1,029 karma · joined November 1, 2014
"Mount Chimaera was the name of a place in ancient Lycia, notable for constantly burning fires. It is thought to be the area called Yanartaş in Turkey, where methane and other gases emerge from the rock and burn."
Other car manufacturers making a mistake does not justify Tesla's mistake or their handling of the situation. We are supposed to hold all car manufacturers to the highest standards instead of justifying Tesla's mistake with someone else's.
I haven't cooked much on induction stoves. I only do so at my parents' place. So among the few things I cooked on both induction and stove, I know I prefer gas for cooking steaks and making scrambled eggs.
I know part of my frustration is with the touch controls, though, and I presume some of it is due to my lack of intuition with what setting is good for what sort of "cooking I want to apply to food".
I do agree with one of the replies to your comment, though: it seems like everyone just talks about how good induction is at boiling water and not much else specifically. I have an electric kettle for that job so it's not some alluring aspect to me.
I totally get the desire to switch to electric appliances for many reasons, but I am yet to meet an electric stove of any kind that I remotely enjoyed cooking on. Is this everyone's experience? Did I just not meet the right induction stove yet? Is there some sort of new technology on the horizon that will make electric stoves infinitely better?
All engineering (including "real" ones like civil or mechanical) is about fitting your requirements within budgets. When one's building a skyscraper, you try to build it in a way that minimizes the cost while satisfying all requirements (it shouldn't fall down given such and such conditions, etc.)
Engineering is largely the art of solving problems that fit in real-world constraints and one such [major] constraint it cost. When you build software, you're not given 10 years, a research team and infinite money. You're given just enough resources to build something that satisfies requirements and is the lowest cost (financially and temporally). There's always a way to build things "better" but that's not the point.
> it's not a stretch to say that the damage done by the policies is often worse than the disease.
I wouldn't be willing to quantify it as "often", but I would definitely agree that "sometimes" it can be worse.
People continuously forget about (or maliciously omit) even a single step beyond someone's infection. One infected person can spread it to others. Even if the individual's risk may be low, soon, you start spreading it to people that are more at risk. Schools can thus become superspreader locations that put their parents and teachers and whatnot at risk. Whether or not everything we did with schools is right, not doing anything would've led to millions of more people dead.
> [...] our hysterical reaction to Covid, [...]
Everyone certainly did some wrong things and arguably are continuing to do so, but "hysterical" is not how I would put it. We were facing a [relatively] unknown virus with poorly-understood effects to this day. We still can't predict who will be affected how by it.
I think this rhetoric is dangerous and some points of it are [to me] blindingly obviously wrong.
We did get the increase in production efficiency but that newly-generated value was never passed on to those who did the actual work (all the way from farmers and factory works to most white collar jobs). It was captured and collected by those at the top. So now, everyone's afraid of "losing their jobs to machines" and somewhat rightly so. Instead of building machines to do our bidding while we live like royalty, we still have insane amounts of poverty despite the world generating more products/food/value than ever before in human history, with people losing their jobs and getting nothing in return.
It's always good to have scientific data and analysis confirm your intuition, though.
It is accepted in many parts of the world, unfortunately, but in what part of the world is it "efficient"? Can you give an example? Is "basic medicine costing $500 (see insulin) to the few that can afford it and the rest dying because they can't access it" what you define as efficient?
> I'd rather euthanize myself at age 80 and pay much lower taxes throughout my adult life than die at age 85 in a gold-plated Government hospital.
I'd rather not. I doubt many people would be okay with that. I like living and being healthy. You can still feel free to do that in either situation.
> Sanitation and public transport can be directly charged to end-users based on usage.
So the rich should get clean streets and running water while the poor walk on their own shit? Should we charge per poop? As for public transportation, you think it would work if I didn't pay taxes for it and it cost $80 for someone to take it because they can't afford the $20 Uber ride?
> Federal Government bureaucracy just exists to support itself.
This is objectively not true. Many techies (not just crypto people) tend to forget why societal structures were invented in the first place. No one's saying inefficiencies don't exist but disregarding all of society seems to be specifically tailored to get a rise out of people.
I don't know how I can explain to you that we all need to care about each other, otherwise we'll all go extinct.
Automatic switching between profiles based on connection type (wifi, different VPN servers, etc.) is cherry on the top.
Not asking for miracles or "general-purpose AI" here, just decent speed, dependable consistency and general reliability. For example, Siri will correctly set a timer 90-95% of the time when you say a duration to it, like "5 minutes", but just sometimes, it doesn't understand what I'm talking about and gives an error speech.
I have a hard time understanding how a feature like this may be "unintended". Someone needs to add this functionality to the car, it's not like it's an undefined behavior of the circuitry, akin to a C compiler. If they wanted to remove it, they should've just removed it.