kaibee

*disclaimer: not a trekkie, just a pedant

[https://www.homedepot.com/p/Schlage-Camelot-Satin-Nickel-Ele...]

I had one on my house growing up from like 2007-2012, rock solid. Bought a house this year and the first thing I did was install these on the front and back doors. Seems like it's exactly the same model that was being sold in 2007 (which is still on my childhood home and going strong btw).

Took a bit of massaging and I enabled the Data Analysis plugin which lets it write python code and run it. It looks like the simulation code is correct though.

Sellers don't just 'not sell this item on Amazon', because it is the largest single market. This is like, the whole issue in question.

> because if they need that particular item they will search for it and find it cheaper on another store, strengthening that one and hurting Amazon.

This is the exact thing that isn't happening, because Amazon is abusing its market position.

But, even if this was the case and the seller chose to sell on a different marketplace and take the Amazon ban, then it still wouldn't be as good as having just having the item listed on both marketplaces at two different prices. Because then I wouldn't be able to buy the best lightbulbs in one convenient location.

So here's a weird externality. As a decently well off tech-worker, I don't care if I'm paying 5$ or 2$ for lightbulbs, even if I'm re-lighting my whole house. The seller will sell on Amazon, because it is the largest market and will set their prices on other markets to match Amazon. I'll buy on Amazon, because it isn't worth my time to check multiple websites to get the best price (especially when SKUs differ and I have multiple other items I'm buying, etc). And now people who do need to save money, can't also find this lightbulb at a cheaper price on competing marketplaces, even if this lightbulb is actually the best quality.

So this is a funny one because its definitely solvable but it's kind of a classic principal agent problem. There's a number of things that are going into 'clear audio quality'.

1. Receiver's audio output quality - This is rarely if ever the problem. People usually use their speakers/headset to listen to stuff besides corporate meetings, so they're motivated to have something at least good enough that they can enjoy their music, talk shows, whatever.

2. Bandwidth allocation - This... this really shouldn't be an issue, but it is because the user isn't paying for the bandwidth, whether that's classic cellphone calls, Teams voice, whatever. And so its in the company's best financial interest to compress the audio as much as is tolerable. This isn't really an issue if #3 isn't a problem and the user is in a place without too much background noise, but with open-plan offices, it is a problem if there's a lot of people talking.

3. User's mic quality - So in gaming communities, people will generally tell you if your mic sucks, because you're just some random stranger. And if your mic sucks and you want people to listen to you, you will probably buy a good mic eventually, tweak the settings etc. In a business context, my experience has been that the audio quality has to be pretty bad before anyone even says anything to the speaker. And then it's up to that person to either try to get it replaced by IT or pay out of pocket for a good quality mic. And this is assuming that they're technical enough to be able to pick out a good mic to begin with or even realize that its something they can solve.

This is already pretty much gone thanks to manufacturers making it extremely difficult to fix things. No AI required.

As someone who has used Unity a lot, it really isn't the engine. You're only noticing this is the whole "no good toupees" thing. The thing is, the Unity Assetstore makes it very easy to hack together something that kind of works, but because nothing will quite fit together it'll be a janky mess.

In theory supply and demand still exists in Texas, and Bitcoin miners do demand a lot of energy. Assuming that energy companies are including Bitcoin miners in their demand projections (I don't see why they wouldn't?) then the default assumption is that just based on the market forces at play, capacity should have been built with Bitcoin miner demand included.

The more things change eh

This is a category error. You're talking about the education system as though it was designed from accurate first principles towards a specific intended outcome. Like, you can say that the absolute unequivocal purpose of a nuclear reactor is to heat water. But when we're looking at sociopolitical organizations, that have been codified through various political forces over tens of generations, through the demands of ever-shifting stakeholders, etc this is not a useful framing.

> but the system is designed to breed good workers and sort them into bins. And its not a bad thing either. Sure there are non-economic self contained benefits, but those are perks, not purposes.

I think a more accurate framing is that the system is currently evolved into strongly emphasizing this mode of behavior.

Maybe, but that sounds like a problem that isn't guaranteed to happen and isn't one that you'd be personally held responsible for, since everyone else was doing the same thing... how could you have known? No one ever got fired for buying IBM and all that.

I'm not sure what is simple about needing to deploy orders of magnitude more devices to achieve similar levels of coverage...

Uh, obviously?

Not necessarily the same thing, as you're still putting in more processing power/checking more possible paths. Its kinda like simulated annealing, sure the system is dumb, but as long as checking if you have a correct answer is cheap, it still narrows down the search space a lot.

This is also good life advice.

Except it didn't. That's like, the first thing in the article.

Coca-Cola spends ~4 billion dollars a year on marketing. Pepsi spends ~3 billion. Soda makes you fat and unhealthy. This is not solving any problem, only causing them.

The incentives for marketing and sales also aren't really aligned with what is actually best for the consumer. If you wanted them to be aligned with what the consumer wanted, then you as the consumer would be the one paying the marketing company, and they would compete to be the best at finding you solutions to your problems.

This is kind of what Google Search did before they really monetized their search. You paid them with your attention and they helped you find solutions to your problems. Now companies pay them to be brought to your attention, which is why Google Search sucks now.

This is not a sustainable solution to population level health needs, even if maybe in your particular situation you do actually get enough vacation days and free time on weekends to be able to do this (I also doubt this).