54351623

How to set up your own Mastodon instance.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/social-network-set-mastodon-in...

Or of course there is always 4chan if you are so concerned about censorship.

Not an expert but here is an article on turning lead into gold. Spoiler it's radioactive.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-l...

Probably Planetary Resources, this has been talked about for years. Several companies were looking at doing it but the time lines are always like 30 years out or something. Here's and article from 2015 talking about it

https://www.space.com/30213-asteroid-mining-planetary-resour...

The Colorado School of Mines even has a graduate program in it.

https://space.mines.edu/

The person who wrote this should probably talk to a therapist about his obsession with hunting people down online instead of blaming a social network site.

Cultural identity? Sounds pretty Orwellian to me, rather like group think.

That's the point it wouldn't. It's not a question of free speech but rather the assurance that periodical's leadership can be protected from their workers or general criticism about poor direction that their periodicals are taking or are being forced to take due to changes in the media landscape.

Put more succinctly, imagine someone blaming the failure of their news organization on their readers opinions of free speech as opposed to their own shoddy workmanship, or an inability to compete with more modern forms of media.

And I was specifically referring to the ideas of free speech that the news outlet is striving to defend or at least define.

You're exactly right and I think it's important to consider that the LA Times' position as a sort of authority figure when it comes to speech (being a major news source/ media entity) may be an underlying interest in how the arguments made in this article are put forward. I imagine a whole lot of editors of the last few newspapers that are independently owned had some very interesting thoughts when the workers at New York Times pushed out some of it's leadership over an article Tom Cotton could have just as easily put on his website.

I agree that it's about cultural norms but I think the cultural norms are the cost and limiting factors of free expression being greatly reduced. I imagine an entity like the LA Times has an interest in defining how free speech works in the news room and subsequently the readers of that news source. I also imagine that idea of free speech would protect leadership in the newsroom from subordinates if everything published has to go through said leadership.

Check this out https://scitechdaily.com/solar-power-satellite-hardware-that...

A few years ago I read about a Japanese firm that wanted to cover massive areas on the moon with solar panels and use a similar beaming technique to send the electricity back to Earth. Hopefully they are still moving forward with that.

I don't know, I think you'll wind up with a bunch of journalists charging independently to produce media, such as the author of the piece does or something like the kickstarters that produce long form docs.

Most jobs in the world aren't going to require their employees to represent a company that is presenting itself as the arbiter or defining absolute of free speech. Hell, most jobs it matters very little who you vote for or what you believe, even in the government. If these employees are uncomfortable with the position their employer is putting them in they may want to reevaluate their life choices.

I appreciate Mr. Paul's sentiment and agree with him. I would like to see him go further though and end the drug war that the US gov has waged against the American people. I think these no-knock warrants and other systemic, organized violence committed by a militarized civilian law enforcement is largely enabled by this war.

That's a good point I guess he'd just be stuck with firing them and moving the factory, oh wait... Or maybe he'll just pick up some cheap foreign labor, oh wait..... Maybe just replace them with automation, oh wait ..............

I'm not saying other cities, especially in Texas, wouldn't jump at the opportunity. I just think it's a bold move.

If I was a Tesla employee I'd strike for quadruple pay and benefits. If Musk is willing to go to prison to get his factory up and running surly he'd be willing to give his employees pretty hefty raises.

Bold move to extort public officials with threats to move a factory you're attempting to fully automate and a few hundred white collar positions to a state where your main bargaining chip is jobs when you possess less than 5% market share, a vertical monopoly and a luxury product in a crashing market. Excited to see how this one turns out.

Considering those two doctors are the poster children of censorship right now, I've seen more articles about them than any other single medical professional or said professional's opinions.

Maybe but I doubt it, I feel like it would be all or nothing in regards to vehicles but who knows, would probably vary a lot. My understanding of the motivation is that it is only partially due to pollution and more to do with livability, comfort, health and that sort of thing.

BYD did just get the largest electric bus order in history from LA https://t.co/YaWN2ZKtBs?amp=1 as part of a green new deal, so you may not be far off in regards to cities moving towards focusing on accommodating electric vehicles.

Couple with this the massive glut of used cars thats about to get worse, the fact that many cities are seriously considering long term conversion of roadways to be pedestrian only and all the oil field pickups that are about to get repo'd (pertaining to the cyber truck).

What I'd really like to know is what will happen to Tesla's vehicles if the company goes under? Like will they get bricked essentially? I sincerely doubt Tesla will go under like that but, I'm curious none the less.

If this was only about getting the information out, then they would have just uploaded the video to a separate video hosting site. Instead they are complaining about how one site is attempting to ensure potential misinformation about a poorly understood virus isn't spread using said platform. The fact that the narrative of personal liberties is being focused on this while millions of poorly paid workers are forced to choose between homelessness and putting themselves at risk is a cruel joke. I can't imagine this is anything except narrative manipulation and not about presenting an accurate portrayal of the erosion of personal liberties.

That is an excellent question...

Although they don't provide links this article from McKinsey suggests some vehicle manufactures do in fact utilize robotics to ease scaling.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-i...

While the following articles suggest this very question is an important aspect of robotics that manufactures can take advantage of to mitigate costs and make modernizing less painful

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-i...

With the following article making a strong case for the re-shoring of jobs that advanced manufacturing options have historically resulted in as well as laying out the benefits these technologies can provide which allow small scale production of niche products.

https://itif.org/publications/2019/10/15/robotics-and-future...

I'm sure it's more complicated than three articles can outline. I would like to really know why this can't happen though.

I didn't mean renting them out but rather switch to masks that I assume have a higher demand with lower production standards.

I'd be willing to bet that you are right though and that the machines currently being used wouldn't be capable of producing much besides masks.

That level of automation is what I was wondering about, how much it would take to remove humans entirely. Admittedly I was working under the assumption that the producer of the masks wasn't also manufacturing raw materials as that wasn't addressed in the article and may be a separate issue in and of itself.

Scaling as in just let the machines run longer, normal hours to 24/7 or whatever is necessary, there's more room for a nuanced production if less people are involved right? For clarification I didn't mean scaling as in buying more machines, which I agree would likely require prohibitive investment.

Of course keeping a few machines in the wings is probably cheaper than overtime and unemployment.

[edit] I'd also like to know how difficult it would be to just switch the machine over to making cheaper, non-medical grade masks as demand changes?

Why can't N95 mask production be completely automated so production can quickly scale with demand while also keeping costs down?