this15testingg

the constant hypocrisy is unbearable. these people having so much power is holding humanity back.

right? like what universe are these people in

it seems like anyone continuing to use github is ok with providing free labor to Microsoft. Not that that wasn't the case already, but now it seems especially blatant. "open source" is just corporate welfare at this point.

bus only lanes should be standard. One or two people in cars shouldn't be able to delay an entire line, nor should they get priority.

the wording of that page is so blatantly propaganda that it's embarrassing to read. It's pathetic.

I think the point is that you can buy a road legal vehicle where the driver is entirely encased in glass/steal with anywhere from 5-30 powered speakers to use at any volume they want but we still end up having these "people existing outside with headphones is bad because every piece of the earth has been handed to cars" arguments.

ahead of what curve? intrinsically human endeavors are drowned in noise. what is the point? if even drawing/writing/singing are not worth doing anymore both because effort and the experience itself is worthless, I might as well step in front of a tesla taxi so I can escape this world. human ingenuity is amazing, but this whole mess is embarrassing

equating chatgpt to "a better spell checker" is wild; how is writing not also a skill that should be taught?

to be fair we now have the knowledge and ability to begin to see the scale of the universe but are still burdened with the expectation of continuing the industrial age factory worker schedule of 40 hours a week coupled a constant barrage of information that it's actually doing more harm than good. How can you really blame anyone when the society is just working for the sake of it.

right; the "ancap" mentality in computing could only last for so long. Eventually, and especially with the refusal of incorporating any ethics or humanity into it, it's now an established industry affecting all walks of life just like every other that has preceded it, and the belief that its technological superiority/uniqueness was a good reason to essentially exempt it from regulation (TV broadcasts for children are required to have "bumper" sections that would clearly define the show vs the advertisement; Why was computing/the internet treated differently? A high-horse mentality that stemmed from "complexity olympics"? no child could ever use or comprehend a sophisticated machine like this!!) has really fucked us. The labor is decentralized at such a scale that I also have a hard time believing anything could be rectified; open source software is mostly just corporate welfare, putting anything at all on the internet has become corporate welfare, and there is no real purpose or goal for building all of this. The computer was supposed to allow us to do less work, right?

exactly; I hope ycombinator and its proponents can enjoy living in the ancap fantasy land where you have to pay to be alerted for a climate change fueled mega hurricane (also caused by this exact same reckless, unregulated greed) because NOAA was disbanded. Billionaires shouldn't exist, but neither should millionaires.

if you want to completely disregard copyright laws, just call your project AI!

I'm sure Aaron Swartz would be proud of where the "tech" industry has gone. /s

what problem are these glorified AIM chatbots trying to solve? wealth extraction not happening fast enough?

even the FOSS world (:

RHEL 9+ (and as a result, its decedents) is built for x86_64-v2 and has increased RAM requirements for certain installation procedures, so now hundreds/thousands of perfectly functional small servers are no longer able to upgrade (to the next EL version, obviously there are other distributions, but then there's the resource/energy requirement to change everything to something new...) (:

the entirety of computing from top to bottom doesn't give a fuck about the environment. The only way to make this "sustainable" is to slow down and fix/maintain things... but of course that's the antithesis of this world we've built.

also the fact that an airport is usually not where you live or work, and in the U.S. that means you're still adding to traffic pre/post flight with an additional need for a car on both ends of the trip.

but you get to "beat traffic"! lol

this is such a hilariously bad take that I have no hope that anything will ever change

the CAHSR station is at LA's Union station, which I think is the context of this set of comments. The line to Vegas (brightline west) does indeed end (for now) in Rancho Cucamonga with plans to continue on to LA's Union Station

coverage to an entire area is either via "small number of satellites" in geostationary orbits or massive amounts of satellites for low earth orbits, you cannot have both.

"Just replaced by another" is massively oversimplifying every aspect of this, not just the act of putting an object in orbit, but also the coordination of that many MOVING satellites, their fuel levels / end-of-life procedures, all the ground infrastructure needed to support it, and the total amount of energy that this system requires (both on the side of the service providers and users).

Connecting rural or places without internet is not a technical problem, like everything in the world we built it is an issue of priorities. Starlink was not created "for the good of the farmer".

how does private ownership not mean that someone is entitled to control the benefits of an asset? isn't that the entire idea of capitalism?

in the context of public (emphasis on PUBLIC) infrastructure, how does pristine air quality, well paid jobs for workers with ironclad security, not upsetting anyone, strong regulatory controls not be considered in a "high quality product"? How could it be high quality without those? The idea that public infrastructure has to be profitable/a product instead of a public good is misguided and ignores the realities of the costs and requirements associated with such things.

would you say that the strong regulatory nature of air travel makes is low quality? if the NTSB/FHWA took car transportation as seriously as flying, I would imagine the US would not have 40,000 deaths a year just from driving. I don't understand how that amount of death (ignoring pollution, minor/serious injuries, personal cost, lost time, resources both monetary and material, etc) makes the US transport choices a "high quality" product.

If cyclists go through without coming to a complete stop (like 99% of drivers, complete stop means the wheels are not turning and the speedometer says "0") and gets hit, the cyclist/pedestrian dies.

If a car ignores signals, the cyclist/pedestrian still dies.

These are not the same modes of traffic, and forcing everyone on earth to bend to the behaviors of the most dangerous mode of transportation is insanity.