"Coming soon to your Mac."
Toodle-pip!
915 karma · joined September 2, 2013
https://hnbadges.netlify.app/?user=AlphaGeekZulu
Toodle-pip!
There are hundreds of reasons for not bringing a smartphone, not only the abuse of companies like Mobilewalla. Imagine if you happen to be close to a storefront that is vandalized or a statue that is brought down - cellphone data will make you a terrorist suspect! (At least in the current US).
Tuxedo is a small company, not far from Munich, Germany. They have specialized on assembling customized laptops that are guaranteed to work nicely with Linux. They are owned by Schenker. You can think of them as the Linux department of Schenker.
I bought a Tuxedo XUX707 almost 4 years ago, which they built to my ridicolous specs: a desktop (!sic) i7-7700, GTX 1060, 32 GB RAM, 2x 2TB SSHD, 17" 4K monitor, 1x HDMI, 2x DP. I need a computer that has the performance of a desktop PC, but that I can take along once in a while if I have to. The cooling of the Tuxedo is superb, the screen is fantastic, sound is good, keyboard is ok, touchpad not so much. This "laptop" is bulky and heavy and makes only 3 hours on the battery and of course it is like this, because the cooling needs space - the CPU alone consumes up to 65 Watts. Who else would build you such an unreasonable device, Linux-ready, with a 4 year warranty (extra option)? I love this beast more than any computer I had before and the price is unbelievably cheap compared to a Dell or Lenovo or a MacBook with similar specs.
I run a second 4K monitor connected to one of the 3 video outlets and have currently 16 USB devices connected. I later added a M.2-SSD-drive (there is space for one more).
After two years I dropped the computer and the body cracked - not bad, the computer continued to run nicely.
After three years the GPU developed issues - random black screen on boot, which disappeared after a couple of restarts. It took me some while to diagnose the problem and make sure that the NVIDIA card was the culprit. I contacted Tuxedo support. They answered within 24 hours, had me run a system report script (which I could inspect before), and sent me the stickers for free mailing of the device to their headquarter. I asked, if I could send the device without HDs and SSDs and they were happy with this and told me, that they make the tests with prepared SSDs of their own. The device was checked, they confirmed a damaged GPU and decided to replace it as guarantee item without costs. I asked them, if they would replace the cracked body parts in the process and that I would pay for this. They agreed. All communications was per email and with fast response times. Just a summary: they agreed to process my device with no storage devices, made no trouble because of the cracked body and quickly deciced to replace a GPU that had random issues. Try this with Apple!
It got even better: when the device came back, I put in my storage devices and everything was working perfectly.
The body was completely replaced (two parts) for 60,- Euro. No assembly costs.
They noticed a Kensington adapter in the housing that I had forgotten about, removed it from the broken part and returned it in a separate bag.
I had no idea that the M.2-slot could be connected to a dedicated heat pipe so I never installed a heatpad for it. They found, though - although I had removed all storage devices - from my system report, that I used to have a M.2 device built in (which was not part of the original computer) and put the missing heatpad in place.
Finally, obviously because of all the nerdy stickers on my cover, they included a bag with more nerdy stickers and some Linux magazines.
The service procedure was not fast: they check the problem at Tuxedos Headquarter in Augsburg, then send it to Schenker in Leipzig for the replacement and assembly, send it back to Augsburg for final quality control before they deliver the device back to the customer. For me this is not a big problem: if the computer is away for more than 24 hours, I have to switch to a backup computer anyway (in this case a Lenovo W520). Tuxedo does not have the size and logistics for super fast service. But the quality of the service, in my experience, was stunning.
Teaser: https://klostermaier.de/abremind_demo/index.html#today
(hint: you can switch themes if your browser supports alternative stylesheets. In Firefox that is View > Use Style)
Bernard A. Lietaer: Das Geld der Zukunft
Bernard A. Lietaer: Mysterium Geld
...if you deliberately ignore the small "issue" of accumulated nuclear waste, that somehow has to be handled for the next couple of hundred years. For many people, this seems to be neglectable compared to the ugly sights of wind turbines.
With this precondition, Far Cry 2 completely smashed me. The intro scene, in which the avatar arrives at the airport, is picked up by a driver and transferred to the hotel - passing checkpoints on the way and with no way to do anything else but to look around - is one of the strongest episodes in computer game history for me. Nothing is happening in that scene, but I had a full flashback of my experiences in Africa: the disorientation, the helplessness, the subtle tension. I could smell the air and had sweaty hands on the controller. This part hit me much more than the remaining game play.
In our case, the procedure - of course - was not to approve the edibility of an unknown type of mushroom, but to approve the reliability of our identification of a well known and documented type. Somewhat over-cautious maybe, but better so.
"[...]It is a wonderful activity, hike in dense forests for hours, coupled with treasure hunt that you can eat afterwards (or dry for later). Great for kids too.[...]"
Yes! I miss it a lot. Mushroom foraging came to a complete halt after the Chernobyl desaster.
"[...]The worst people are those that collect all mushrooms they see and then they study them at home.[...]"
Or that would rip the mushrooms from the ground instead of cutting them properly...
Mushroom foraging is actually a pretty secretive thing – for a reason!
- you have to know a mushroom, that you want to eat, by 100%. You not only have to know the appearance in all possible states (young/old, colour variations, environmental context) but also you have to know the lookalikes and how to differentiate. The point here is: NEVER follow any generic rules (like avoid mushrooms with this or that feature), but reliably identify the type you want to eat!
- to learn to absolutely positively identify a mushroom therefore takes a lot of time. In my childhood I learnt about a dozen edible types, that I would dare to eat. And this knowledge only applies to the geographic region I lived. The same mushroom might have other lookalikes in other regions.
- if there is the slightest doubt, do not eat it.
- when picking, make plausibility checks. For example: does the sample fit to the environment?
- if you have trouble to differentiate a potentially edible mushroom from its lookalike, avoid both.
- if there is the slightest doubt, do not eat it.
- as long as you are learning a new type, do not eat it. If you pick one to examine at home, keep it separated from the others. Buy samples from the market for comparison.
- when you are sure that you have learnt a new edible type and that you can absolutely identify it, pick one. Double check with the books, when at home. Ask someone else for reassurance, if possible.
- When still sure: prepare one very small sample together with the other mushrooms and only for one member of the family (in my case, that would usually be my father). Observe for reactions for at least 24 hours. If everything is fine, repeat with a somewhat larger ratio the next time. Do so one more time and if everything is still fine, that type would be approved for family use. As a child, it was always a little exciting, not to say creepy, when father tried a new type. But never anything happened of course.
- Some mushrooms only become edible with certain preparation. Make sure to know them. My family would usually avoid those.
- if there is the slightest doubt, do not eat it.
If you are not exposed to an immediately lethal dose, the damage in the body is a statistical thing. The longer and the more intense the radioactive particles remain on or in your body, the more likely is the chance for a serious health issue. The strategy is to remove radioactive particles as fast as possible to minimize the probability of damage.
Radioactive particles on your skin can be washed away. (This is not so fun as the every-day shower).
Radioactive particles that you inhaled are a really bad thing, I do not know how to deal with radioactive particles in the lungs (except wearing filter masks in time).
Particles that entered the body with food will be excreted within a couple of hours.
But: your body has an organ - the thyroid gland - which collects iodine from your food and stores it long time. A radioactive form of iodine - iodine 131 - is a common byproduct of nuclear contamination. If this gets stored in your body, it remains long enough to dramatically raise the chance of cancer. Therefore you fill your thyroid gland with non-radioactive iodine, hopefully BEFORE your body gets contaminated with radioactive iodine.
So the special thing with iodine 131 is, that it is common, that the body does not make a difference to nonradioactive iodine and there is an organ that stores it.
By taking iodine pills, you only improve probabilities on that one factor! There are plenty other ways to take damage from radioactive accidents.
(I do not use virtual assistants myself, thus the request to anybody who does)
This is such a double-edged sword. In the first impulse, I would say, of course you can discuss the merits of racial profiling (as we did in this thread) and it should not constitute an offense. But you can wrap anything in a "discussion". We could also "discuss" the merits of eliminating religious minorities in concentration camps and I think this should constitute an offense. Free speech, all to often, is taken as an excuse.
I have no idea how such a differentiation can be put into law in a fair way for everyone.
For me personally, I have very clear criteria. Most importantly, I distinguish between discussion and discourse, in the sense, that discussion is just talking and discourse is a rational, sane exchange of arguments, following common sense and logic. I enjoyed very much the discourse with you about the merits of racial profiling, because it was not driven by prejudice, whinery or political agenda, we sticked to the facts, came to (not so much) contrary conclusions and this is absolutely fine.
In the case of Eric Zemmour I do not like the semantic aggregation in the community:
- he demanded something unconstitutional (racial profiling).
- in his attempt to justify the demanded unconstitutional measurement, he quoted a fact, but failed to prove the causality between the fact and the demand (he did not even try. He mistook the fact as the causality - a common mistake).
- he gets sentenced for demanding something unconstitutional.
- His followers publish their aggregation in the form: although the fact was true, he was sentenced, therefore it is not possible to say the truth in France.
This is not what happened.
His case is not about "telling the truth gets you punished". His case is: "should our society accept, for the ideal of free speech, that someone demands unconstitutional measurements, like racial profiling or putting minorities in concentration camps". I absolutey agree, that this last question is debatable!! I have no final answer for myself! But this is not, how the causa Zemmour was laid on the table in this thread.
Whether I have to make 1000 controls for a 39 percent chance to catch one dealer, or 1000 controls for a 95 percent chance to catch one dealer – both are incredibly ineffective. This is exactly the problem.
If I am only capable of random controls with low chances, I have to control very, very many people to make a hit (and each control of an innocent person is something, that should be avoided if possible, because it is a form of harassment). Now by going from one low probability to a somewhat less lower probability by ignoring the group of the lower probability and putting all the burden of unjustified control to the other group you create a huge sense of frustration, stress, injustice and anger. For good reason! You make a 60:40 relation to a 100:0 relation with this approach. The problem is not with the dealers, but with the false positives. 600 innocent people of group A have to be harassed for one true positive, but 0 innocent people of group B get harassed and 0 people of group B get busted, because they are not even controlled anymore (as hits are less likely). And now, by making hits only in group A, the ratio of convicted drug dealers gets pushed even more into the direction of group A, allegedly confirming the efficiency of racial profiling. It is utterly wrong. Morally and mathematically. It is a pseudologic abuse of science to discriminate a group of people. And the desire for discrimination arises from hate. That is, why racial profiling is forbidden in modern democracies and it is not a matter of free speech, in my eyes.
If you wish for a more efficient handling of your police with drug dealers, you really do not want them to perform random controls (whether racially biased or not)!
The logical relation between (a) and (b) is the important detail here.
If the majority of drug dealers are either black or arab, this does not logically conclude, that the majority of blacks and arabs are drug dealers!
The only logical reasoning for racial profiling would be, if there was a significantly higher probability to catch a drug dealer if you randomly pick someone from that group.
The math:
Let's assume a population consisting of 20 percent group A and 80 percent group B. 0,1 percent of the population is drug dealers. 60 percent of the drug dealers belong to group A, 40 percent belong to group B. Group A therefore makes the majority of drug dealers.
With the majority of drug dealers in group A and only 20 percent share of the population, there is a six times higher probability that a random pick of group A will be a positive hit. In absolute numbers: the chance to make a positive random hit in group A is 0,3 percent, in group B it is 0,05 percent.
But: the likelihood to make a negative hit in group A is 99,7 percent (99,95 percent in group B), so even with a six times higher probability for a positive hit, the overall change for a positive hit - on a random basis - in both groups is still extremely small.
The small chance to catch a drug dealer on a random pick out of a population (not regarding race) does not qualify for an effective police procedure – to begin with. The small difference in probability of 0,25 percent between the groups does not qualify for racial profiling either. Any other visible attribute of a person that correlates with drug dealing with a higher value than 0,25 percent (clothing, cars, peer groups, haircut, jewelry, behaviour, slang, provenance and and and) is a better qualifier for random picks than racial profiling.
So, back to the case:
- France has good reasons, to forbid racial profiling under its law. It IS discriminatory, because you cannot define 99,7 percent of a group by 0,3 percent of that group.
- (b) does not conlude from (a), as it does not significantly rise the success rate, but at the same time feeds prejudices and harasses innocent people.
- Insisting on (b) clearly shows the will to ignore data and a will to feed prejudices and having innocent people harassed, so government decides to stop this behaviour.
Did they really sentence him for (b), or was he rather obliged not to repeat that statement?
Is it?
There are plenty of people that sacrify their lives for all sorts of principles. There exist quite some value systems that explicitely do not hold "being alive" for their foundational first principle!
What about immortality, if it becomes a medical reality one day? A better value system by definition, just because we are staying alive for longer?
I won't go into your derived principles, because it is not even possible to reach mutual consent about your axiomatic first principle.
So you are talking to the wrong person. You should reply to user "rlonn" who does not believe that there are (or should be) types A and B in free speech.
[...]"AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole", while clearly a statement of opinion, will allow you to go after me.[...]
Yes - diatribe exception. In that case, unfortunately, it is also not enough to transform it into "In my opinion, AlphaGeekZulu is an asshole". Granted, it is so much more complicated than free hate speech ;-)
(Would be interesting to know the details of that lawcase. I investigated some of those incidents in Germany and in most cases they turned out to be quite different from the initial aggregations that I read in public).
OK, but what if the good ideas sink to the bottom and the bad ideas bubble to the top, and people die? Because someone found the psychological triggers and the technical means to turn around the expected functionality of the good idea?
We all get the nice, philosophical, humanistic idea of free speech. But in the moment, it doesn't work so well. When something doesn't work so well, we have to fix it. So, what is the fix, in your opinion?
There is no such thing as a "natural right of freedom of speech". If one sovereign in the history of mankind decides to allow unrestricted freedom of speech in its constitution, it is just that: an episode in the history of legal systems established by humans. It can turn out as a bad idea, or a milestone for better societies. We will see. In no way is it a "natural right". Not even would it be a natural right, if it was mentioned in the bible as one of the 10 commandments from god (disregarding the FACT, that there are some serious restrictions of freedom of speech in that: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour").