Alan_Dillman

>f one thinks that some corporation--any corporation--owes "faith" or loyalty to their customers

If you don't think it is well past time to start forcing ethical behaviour on corporations... I don't know what to say to you.

I notice a certain country is fast tracking them to have human rights, like civic voting, but nothing at all about joining in responsible stewardship for our world.

>Lead pipe but instead of a dozen people in the pipe factory it's a few hundred

You haven't been in a factory lately, or toured one from 100 years ago?

Its exactly opposite to how you say. Mechanization slimmed the employee count, then automation did it again, then again with everything going digital.

This is seen in all sorts of industries.

The plant I work in has loads of empty offices, former machine shops bereft of millwrights/used for storage), and only half the lockers in the change room are claimed, and that's after they carved out a locker room for female employees. And that's only a 50 year old place.

One night I was working alone, and the site labour supervisor was the only person I saw all night, as he stopped in a few times to check on how I was doing. I asked him how many people he had on site, and he said about 30, including he and I. Since then, when I work nights, I check up on people too. Its a big place. The population swells during the day, but most of it is contractors(like me) and office personnel. But the plant runs 24/7, as much as possible.

I've worked nights in another part of the plant, in finishing/warehouse/loading, and there's about seven people there overnight (and the same during the day), and only one (me) doing actual physical labour(and not hard stuff at all). Because product is mechanically wrapped, packaging is machine counted and printed these days, not hand lettered, moved around via conveyor and forklift, and loaded for shipping with machinery. Even closing the rail car doors is done with a machine.

Even 50-100 years ago, the world ran much more on muscle power and human eyes, and many more employees were needed.

>Could they prove that I copied that single line from them? Would anyone care?

A year from now, you could decide to write something, and the obvious appears in your mind, and you type it out. It just happens to be identical to a line that you've read from a licensed document.

Did you copy it? Were you inventing, or remembering? Did you copy/paste from your own mind? Should you attribute the one who lugged the block of marble last year? What about last week? Everything you'll ever think is informed by everything you've thunk before.

This is a good reason for the law to not care about small things.

It sounds like the author is part of a wonderful community.

Most people's internal alarm for self preservation starts yelling long before endurance is truly tested. Nobody sprints for 24 hours, but I am certain that even the average couch potato can keep walking for 24 hours. They'd be hurting after, of course. From learning to jog, I can attest that it mostly about willpower, and I suppose, desperation at times.

In death marches, such as in WWII, even many starving prisoners, walking from dawn to dusk, with beatings, lasted for days on the trail.

The Americans and Filipinos on the Bataan Deathmarch are one example:

>The total distance marched from Mariveles to San Fernando and from the Capas Train Station to various camps was 65 miles long.

For the British there was The Burma Rail: >Camp Nong Pladuk was initially used as a transit camp from where the prisoners were transported or had to walk to work camps along the Burma Railway.

And of course, the Jews and other victims of the Nazis were often force marched.

My great great grandmother returned to her Volga German village in Russia after the rise of the Soviets, was arrested, sent to Siberia, where she worked in a camp for 7 years until her death from malnutrition and other neglects. And she was a grandmother at the time.

Depraved, even.

This this^^. Anything that can stay coherent and on topic longer than a typical human is useful. I'm a stochastic parrot at some level too.

There aren't enough Catholic priests to go around anyway. So the priests are often hopping back and forth between parishes, figuratively and actually.

So its no real surprise they don't want to go after the straight ones, and yet, they must figure blowing off a few toes won't hurt too much.

Lick 'em and stick 'em, got it.

So happy for those two devs.

Bunch of twaddle.

I'm not doing it for the engine, I'm doing it so the windows thaw out, and partly so that the passenger compartment is warm. I'm doing it so I don't get in a friggin accident and kill someone.

Oh yeah, just start it and drive off, very good. OP-ED obviously doesn't live in a real winter climate.

As for stress on the engine, mine has a governor that won't let it exceed a certain speed until the engine temperature comes up.

Sure, but there has to be stray wolves forming new packs. Every pack in existence started that way. While there is no fight for who will be "The Alpha", obviously there is a patriarch and matriarch of the pack.

Exactly.

This is why it is dumb when people say "The odds against life arising at random is astronomical."

It did happen, therefore, the convoluted path to life wasn't what the skeptic speaker thinks it was.

Multiple-endpoints fallacy and overly anthropomorphizing reality also makes a fool out of the Drake Equation, and the idea of "The Great Filter" is dumb too.

That's similar to how it works in my Canadian workplace. My employer has a pool of workers, and when a project is coming up, the manager phones around and fills his or her labour requirements. Lots of us work secondary jobs too, and this is both reasonable and understood, and a "no" or even a series of noes to an offer won't put you on the street, though it may lower you on a particular manager's call list.

Its like renting yourself out. You don't feel owned, and nobody feels they own you. Its great.

"Forget everything you know about slipcovers."

I also had no expectations about something called Perfluorocubane.

>So: why should we--why should anyone--care about your half-arsed opinion?

I don't think you effectively critiqued yakshaving by repeating what he said about the commentating art community. Their opinions are worth no more than his, my, or your half-arsed opinions. You haven't defended them when he's speaking against pretentiousness.

Art is art, and it doesn't need an adhoc recital of catch phrases and in-words performed by those gathered around. In saying "You just don't understand", you gilt no dirt.

There's no need for a bait and switch. Yakshaving didn't criticise the art, he criticised the chatter, which is just a gussied up version of "I like the colour" and "The way it creaks in the breeze gives me the heebie-jeebies".

Its like a party after a hanging, and regardless of whether it is a painting, or an outlaw, there's something uncomfortable and unnatural about people gathering around to nod their heads in satisfaction.

Thank you for this.

And lamer than I had anticipated.

While the actors faces are intrinsic to our memories of those films, there is nothing in the films existence intrinsic to those precise faces and identities.

The existence of nothing hinges on Julia and Tess existing as dopplegangers except the plot of the film itself. And if Julia Real didn't act in Ocean's Eleven, her star needs not be diminished: she'd have taken some other project which could be a hit. Maybe even several in the time it took to film Ocean's Eleven in the real world.

The article's author's brain is wrapped up in la-la land and the cult of personality.

I don't know either, but in English one definition/sense of para is "beyond", so it is "beyond language symbols", which shapes up to be something in the sense of a sort of programming paradigm where everything is subject to redefinition, particularly on the fly.

The world is bigger than the USA. The chances of getting caught in a mass shooting are lower than you are estimating, and pedestrians are more impacted by automobiles.

We have those viruses and diseases too, you know.

>why are they not using it in situations where it would be clear, to any individual with that knowledge, how useful it would be?

Who is to say it is not?

By analogy, if you are laying under your vehicle, loosening a bolt with a wrench, and your dog is hunched nearby watching, he can clearly see what you are doing (and quite possibly understands that the wrench is needed to loosen the bolt) but he cannot understand why you are doing that, or what 19mm means, nor express either. The dog understands leverage in terms of his world, but quite possibly not that the wrench is used to create it in a different way. Certainly he couldn't explain it to another dog.

The other apes are doing things we can see and hear, but do not understand or put any importance on. One thing I note is that there is no mention of body language in that essay. Posture and gesture (and situation) add a huge amount of complexity to language.

And apes are surely using that too.

For example, I can tell you "no" but with minimal deft gestures, convey understanding in you that I mean "maybe" or even outright "yes". The canonical example being Linus Torvalds saying "No" to whether he was asked¹ to add back doors to the Linux Kernel, while indicating non verbally and quite clearly that he meant yes.

You and I have "that knowledge" to understand the whole message, while we quite likely lack nuance that other apes have in their communications.

¹and we both understand "asked" to actually mean "pressured" to some degree, and told not to tell. And there was more than duality in Linus' answer, he was also saying "Don't trust me to not fall to pressure" and "If I am pressured, they shouldn't trust me to keep it a secret".

Apes are surprising in their sophistication.

I remember when this was knew, thinking, "Its so cool, but too technical for me to do!" Now it would be, "meh, I've done harder".

Thanks for the wonderful memories.

I agree!

Right? Its so close to being wonderful, and I really like the raspiOS desktop. I think we're right around the corner from a new ARM frontier opening up.

Tomorrow (today!) my experiment is a minimal systemd linux. Thanks, something in your writing reminded me of that, I had just started reading about it last night. My inspiration was the "minimum linux live" project, which of course is not really a practical start point, and would take a ton of work to build up, but none of the tiny linuxes like DSL and Puppy Linux scratch my itch. So I think a tear down is my path forward, then once I find that, start from scratch and aim for that target.

I'd love to. My Raspi-4 8gb is almost enough for me, just need a little bit more oomph, and rammier and roomier RAM. I wish the openGL/Vulkan were better.

I've long waited for a proper ARM based desktop. If I can find something peppier with a GPU that blender likes (I'm low poly/casual), I'm liable to switch from Intel Mobos.

For multi-tasking, since you cannot really run a lot of browser tabs, I've considered four+ Pi4s in a non cluster, switching with KVM.

Maybe. The only reason I keep facebook active is because I have 25 first cousins, and that doesn't include their spouses, or the 25 children that comprise my younger first cousins once removed, some of who are adults already.

So when one of my 2 score aunts and uncles has a medical emergency, nobody wants to play phone tag around the world, even with group text messages.

Point being, even people without huge families like mine sometimes have big social groups.

A "I only want to see [5] posts a day from Freddy" function would be good.

Or dumb as tire.

In short, oodles of noodles is a better chew than fewer, stranger noodles in your alphabet soup.

Except when they don't.

I had dice as a kid that did not follow this rule.