16 karma · joined November 19, 2023
Suggestion: (to video maker)
1. Leave the design open source, create a second design (more efficient/whatever you think defines the declaration of value).
2. Package second design parts together for sale and let the public purchase so they can run around and find disposable vapes and make their own.
3. Profit.
No need for steps 4 and 5. (Rinse & Repeat new models).
Secondly, there are swaths, and swaths, and swaths of debt that are due in short term, namely Q4 dependent (big lenders) and it is very unlikely they'll get paid. The credit markets are in shambles right now.
Good luck to all of us this is going to spread to all markets and due to US fear and panic, along with the political battles, this isn't going to end well any time soon.
The world is... only partially finite. The resources are not finite. Check studies for oil wells that have replenished in China over 100 year periods.
Finite space is a tacit of conventional wisdom. Cities like old and modern Rome would disagree.
Your view is centered particularly in the past.
This article is an absolute fluff piece aiming to tip a nodded hat at the industry as a whole - for maintaining the industry at its status quo.
Unfortunately, the restaurant industry has changed dramatically since 2020 (pandemic initiated). Cost, immutable variables between staff and guests, and likely most fundamentally - an industry unfit for a single entity to operate on his/her/there own.
Socio-economically the industry has suffered far more than other industries and continues to. Add in the decade long push in comfortability (delivery) and the break in social activities due to the pandemic, and the third space is no longer a safe, meal-sharing, getaway.
Dine-in, sit-down restaurants are going to continue to struggle until they regain their 'third space' appeal. In the meantime you can continue to purchase low-quality food, put up with terrible service, and pay extravagant pricing for delivery.
As for wages - the only reason this person has a comparable wage to an entry-level technical programmer is because Cane's is as large and funded as it is - combined with the current 'big boys' competition in the industry. Culver's, In'N'Out, Raising Cane's, and several others from large groups are the only competing brands at the moment in large retail spaces.
And as is usually the case this hails from California where pay scale outweigh most of the country save for the hot spots everyone knows.
This is targeted at the industry as a whole - it's not a reflection of the industry at all at it's current status.
This is true for climate change and it's own challenges along with many other applications of similar nature where models are incomplete or entirely missing large portions of data needed to further true understanding of a given process.
The second part implies that while certainly many in academia and beyond are fully aware of our constant change, we tend to lend society a belief that time stands still. Same as it ever was, the moon follows the sun, the north star is essentially stationary. These types of conventional take generally wreak havoc in large scales.
And if we naive humans know anything worth knowing at all, we certainly know our perception of large scales lacks in enormous context.
But to levy them upon data extrapolated without correlation is where science falls short. You can surmise the corroboration between soil, ice, and methane samples as well as biological data from the eons; but piecing together a picture is more akin to believing the extremely faint stars you see in the night sky - are still there.
We tend to believe what is in front of us not realizing that change is happening all around us, every moment, every microsecond. Nothing ever stays the same. This is true of climate change as it is humans.
The debate on what to do about change and how much humans have potentially and/or are contributing is an entirely different discussion. With technology perhaps we'll coalesce. It is otherwise far more likely that the planet and the cosmos could make it so we can't.
Only when we as humans evolve our philosophy of existence in a manner which puts our continuity above all else, will we progress to our next universal evolutionary jump.
Until then only modest progress will continue slowly understanding limitations of physical matter (resource depletion and renewing), social strife churning at a snail's pace (the entire world is uneven at many levels socio-economically), war among ourselves will continue (instead of protection from outside or unknown source, we force offensive military campaigns to manage more of the above), and lastly academia has been inundated with the likes of Catholic Hereticism in the likes of Galileo style subjection.
We're nowhere close to evolving as a species on the whole. Combined with the perceived ideology that (right now especially), rigid frustration abounds in various social, work and familial circles simply due to the nature of our current macroeconomics. It's unfathomable to me that the grander picture is always blurred to the current state of existence.
What small ones can do is afford either government/public/private energy sources in localized areas. Infrastructure was built upon technology stacked on top of previous; dirt to stone, stone to asphalt, and on; etc.
The same is inherent with nuclear. It is easy to tie in to the existing grid, but the grids are extremely out of date for the growth of populations in general.
A large mix of SMR's could absolutely fuel energy needs in both the short and long term as technology continues to improve. The cost is a metric of current economics/interest. That's the problem right now - perspective states it's unaffordable because we've pivoted it that way.
Example - if all matter we interact with in our world (and manipulate) is essentially compiled in different formations but derived from the very same essence of building blocks. . . then every living organism and inate object is inherently linked together somehow, someway.
The same goes then, for human experience (and thus a reflection of material basis and external fields applied). If a ferromagnetic material (iron) is capable of becoming ferromagnetic permanently and also capable of existing without, then not only is the inherent expectation of matter to transform from one form to another; external experiences applicably experienced result in the same manifestation.
But once again - If you happen to concede the notion that all things in the physical universe are essentially built from the same blocks, then so are the experiences of humans as well and as expected would appear to be connected in some way as well. Meaning, the experience affects the subatomic or quantum levels, thus changing quantum properties resulting in a formal change to the underlying building blocks (genes, DNA copy, etc). That's my take.
To me, this OP is just an example of exposing this on a philosophic level.
Seems likely to me; we built EV's before we built the infrastructure to support them and conversely we created in infrastructure for petroleum vehicles before they entered mass production at the largest of scale in the period (1950's) after the fact.
I don't see how autonomous vehicles are not going to become a reality. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but, absolutely likely and possible.
So what we have is the ability to input data, but not yet a delivery system and retrieval system that can fit on say, a small chip, or light array, or other small systems.
It's a giant part of reason we'll see diminishing returns with data being applied in classical material approaches. New materials (currently being workd on, like graphite and others) will be needed to harness the compute power to enable large scale data capabilities at increasingly smaller and smaller levels (already a well known issue to be resolved).
Similar in physical approach but different in application would be TinyLM.
Timeline? Not sure but we created ION drives over 30 years ago. Seems to me we're limited not by the science, but the material needs to continue technological advancement. Seems to me autonomous driving is within reality in under 25 years. If I had to put a guestimate on it.
It is however, disconnected from reality. Basic fundamentals of human existence since the dawn of time remit one thing above all else in a large civilaztion:
Money and power dictate the actions of those wielding it and use it to continue a very closed cycle of power enticing money and vice versa. Period.
Put any government up against that, any mega-corporation, and nearly all individuals whom are not named that have more money and control over assets (including populations) than you are keen to continue to remain in this cycle.
That depends. Multiple universes don't explain causation. For example if you assert that all things present in the material world you live in (right now) at some point transcended existence in thought only to a material form (the planet didn't build concrete, we did) - how does this fit through entropy in a multiverse? To assert that in a multiverse the causation is defined by tuning, the existence of a universe in contrast to that which we are currently experiencing brings no causation from one to another. To me, this implies that a 'multiverse' is likely not the case; rather - dimensionality within the universe we experience is much more likely the case for a unified cosmos, given the fine tuning.
As Tesla would say, to understand the world you have to understand frequency and vibration. Such as, matter is able to exist in multiple form with the same building blocks, thus extra dimensions would posit why this is possible across relativistic time by the observer. We're bound by our dimension and other dimensions are not.
You and I experience in 3D - but what about other organisms, perhaps they have attained an experience of our cosmos in other dimensions.
I see the world (Earth, specifically, then my perception of it, and ultimately the cosmos behind that) as inherently connected at the most basic of levels. Science has shown us that much of the physical world that we can interact with is uncannily common in structure - we and stars are essentially made up of the same basic materials - as is everything else in the cosmos.
So why then, do we concede a connected cosmos at its core (basic building blocks) and instead seek to dissect this basic cosmic connection - via theism, or reality, creationism or intelligence on cosmic scale?
To me, if everything you can see and touch and interact with was at one point basic building blocks of all things, why would consciousness be different?
Meaning, the dot-com bubble showed a misappropriation of revenue by leading technology companies alongside the capital investorship, mainly VC's and private equity. Basically, everyone spent without producing a product; which lead to the mergers still the basis for many of the largest corporations today (and subsequently the 2008 crash, which further merged companies in the aftermath).
So, for me the difference is the money being spent here in this 'bubble' isn't like parking new mall shops on various websites, then spending the capital to entice buyers to purchase (either for store products or the store itself) - rather - it seems to me that both private and public sentiment is that the future is bright with the right application of these tools, in the right systems, to promote applicable use cases for things we (humans) can leave up to code/machines.
For instance, one of the most impressive applications of TinyLM uses is setting up several (or dozens) of tiny sensors in say a greenhouse. Each sensor can be linked to a central data repository for active monitoring to deploy active controls - be it barometric pressure, moisture content (soil, air), etc. Linking a bunch of these devices and letting it automatically run, along with linking this sensors as the data-providers to machines that may in turn plant, cull, trim, essentially a fully automated greenhouse.
I'm not greenthumb and I lack in-depth knowledge around how greenhouses (modern or old) work. However, it's without understanding the details I do understand it still takes a (or more) human to maintain the greenhouse.
Consider making these kinds of greenhouses (as is standard in some places now with vertical in-door growing farms) completely autonomous.
That's pretty technologically feasible it would seem with the newest applications of (quote) AI. And it's likely very profitable as well.
If I were to take the same ideology and apply to other industries, I find several applications like the one I mention that would absolutely change how we (humans) live in this (soon to be, IMHO) post-human industrialized world.
So where is all of the doom and gloom from - monopoly, errant comprehension of the technologies, or simply dogma?
Perhaps I'm a bad looker-up but I can't find the relative answer (seemingly) in various animal studies linked, outside of noting reproductive issues. Thanks in advance!
Be who you are, or who you want to be. Do not trust the images of conformity around you, for they wear a mask more often than not.
Raise your own awareness - something often lacking our everyday experiences, for all of us.
Changing light bulbs to all LED is simple and economical.
Buying a new car that gets better gas mileage and/or moving to an EV or EVH doesn't actually make sense unless you intend to use that car over a period of time that actually amortizes it. That's why it is generally not a great idea to lease a vehicle.
But this is contrary to popular belief because there is no catch-all for everyone.
I have a 30 mile commute. If I maintain my vehicle and add in fuel costs, it is cheaper to maintain an older vehicle and fuel it than it is to try and amortize the cost of a new vehicle over it's span.
That is, in my humble opinion. If I apply the same techniques here, you have to make decisions about how you live your life in the domicle you've chosen.
You'd think it... common sense not to leave the lights on, radio (or BT speaker, whatever 2024), fridge doors open, preheating your stove or oven unintentionally or without focus (preheating and being distracted, wasteful).
Ultimately technology won't save us. Hopefully common sense will. Hopefully. But we know how hopeful things go.
I reflect similarly in my own observations in general. We often foresee the future as a reflection of 'here and now' versus understanding the long-term implications of decisions made at vast scale.
There are many great examples right in plain sight in every day life.
And though I say this not as judgement, rather as speculation - the experiences read from a person who hasn't known life prior to the inception of the internet, and all that came forth from it, after it.
Why must the market be purely capitalistic? Rather, why any market must bare the mark of others is curious to me; similar as they may be some should not be equal.
Hypothetically - why not make raw materials in the traditional market(s) while also giving it a credit rating (valued in the market based on sustainability) - one that is transferable only against those same credits. So if a public need requires (x) and gains (theoretical) democratic support, credits can be used in place of monetary requirement to build these required needs.
Once the connection was made (networked) all else unfolded because of now (digital space). What replaced much of the 'connected world' before the internet remained - telephones, newspapers, photography, wires, etc. The advantage over all else wasn't just connectivity; it was a reduction in the time allotted in transmitting that information.
From there we realized that we created access to the non-material world whilst remaining firmly planted in reality - transferring much of that material connection into digital connection.
What followed isn't fundamentally abstract at all - 1975-1985, '85-'95, '95-'03, '03-'09, '09-'17 and our current period, are all iterations of the same technology being recreated in faster, larger, more accessible ways.
However, we humans haven't changed. We haven't evolved in the same time line that technology has. Not that we could or should, but rather we're evolving at a much slower rate that we push technology and in my humble opinion exacerbates the rigid dualities of life changing technologies.
We must embrace new ideology in our philosophic approach to technology if we intend to mature new technologies as part of our own evolution.
That is, if we truly care about how technology like the internet can and has changed human life.
QR codes aren't novel in their approach to information; they are rather applicably similar barcodes. I think generally speaking most would agree.
This is the disconnect for most of humans. Generally speaking, when instituting out-of-the-norm operating standards in a generally selective common environment, most tradition is bonded with rather than against.
Such as a QR code as an example in replacing physical menus with physically-required experiences. Such as; walking in to physical place, sitting down or standing somewhere, picking up or looking at a written menu, speaking to someone (perhaps soon enough to be, some thing), ordering something to eat, eating said items, paying for said items, maybe a visit to the loo or not, and leaving the physical establishment.
When you insert a new method that (generally speaking) detracts from societal norms, it isn't a question of whether it works or doesn't work it's purely a matter of fucntion for the experience.
Example:
If there were a true 'ghost kitchen' which also had a (let's just say hypothetically) street-facing counter window due to (again, hypothetically) extremely small real estate space for the transactional process of obtaining the food, like a 2x2' window where you pickup the food - and the entirety of the transactional process from the financial arm of this experience, were to functionally as such: scan QR code above window, place order, pay/send order, wait nearby window, pickup food as ready.
That'd make sense.
But not so much when you or you and a group or more are interested in sitting down inside a physical space, expecting a physical experience.
The two are not equal and should be used as the experience is required, in my very humble, 25+ years of experience in this very industry, opinion.