is a "little" random and the RAND is a "little" random, then the whole thing is "better" random.
Crossover is (mostly) fixed by automatic MDI/MDI-X detection in GbE. Has been a while since I ran into that problem. I do fully agree though. The problem is that the USB-C spec tries to do _everything_, and that cannot work. It is also a stellar example of a really bad design done by smart, but inexperienced engineers. Or by engineers that ignored their experience because they were part of a committee. Kiss rules all engineering that needs to survive in practice. There is no KISS at all in USB-C.
SpaceX were able to land their booster on a tiny boat and a symmetrical connector that can Charge/Send Data/Video & Audio Transmission is the definition of "anything but KISS"?
I mean, come on. This is this isn't rocket science, stop messing with the damn standard with all those proprietary charging technology.
Thanks to Slashdot coverage and community pressure, Microsoft has now officially promised to rename GVFS to something else,
Really? Isn't this a little...arrogant to take the credit about MS change of mind?
Next, the doctors extracted immune cells known as tumour infiltrating lymphocytes, or TILs, from the tumour biopsies. These are cells from the patient’s immune system that have invaded the tumour in a bid to kill it, but which failed in the task by being either too weak or too few in number.
After growing billions of these immune cells in the lab, the researchers screened them to find which ones would most effectively find and destroy the woman’s cancer cells by recognising their abnormal proteins.
Question, how do you "grow" lymphocytes? Are they like Bacteria that you grow in a Petri Dish?
Here, and I thought I saw it passing by much more recently on /. as well.
That makes 2 stale stories in a row. *Pours bucket of water on msmash.* Wake up man, you're in the driver's seat!
But that news is like...SO OLD!
It's was December 2017! I don't even remember what I ate that day.
According to Business Insider,
Apple : 63% of the revenue come from iPhone Sales (Hardware), 11% from iPad (Hardware), 11% from Mac (Hardware) and 5% from other product (Hardware). Only 11% are from services (software). So it's 89% Hardware and 11% Software.
That's ignoring that the major selling point of the hardware is the software that comes with it - IOW half of the hardware revenue should actually be counted as software revenue.
If you want to enter an argument, at least take the time to read it from the beginning.
The original argument was that Apple high markup margin wasn't impressing compared to other Tech company. My Argument is that comparing Apple to Microsoft is bad since Apple make a damn lot more hardware than MS. It mean that for each iPhone, there's a great portion of the expense for manufacturing them.
So, back to your point, it's irrelevant to the original argument. No matter how much software they put on the iPhone (It's only more expense), it's still damn impressive for an Hardware company to make such a high profit margin. If you take LG (or all other cellphone maker), their profit margin are way more thin.
To be fair, you're comparing a software company to a hardware one.
No I am not. Apple is a software company at its core. No less an authority than Steve Jobs himself has said so publicly. Not a traditional one to be sure but they don't actually make any of the hardware they sell so they by definition cannot be a hardware company. A company is what it makes and for all practical purposes the only thing Apple actually makes themselves is software. They design some of the hardware but that's not the same thing.
According to Business Insider,
Apple : 63% of the revenue come from iPhone Sales (Hardware), 11% from iPad (Hardware), 11% from Mac (Hardware) and 5% from other product (Hardware). Only 11% are from services (software). So it's 89% Hardware and 11% Software.
Microsoft : 11% are from XBox (Hardware) and 5% are from Surface. Then there's 28% from Office Products (Software), 22% from Windows Server & Azure (Software), 18% from others (Most of it is Software), 9% from Windows (Software), and 7% from Ads (Software). So it's 16% Hardware and 84% Software.
I stand my point.
They probably have the highest markup margin in tech.
No they do not. It's not at all uncommon for software companies to have higher margins than Apple. Microsoft routinely has higher net margins than Apple. On average around 5% higher which is a HUGE amount.
To be fair, you're comparing a software company to a hardware one.
Google (~30%), Facebook (~40%) and many other emerging software company have huge profit margin. This is comparing Apple and Orange.
What is electric power steering for $500, Alex?
I'm not exactly new to OBD-II tinkering.
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/...
"Unintended acceleration and slamming on the car's brakes or turning the vehicle's steering wheel at any speed"
Alright, I'll give you a hint :
How this Tesla update is related to OBD-II?
It will look quite hilarious seeing 2 guys with a laptop running beside me trying to physically plug it into the onboard systems while i'm driving and then to try and hack it.
Alright, I'll give you a hint :
How Tesla update is related to OBD-II?
And to go on strike.
Kidding, but not really!
"Canadian" french so I'm safe ;-)
It is pretty serious when someone with wireless OBD-II access can disable your brakes or remotely steer your car off the road.
I don't know about Tesla specifically, but this has been tested on newer cars. Scary shit. Makes you wonder.
Well since you're talking about wireless OBD-II and steering the wheel remotely I'll assume you have no idea what's you're talking about so I'll save my breath for someone who does.
First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets.
That's quite a feat.
Hint: Feet is already plural.
Thanks for the tip!
I'm french so it's a reflex to add "s" everywhere.
Maybe not Tesla.
Maybe the CIA doesn't like someone and makes Tesla send an update the disables their brakes.
Maybe the russians hack Tesla and kill some politician.
Well if you're that worried about this kind of "Hollywood" hacking, you better not read too much about IoT or you'll start running in the wood in fear that a toaster will attack you.
While I agree with most of what you said,
The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?
From CR website :
Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results. Between each test, the vehicle is driven approximately a mile to cool the brakes and make sure they don’t overheat. In our testing of the Model 3, the first stop we recorded was significantly shorter (around 130 feet, similar to Tesla’s findings), but that distance was not repeated, even after we let the brakes cool overnight
CR did let the brakes cool off between each test. And unless you want emergency brakes that work fine "only the first time", I would said that CR was right to consider this a brake performance issue.
I'm glad Tesla took it seriously. Going from a bad braking review to a fix for all vehicles in a week is really amazing. Compare and contrast to the GM ignition switch scandal, where they played the denial game for over a decade.
Yes, the speed of the fix is quite impressing. But, to be fair, if GM ignition switch caused CR to no give a recommendation on it's vehicle during the launch (and affecting sales), I'm quite sure they would have worked on the problem way more quickly...
...or maybe not (Taking the Chevrolet Citation into consideration. Even with bad CR review, they didn't change much and the car went from #1 in NA to the scrap yard).
... and over-the-air update can also break it. Or take away the "feature" once the car leaves the showroom.
Really, are you serious?
And why would anyone in Tesla do that?
If it were so easy of a fix, one has to wonder why Tesla didn't recognize and fix the problem in the first place? Why did it take a third party tester to find it?
First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement so it's not like the brake were completely unsafe neither.
Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough. Not exactly a simple "bit 0 to 1" fix, it would take a lot of on-road testing to find the most optimal value.
My guess is that the car production was rushed and they decided that the brake performance were "good enough" for now. But it was until CR bashed on it by comparing the brake performance to a F-150.
It depends of your need. In Québec for instance, electricity is very cheap, having a car that do ~50 miles and you can easily commute with it everyday and do all your standard groceries/shopping the week-end. All this with 0 gasoline (gas price is $4.50/gallon here).
A lot of people have a second car with an ICE, like a Grand Caravan or whatever to haul the kids.
EV cars are an efficient means of transportation
Exactly,
Let's take my case for example.
I live in Quebec and I've calculated that I travel around 2500-3000 km per month (I live at 52 km from work, so 2 time that for 21.75 work day per month in average + some commune and visiting friends). Right now I have an used car with a ~7.5L/100km efficiency (probably worst than that). So, with the gas around 1.4$/L right now, it mean a total of around 250-300$ per month only for the gas right now. Or course, let's not forget that the gas price will increase in the future.
Sadly, EV vehicule are still quite expensive (even in the used market) but, in the case of used PHEV, there's some interesting option.
I decided to get a used 85000 km Volt 2013 for about 19k$ taxes included. An Gas equivalent would cost me around 8k$. Even if it's 5 years old and got some mileage, I was able to travel 66 km before using gas if I were very, very efficient.
Since then, about 98% of my trip are completely on electric mode and my boss allow me to plug my car at my job free of charge. The car have a battery used capacity of ~10.9 kWh. The residential electricity cost 9.12/kWh and we got about 15% lost with the standard 120v outlet (I don't need the 240v, doesn't worth the investment). So, if my calculation are right, it cost me about 1.14$ to charge my car and I charge it at home about 25 time per month so about 28-30$ of electricity per month. You can always double that value if we forget that my boss give me free electricity it's pretty common that job offer free charging advantage. It's pretty cheap for them to look green.
So, to wrap things up, right now I save about 220-270$ per month for a car that cost me ~11k$ more.
I was able to get a loan of 20k$ at an great interest rate of 3.5% (damn, at that rate I should ask them 1 million and invest it. 3.5% is pretty easy to beat). If we take the initial 19k$, it will take me about 7 years to refund the loan if I put that ~250$ saving on it each month and, in the end, I'll have a 10 years old Chevrolet 2013 for the money that I'm paying for gas. And if we're fair and take the 11k$ investment instead (to be fair, I'll need a car either way), we're talking about a 4 years ROI. The only difference if that I put money in the loan instead of the gas station.
I've wrapped my mind a lot and it's almost impossible to have a more economic choice than this. And on the plus side, I do my part for the environment and I can use toll bridge, reserved parking. reserved lane etc. for free.
So, in the end, for some EV/PHEV is the economical choice...if the condition are right.
DeBeers already holds back the majority of the supply of diamonds to artificially inflate the cost. They do plenty of other things to do that as well.
The other lab grown diamond manufacturers have gotten in the business and sold so high because the costs of mined diamonds is so high it's like honey to a bear.
Yes, they are all just as real and special, and often the lab diamonds have less inclusions than the mined diamonds, which is considered a better diamond. Of course DeBeers is fighting that because they control the bulk of mined diamonds and don't want to lose their ultra premium profits.
Unless you have an imperfect mined diamond, or recognize the serial number markings, even a jeweler can't tell mined from lab diamonds because the only thing different from them is age and origin.
You know, having the consistency of lab diamonds is considered a big boon for anyone making jewelry needing matched stones.
DeBeers is just freaking out because they are slowly (maybe not so slowly now) losing control over a market they've had a near monopoly on for over a century.
[Insert laugh track and applause here]
Exactly +1
For those interested, Adam Ruins Everything make an episode about it
Dream on. Foreign box office totals have been grisly so far.
A lot of people don't realize how severely The Last Jedi harmed the franchise as a whole by souring audience expectations (and it won't get fixed before this Boba Fett flick, if ever).
Exactly,
It's quite hard to explain for me, but even if The Last Jedi was a pretty decent movie (especially considering the E1-3), there's many moments in the movie that hurt the Star War fan inside of me.
Hyperspace Kamikaze destroying the logic of the franchise aside (why didn't they hyperspace their capital ship on the Death Star?), one of those was how little respect the new directors have for admiral Ackbar.
He's one of the most important hero of the rebellion and is (was?) the strategic mind behind every major battle of the rebellion (well, he's the admiral duh!).
But in new episode 7 and 8 (especially 8), princess Leia is the strategic mind and she made decision without the Admiral advice. Worst, he was cheaply discarded and replaced by the mediocre Vice Admiral Holdo. Ackbar should have took that role in the movie.
"Ok take a nap.... Zen fire zee missilez!!"
And Russia's like : "ARRRHHHHH MOTHERLAND!!!!"
Sure, Bitcoin (especially mining) use a lot of energy, but how does it compare to other currency?
- How much energy are used to print/make money and get the raw materia?
- How much energy is used to store money? (Bank and others)
- How much energy is used to do transaction with money?
- What about Wall Street?
etc.
I got one of the original Surface Pro. In fact, I pre-ordered it since, at the time, it was the first real product that allowed me to take my note on a laptop while I was at the university.
Sadly, it's not the case anymore.
My Surface Pro is getting old and I'll probably replace it soon. Right now, I have my eye on the Dell XPS 15 2-in-1. Compared to the Surface pro, the XPS :
- Look sharp and got a real work potential (I always hated the Type Cover of Surface Pro and it's a mediocre laptop at best)
- Got some real CPU/GPU power
- USB-C Port, and there's 4 of them
- It's a good laptop first. I don't care about the tablet mode except when I'm writing on One Note.
So unless there's some major changes on this new line of Surface Tablet, I'm going to pass.
I think that our life spans are meant to be finite and I think if we embrace this understanding, we will lose our fear of death. IMHO, people concerned about living forever are not enjoying their lives presently. I would rather enjoy the life that I have then try to spend life looking for the fountain of youth. As someone who has seen people in various states of death and decline, I would sooner die than experience that pain and suffering. The world is also pretty inhospitable so I am not terribly attached to this life.
Well, I'm the perfect example of that assessment.
I Atheist so I believe in total oblivion after death. Some other think of this as peaceful (returning from where we came from) but, in my case, it scare me. And one of those reason for that difference is that I enjoy life.
People seem to focus on the negative side of humanity (like you apparently) but I find that the vast majority of people in the world have good heart. We just like to focus on the few very bad one. And if you don't like people around you, well just move to a different place and start anew. And if there's a cure to aging, there's no urge to settle down "before it's too late".
The world is overpopulated now. Imagine if people started living vastly longer lives. The world's problems would only get worse.
I don't agree. First, the aging population is going to be a far bigger problem (IMO) for developed countries (Look at Japan, their population have started to decrease because they don't like immigrant). Second, I've asked around me about that question (if I offered you a pill that reverse and and stop aging, will you take it?) and you'll be amazed how many people will just reject it for variety of reasons, ranging from "It's Sinful" to "it's innatural" to simply "I don't want to live forever". For a start, I think that most person with a strongly follow their religion will reject this (at least for a while). Also, I think this pill is going to be very expensive for a while so, again, most people won't have access to it.
Maybe one day, in a long LONG time, most people will start to take it, but a lot of things will be completly different then.
Anybody who read the NHTSA report should clearly understand that the Autopilot safety data comparison was not done to demonstrate the safety of Autopilot, but rather to decide if there was indication that AP caused an increase. Also, 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any pre-AP data at all. It was entirely useless for the purpose of making any kind of safety claim. The NHTSA should not have had to clarify, but too many idiots made stupid claims based on that information. The media in general can be really stupid with statistics.
One thing though,
I thought those number were about Tesla autopilot on *almost ideal condition* VS people on *all condition* no?
abysmal level of pollution
Abysmal is usually used about something extremely _low_, in a negative contextual way.
Oh, now that you mention it. I didn't see it that way.
Thanks for the tip, I'm still learning.