> I use it the way I used to outsource tasks to junior developers.
Is this not concerning to you, in a broader sense? These interactions were incredibly formative for junior devs (they were for me years ago) - its how to grew new senior devs. If we automate away the opportunity to train new senior devs, what happens to the future?
But it indicates that something is really wrong, right? And that we should all keep noticing that and keep working on a solution?
I think the negative responses are directed at the use of "meh" and the seeming indifference to an actual problem that could really use a solution, even if we don't have a perfect one everybody agrees on yet.
That's a lovely vision. If by the same miracle I retire around the same time, I'm in - haven't played since college, so I'm sure its hardly the same game I knew.
No no no, you can't compare the ICE risk. an ICE car sitting in my garage has basically zero chance of catching fire and burning my house down while my family sleeps.
What this incident shows is that with an EV, charging in the garage as its supposed to do overnight, that chance is >0.
That is an enormously BIG DEAL, and will matter to a huge number of consumers and lawmakers alike.
> No no no, you can't compare the ICE risk. an ICE car sitting in my garage has basically zero chance of catching fire and burning my house down while my family sleeps.
Wrong. Really easy to find lots of examples, here’s a couple to get you started.
> The risk of fire exists even when the vehicle is parked and turned off. This month, the company will notify affected owners of the fire risk, advising them to park outside until they can have their vehicles fixed.
> Water may enter the starter solenoid and cause an electrical short which can result in an engine fire while the car is parked or driving, according to the NHTSA.
Wow. Well, I'll take the correction. I've never heard of anything like that. However, while this is also scary, I still think its unfair to say the evidence of a potential problem type in a new technology like EVs is not concerning, and to say that the likelihood of fire is greater in ICE (because I don't think its fair to add in the comparison of fire risk while turned on to that of fire risk when turned off)
> Only 23 fires were reported in electric vehicles in 2022 making up just 0.004% of Sweden’s fleet of 611,000 EVs.
> In contrast, over the same period, some 3,400 fires we reported in 2022 from Sweden’s 4.4 million petrol and diesel cars representing 0.08% of the fossil car fleet.
> This means that in 2022 a petrol or diesel car in Sweden was around 20 times more likely to catch fire than an electric vehicle.
> Furthermore, fires in electric cars are declining. The MSB says the number of fires in electric cars has been around 20 a year over the last three years, although the number of electric cars over that tie has almost doubled. Presumably, this is due to EV makers improving fire suppressing designs in newer models.
I’ve not seen any stats about parked vs driving. Given that ICE car fires are exceedingly rare it’s probably worth worrying about other things.
EVs are unknown and thus scary. They're the nuclear power plants of the vehicle industry.
The media also makes a big headline every time a Tesla catches fire in Finland, Minnesota and the thousands of ICE vehicles on fire don't warrant even a minor note.
This is so important to me. I find its an enormous value of mine to make sure that my kid knows what can be fixed, even if not how to fix it. So many people don't even know its possible to fix many things, so they don't learn, they don't try (and of course they give professionals a huge amounts of money for things that require 30 mins and a $2 part)
Respectfully disagree - their peers often make an unhealthy environment on the internet. Kids need in-person communication and interactions, its necessary for healthy development. The internet looks like it provides social interaction, but it actually does not provide what kids need. They should interact with their peers elsewhere, synchronously.
I feel like interacting with a moderate-sized set of real peers is workable - like chat rooms on AIM with the kids you know from school. Kids have always had unsupervised time with their peers.
Where it breaks down, is when you get a whole ecosystem populated entirely by kids and those trying to make money off of them.
I agree that AIM was fine. Not as good as in-person interaction, and no real substitute for it, but as an augmentation it caused no real harm. Chatrooms could be in the same boat, but had more problems.
However, social media ever since feeds and the "like" button are an entirely different beast which is addicting, dehumanizing, and antisocial - preventing kids from developing socially.
No, most of the problem with internet interaction is how the human brain considers the username saying things to you on AIM is NOT the same as the dude you hang out with every day in real life, and more importantly, the usernames you don't know in real life are just vague spirits your brain is much more willing to demonize. This exact same effect is the main cause of roadrage and why everyone is such an asshole when you put them in steel boxes and have them interact on the road.
It is NOT SOCIALIZATION to talk to people on the internet. Your brain simply does not treat it the same way.
Kids are fine interacting in person at school and other public places. They don't need this social media bullshit, and even private messaging systems like AIM or MSN aren't really that great.
Ok, but here me out - I think many things are missed in this take. This one immediately jumps out at me (from the manifesto): "Build projects around motivated individuals"
The manifesto is predicated on this basis - that the individuals are motivated and capable of delivering when empowered. In a large corporate environment, can you make that assumption? Is your hiring always that good? Can you provide the type of environment that always produces high morale?
I'm no fan of scrum, but I've also seen what happens when "unmotivated" individuals are given too much free reign - nothing. How do you, as a large business, address that? Mass firings, or more "active" process? Perhaps business can't get over the risk mitigation that scrum provides?
I'm very interested in this topic, but currently ignorant enough about NES game dev to make this repo fairly cryptic. Is there anyone here with more knowledge that can explain what exactly this does (more deeply than "enable writing NES games in Python, kind of"), and how it compares to other tooling out there?
> I use it the way I used to outsource tasks to junior developers.
Is this not concerning to you, in a broader sense? These interactions were incredibly formative for junior devs (they were for me years ago) - its how to grew new senior devs. If we automate away the opportunity to train new senior devs, what happens to the future?