squaresinger @ squaresinger @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

171

Joined

3 mo. ago

Thanks for the summary! That sounds freaky!

Well, the trade-off between trusting a huge corporation or a single dude on the internet.

What exactly happened there? It was the big thing, then I didn't use it for a month or so and then it was gone.

In a company I used to worked in, they hired a new guy for our team. Contract was signed, he resigned from his last position. New budget comes in a week before he was supposed to start, and his position was cut.

He was basically let go before he started working for us.

Even if you make them in large quantities, material cost alone will be at least €50k. You will need a skilled operator nearby, and constant maintainance, and if you lose even one per year, a regular underpaid human worker will be much cheaper.

These things are pure marketing devices to pacify investors, generate headlines and make unions and workers afraid.

Because it's not real. It's purely for marketing, not for actual wide-spread implementation.

Even in the best of cases, even factoring in economy of scale and all that, a robot like that will cost upwards of €50k at least, probably closer to double that, will require constant maintainance, and the risk of vandalism or accidental damage is really high. And you'll likely need a (skilled) human operator nearby anyway, because the delivery vehicle doesn't drive itself.

The purpose of projects like this is marketing and public perception.

• The company looks futuristic and future proof. That's good to get investors.
• The company looks like they could replace humans with robots at any time. That's good with negotiations with unions and workers.
• The company gets into headlines worldwide. That's advertisement they don't have to pay for.

This robot is not meant to ever go mainstream. Maybe there will be a handful of routes where they will be implemented for marketing purposes, but like drone delivery and similar gimmicks, it won't beat a criminally underpaid delivery human on price, and that's the only metric that counts for a company like Amazon.

"Prescription glasses" only mean "glasses with optical properties", so glasses that actually do anything with focus, as opposed to e.g. non-prescription sunglasses or non-prescription accessory glasses that people wear to look smart or something.

It doesn't mean you need a prescription for them.

(That said: in some countries you need a prescription for your prescription glasses if you want your health insurance to pay for them.)

I'm considering getting a Switch 1 now. I can find hackable ones for €100 in my area.

But then again, it doesn't really do anything I can't do with my other devices.

I researched a little to figure out what they are on about, and there seem to be three main options, depending on how much of a semblance of a democracy they want to keep up.

The simplest yet weakest way is what you described: A shadow president. Worked for Putin, why should it not work for Trump. The downside: If the puppet president develops a mind of his own, things can turn ugly(er).

The next option is to have Trump become vice presidet (the presidential term limit doesn't seem to apply to VP), then have the president resign and make Trump president instead, claiming that the 22nd only limits being elected twice, which might be ok with the letter of the law, but only an idiot or a tyrant would interpret it that way.

The third option would be to have the president use the appointment clause, which is very vague about to what exact offices the president can appoint someone. It doesn't explicitly state that the president can't appoint someone else to the office of president. But again, only an idiot or a tyrant would interpret it that way.

Goes to show: in many cases the hireing process is about dumb luck and nothing else. For both sides.

Not saying it necessarily belongs there, just that I saw it there.

Then again it was in a display about the evolution of consumer tech, and there were some newer smartphones there too, so I guess it did fit well into that.

Well, IRL hacking doesn't have exciting gameplay mechanics. So more realistic hacking game might not be such a clever idea.

A friend of mine was applying for a job where they required "at least 5 years knowledge with Angular version X.Y.Z" (can't remember the exact version, but they asked for all three numbers).

He said "I've got 7 years of knowledge with version X-2 to X+2".

The HR person was like "But you don't have 5 years of knowledge with version X.Y.Z, so you don't fit for the job".

The real fun part was that version X.Y.Z had only been out for two years at that time.

Thanks for more insight.

I've seen some AOC memes but didn't really notice her beyond that. Again, European viewpoint. She doesn't really make it into European news.

That doesn't mean the dumbass won't try to pull some sketchy shit and I honestly wouldn't put it past him to try.

I read something about right-wingers trying to claim that the 22nd amendment only says that nobody should be elected twice, so if Trump gets into office without getting elected, everything is fine. So their plan is to get someone else elected in Trump's stead and that person should then just appoint Trump as the new president, because according to them, that's apparently possible. And with their surpreme pile of garbage that they call a court, that might just work.

Scary times.

And in the end they just yell at a menopausal woman who can't afford hormone replacement therapy.

True, but the one who gets inconvenienced the most is the poor minimum wage fool working at the dealership.

Seriously: That guy is worth half a trillion dollars. Even if he looses 99% of his wealth, he wouldn't actually notice. It wouldn't change one thing about his living standard.

It's nature's Beast of ARRGH

I've seen a 3DS in the Technical Museum in Vienna.

There's no proof for or against God, just by the simple fact that God could just not care and not get involved, and such a God would be neither provable or disprovable.

The only position that can be logically drawn from that is the agnostic one: "I don't know whether God exists or not, and I don't care. It doesn't affect me.".

Atheists on the other hand are in a position that doesn't logically follow from the evidence. They believe that there is no God. It is a belief, because it cannot be logically derived from the evidence. And there are lots of Atheists who live their atheism like a religion. They study their literature to build a belief system, to find evidence, to disprove others. They meet up (online or physically) to talk about their non-belief and to hone their arguments. They strongly defend their position in discussions. I've even met Atheist missionaries who stand on street corners preaching that God doesn't exist.

To respond to your quote: Not playing tennis would be agnosticism. Atheists are running around the field, following the players and shouting in their ears that tennis sucks. They are playing, just a different sport.

"Don't have a religion" includes

• Atheists
• Agnostics
• Spiritual but not religious people
• Religious but unaffiliated people

Saying "don't have a religion" equals atheist is like claiming that everyone who didn't vote for Trump or Harris is an anarchist.

Try adding up ethnic groups. If you count Jewish as a separate ethnicity, you get an estimated total of 225% and even without Jews it's still 195%.