It's surely disingenuous to only criticize one actor and always stay silent or even defend another. But it's disengenuous as well if criticism on one actor is never accepted with the argument "but you didn't criticize Xyz as well!"
This is how china tried to justify its genocide against uighers. Was theboutrage against that just politically motivated? Or do americans only care about ethnic cleansing when theyre not the ones doing it
I hear what you're saying man, but honestly it's a sensor. Sensors can fail all the time even without deliberate tampering. It doesn't seem to really make sense to have a single one in a single location. Besides for clarity, my question was more why was the market referenced on a single sensor rather than on multiple sensors?
lol, the OP is such a classic HN take. "Why doesn't society simply absorb a negative externality created by gambling and add high cost redundancy layers that are otherwise useless" - Not every problem is technical.
Because that wasn't what caused the problem? The reason it didn't work was some asshole intentionally tampered with the equipment, not because of where it was.
Unfortunately while evocative, it doesn't really make sense.
A Zamboni has a "conditioner" at the rear that contains a sharp horizontal blade that shaves the ice as the machine runs across the ice. The blade is a bit like a very wide wood-plane. It is sharp and controlled to be a little below the current surface of ice. The shavings are moved to a waste tank using an internal horizontal auger and vertical auger.
You usually couldn't get near enough to the blade to have a close enough shave for it to harm you. However I'm guessing a Zamboni could hurt you in other ways.
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the details . . . I'm sure applying the right amount of intelligence could discover harmful means.
The tool just allows them to synthesize an implementation, but if its designed badly then it will fail and they will have to get better at design anyway. I dont see how that itself is the problem. The tractor didnt make farmers worse at farming even if they lost the strength to work an old school plow
I think the challenge will be everything else the person will be doing. Will this person also try to coding? And financial management? And marketing? And operational planning? Just because there are tools out there for them to synthesize implementations of that. If so then they wont be able to get good at any of those. But i think the backwards pressure from failing at those things will bring it back to a stable equilibrium where you have specialists who are good at the abstract ideas of their field leveraging these things as a new abstraction layer of work, analogous to the compiler
The bulls' theory is that right now the person who doesnt know how to design pay a designer that will use figma, but with something like claude design they can just vibecode the thing without having to get a designer involved.
Its making alot of bold assumptions, but we live in interesting times so thats par for the course
I mean it does add like a millisecond of unnecessary delay that wouldn't be there if it took the most efficient route. It's not much, but it does add up!
Separation of functions/concerns is not great, for starters.
The testes are dangerously exposed, the plumbing is convoluted and failure-prone (and doesn’t recover well from mechanical insults).
The prostate, which serves no function outside of reproduction, lies inline with the urethra and quite consistently loses flexibility and becomes enlarged with age, causing all sorts of structural issues impacting basic urological function.
Female reproductive vs urinary anatomy is largely physiologically distinct (proximity and UTI risk notwithstanding). Though plenty of room for improvement there too — starting with endometrial tissue being far too prolific. Fun fact: endometrial tissue can migrate to the brain and cause haemorrhaging in severe cases of endometriosis.
Plenty of room for improvement across the board, I’d say!
Hey, $DEITY did its absolute best with the constraints and the requirements. But hey, can't please everyone apparently. Be happy you can relieve yourself well past the intended warranty period. The parts were designed to be easily _aftermarket_ replaceable with sufficient advances in technology, retaining the fundamental design without changes.
Mother nature hates weak things that die (that's why they get eliminated), so if we can make it to interplanetary species before killing ourselves, that would be a pretty huge sign of success. At least on mother natures benchmark.
> The most successful at communicating their view that they are the most successful
To who? Other humans?
It's seagull mating season where I am, and I don't speak seagull, but I'm pretty sure one of the things they're trying to convey to their fellow seagulls is that they're extremely successful.
Can't argue with it either. They're very much alive, which is the best you can be in this particular competition.
So, the most successful at arrogance? In other words, the least successful at humility? Ironically, since humble and human share a common root. Just playing devil's advocate here, but what you propose is not a good metric to maximize.
Corn, albeit not an animal has been pretty successful in terms of number of individuals. Their bi-pedal underlings have cleared swathes of land and take meticulous care of their well-being so they can bask in the sun undisturbed.
I fail to see that, it's simply one of all other random mutations, it's just that this one has a big downstream effect of enabling other more complex mutations
Arguably much less successful since jellyfish have been around 700+ million years ands it’s not clear if humans will make it even the next couple thousand.
But the jury is still out on that one
You're positing the existence of a far more advanced lifeform than merely a clever monkey with pretensions, which then somehow created said monkeys. That's like saying that it's easy to become a millionaire, just start with a billion dollars.
That's not an explanation, you just replaced a problem with another harder one.
Yeah but their argument is that if someone takes a photo of you with thier iphone and its uploaded to icloud, you cant ask apple to delete the photo, you need to ask the person who took it
I agree with the thesis but i dont agree about elon buying twitter. That was really messy, but it was clear later on that he did it to manipulate the election for trump, and that bet paid off amazongly well for him in hindsight. Not only did twitter turn out to be ceitical in spreading misinformation (how many morons didnt vote for harris because they thought shed start a war in the middle east) but that then also gave him crazy access to the government. It fell out later, but it was probably the most effective 40bil anyone today could hope to spend
reply