Out_of_Characte

That's some word salad but let me make things clear,

All intersections have signs indicating priority.

All intersections have road markings indicating right of way.

All intersections have a level change indicating priority. Either you bump up to pedestrians, which also reduces your speed. Or pedestrians step down to asphalt.

All intersections have/dont have color change to indicate right of way.

All intersections have/dont have pavement type indicating right of way (usually bricks for street or pedestrians, black asphalt for roads, red asphalt for cyclists.)

Although you could probaly find some rulebreakers in there, its universally accepted as such.

As someone living in the netherlands, primary use is for decoupling risk. Look at the pedestrian side, they only cross a single lane where they have to look in a single direction. This makes pedestrian behaviour so obvious that its hard to miss someone looking straight at you while you're crossing. Same with car behaviour, no matter where the car is, the nose is pointing straight at you before crossing the conflict zone. The line of communication you have before a potential accident is insanely useful. It does not matter wether a stop sign or right of way was there if you're dead.

The "buffer" reduces decision complexity even more because people treat them like train blocks. The only annoyance I have is when people actually break-and-check at these points even though its better to roll the car slowly trough to save the people right behind from brake checking entire queues.

>Acting like distractionware being bundled into Windows as a new thing

Now I understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I just want to say that I never held that belief, I never stated that. The various games, third parties, ads and various other tactics fall in line with what's been said to be microsofts overarching theme of extend, embrace, extinguish. You are far more knowledgeable about the history and slippery slope windows is going down. So in that respect, I would agree that I am ignorant. I take no issue to that. Though in my ignorance, I reserve my right to let, an evidently minor issue, be the last drop in the bucket to call windows not just an operating system but also a tool for malicious intent towards the user to extract monetary gain beyond the provision of an abstraction layer for developing the programs we use today.

The only bright side to windows is that we're finally getting a truly dystopian cyberpunk machine that will stop at nothing to control their users while the the common folk are left with no options and no awareness of what those Ghz processors are actually used for. That is true ignorance and I'd hope you can see we're on the same team.

>It's not entirely out of characte

check my username

Is there a line windows could cross that would make you change your mind? And stop calling me a hyperbolic ignorant hypocrite for drawing the line at candy crush and ads.

>Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download Purble Place.

>People didn't choose to install that, it was "pushed" upon them

So we're on the same page? Or are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure what your stance is at this point.

When I used windows, candy crush was not just a shortcut. It showed up as an installed program on my machine. Windows updates put it there after the ISO install. I did not check if the full game was there This is pure cope. Candy crush and adverts in windows are the nails that stick out.

There was another huge legal issue when microsoft decided to push their own web browser over crome and firefox. The EU decided to rule against microsoft for doing so despite edge and windows both being from the same company. Why? Because windows is an operating system.

>Your argument wasn't really based in reality.

>Why aren't you then complaining about Reversi or Hover?

You're out of your mind. Are you suggesting that my absence of disagreement with every unknown transgression proves that I'm hypocritical? Just because not every infraction gets punished does not mean that no infraction should get punished to remain 'fair'

>Where was the outrage in the 1980s

My age lacked positive digits back then. I guess that's when any criticism failed to achieve merit in your eyes.

I understand the vitriol against mr jones perfectly. Before his sandy hook saga I was actually somewhat of a fan of his work. I remember hearing an idiotic rant of his complaining that the US government was putting chemicals in the water that turned the frogs gay. But sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. "Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-in-...

That, and the purposeful addition of fluoride and other additives do put our freshwater at risk of a scandal if we ever undercount or overcount any risk. I wouldn't even put it past 1960's era scientists to have come up with insane grant proposals for asymmetric warfare of freshwater. Hell, who knows what project flies under the radar until its not. These are all things I would expect to read in an onion news article. Alex jones had the same vibe the onion had with their 9/11 coverage and why I think the purchase is both satirical and not at the same time. Satire is heterological in that way.

What I would like to remind the reader of is that alex jones made a big mistake in vilifying the victims. But please do not take that as a pass to do the same to alex jones as he did to his victims. An eye for an eye will make the world blind.

After the coup we will finally have the most trusted source of our news back.

Windows 7 was the last good OS that came out of microsoft for me.

I would honestly switch from linux to windows 7 if they provided support.

I dont consider that an opinion anymore.

You have to look at microsoft and windows from the perspective of an actual software product. Who in their right mind would find it acceptable if their program/operating system decided to automatically download candy crush. Let that sink in. Either you accept that candy crush itself is malware preying on an innocent microsoft or there is a significant and hostile attempt by microsoft to push unwanted and distracting software onto consumers. Which is practically the definition of malware. You could add the countless other examples of advertisement and other unwanted behaviour that is not fit for an operating system and you'll find they fit the description of malware. If you happen to disagree then I would like to ask you what fits the description of the candy crush saga on windows really is.

>If the mission is to collect or mine asteroids, that would change everything. All the above assumes some other purpose -- for example, Mars surface mining.

If we had the ability to mine mars, that would change everything. But this is precisely why I'm suggesting that a station in space might be superiour to any mars base. A station doesn't have to be near mars, lots of locations, asteroids and points of interest are closer to us than the surface of mars. Even going to mars will be easier if you have the station first.

>there's no justification to use orbital solar with the attendant high capital costs and conversion losses

Are you talking about orbital solar for a non-existent mars base? A space station can have 100% uptime of their solars cells without the problems dust brings. Mars is the one with conversion losses if they need to store any power for any length of time.

>being able to live below the surface in any of the existing lava tubes as protection

Radiation protection is just a cost figure for a station. Converting lava tubes into something we could use seems like a herculean effort without even knowing any safety aspects. You're just limiting your own space on a dead planet.

>artificial gravity

We could spin the habitat. It would be easier than testing lava tube methods of engineering.

>Remember that Mars surface temperatures regularly drop to -100F overnight. Temperature extremes would also be an issue in a lava tube, but with less severity if the site were carefully chosen.

Stations win again as we've already solved this.

I would love someone with more knowledge to fully explore what a similar sized space station could achieve compared to the arduous task of going down martian gravity well that has half the solar energy and on top of that a night cycle which halves your solar output again.

Any viable colonisation strategy would need to overcome the yet unknown downsides of lunar/martian dust and many other potential threats. What you get back is a rock like earth but without any of the useful infrastructure. I just dont see any scenario where a mars base would outperform a space station above mars/earth/moon/lagrange point with the ability to recover asteroids of a few metric tons. Even microgravity issues could be solved by making a massive rotating habitat that could serve hundreds of people easier than you could keep 10 people alive on mars.

You dont. People all around the world are in various ways economically enslaved. Its just that in western countries we have rules in place to limit what you could contractually mandate from an employee. You can report unsafe working conditions, long hours, unreasonable pay or discrimination based on immutable characteristics. Usually you report this to your boss, if he doesn't listen then you report it to an independent organisation to arbitrate, if this doesn't work then you have courts, social media and governments to rely on. If all else fails you could quit your job at no repercussions and find a new one.

its just that all of methods above are useless if the organisation has close ties to all of these pathways of resolution.

Clicking links on HN can cause websites to go down so having an archive is really appreciated.

What I find fasinating is how bad human beings are at chess. Now that we have engines we're finally able to analise every game ever played and they show us everything in chess that we're blind to. Their ability to never blunder in 1 or 3 moves is admirable, and better than most players, and to say nothing about their ability to make you play out the longest possible chain before checkmate. What I found most insulting is when I played against the best bot I could beat, it gave up its rook for free.

This actually sounds plausible. I'm not sure how well the service module survives the reentry (hopefully not at all) But I bet alot of nations will start asking questions if they dont provide disclosure beforehand.

Your post is exactly the nihilism that can't be proven false until someone succeeds. Voyager reached the termination shock of our sun's heliosphere. It succeeded. The next voyager could only target another star.

Its not unrealistic sci-fi. We have particle accelerators that operate at much, much higher energies. The kind of energy that would succesfully leave earth and our sun behind if these particles were shot out of the LHC. That is to say, you'd be right that any vessel carrying fuel wouldn't reach such speeds. And while its true that even the smallest sattelites today are still at least 1000grams. Getting that up to relativistic speeds would require on the order of 2 billion MJ of energy. Or the equivalent of a large power plant runnning for 20 days to supply all the energy.

But that's only the start, any advancements in making sattelites on a chip could massively reduce the weight and therefore power requirements. Even with all losses accounted for. I believe this could be doable in the next 50 years. You just need to build the most powerful laser anyone has every built and power it for as long as you can.

No need for nihilism.

Alpha centauri is approximately 4.37 light years away. Project starshot is already aiming to get there. This can take anywhere from 20 to 50 years depending on the mission. We already have a spacecraft from 1977 that is still operating today which proves our potential to build on a 50 year timeframe. We'll likely have humans somewhere in our solar system besides earth before anyone attempts to go to alpha centauri but besides that I also think we would be able to live much longer. Life expectancy increases are around 1% or 0.8% per decade at its current pace. There's no guarantee this continues but even so, if that's the average in the coming decades then we'll expect people to live hundreds of years by the time we can send a ship to alpha centauri.

>no photo of the completed sattelite

That's the completed sattelite in the second link. The 'solid' booms are very similar to how a tape measure rolls out and remains rigid. Solar spacecraft are half sail by mass and half sattelite.

That its a slow news day

That WAS correct. They corrected that after realising a 96-core processor has less cores available than a 64-core processor since processor groups split cores evenly.

Windows 'processor groups' aren't at all similar to linux NUMA aware scheduling, which is the proper method regardless, There's 64 bits that represent all cores on the system, setting those bits defines how a process is assigned to a core. The 'processor groups' is a hack that keeps the same bitmask that they originally used.

Nowadays windows can and will schedule across processor groups as per https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/procthread/p...

The phoronix bench suite showed performance in line of expectations. Its specifically games on windows that regressed. I have no clue how windows scheduler works but that can have a huge impact in games specifically.

This title is about as apt as my username

I think the question is whether bodily discomfort affects cognition, probaly yes, and how large is that effect size. Could that effect be enough to change a ruling in a significant way? I personally dont think so. In my experience with driving, cognitive distraction has a much higher effect than most bodily discomfort.

It might be a similar stressor like performing a task with a full bladder. there's definitely something that negatively impacts your cognition and you'll be more likely to refuse complexity to 'get it over with' whatever that means for the ruling of a court.

The industry has always been kind of monolithic. I'm not sure you can count qualcomm as a competitor just yet. competing means being in the same market. Laptop, desktop and server have all been categories that havent seen anything other than x86 for a long time.

That's pretty ironic since most vegan products have significant basis in chemically enhanced flavour and nutrition

synthetic leather

No clue why 'vegan' products value adjectives to meat so much.

Synthetic and generated data might not be garbage. Consider random chess positions. Those are generated,yet there's an engine out there that has objectively a higher chance of winning from that position.

There was also a paper on persistent computer programs after running random data iteratively over millions of cycles. This doesn't even have a 'goal'. which by itself is very interesting because of how similar it feels to how organisms develop by the act of persisting after a few billion years.

That is to say I largely agree with the premise that you can train and improve alot by absense of data. But if your original dataset is garbage, then training over and over might get limited by a hidden nash equilibrium that the algoritm can't escape due to lack of new information.

Obligatory Anton petrov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_IWVZPmc-E Paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.19108