SketchySeaBeast

> at face value

Freaky baby face value.

I think you probably are, you've turned the flight into 4-4 flights plus layover, which you need to overbudget in case of delays on flight #1, and you risk flight #2 getting cancelled while you're in the air, not to mention doubling the chance of lost luggage.

Oh, wow, I didn't know it was that bad, I just looked at YEG -> YYC, again, not much of a flyer, but yeah, your choices are paying truly exorbitant prices or putting up with whatever abuse they want to heap on you. It's not like $687 is in any way cheap.

Which would be 5' 9" long, exactly calibrated to the average American male and not an inch more.

> Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...

How? I suppose the answer is to stop flying, I basically don't fly already, so that'd be fine with me but, if you are a flyer, in Canada we have Air Canada and Westjet if you're flying domestic. I suppose we could stop buying economy seats, but "premium" doubles the price.

What about homophones that are clearly different when written? I suppose that would be balanced out by the heteronyms.

Why is 4 hours a limit?

The criteria for success seems to be "improved visual acuity"[1]. I tried to find what the failures actually looked like, but I hit a dead end[2].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559253/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45414718#45449810

I wonder if there's more nuance there if we break down types of crime and then factor in economic and social conditions. If the only way I can see to get ahead is selling drugs and I end up in prison for it, when I come out now branded as felon do I have more options?

1 in 400 go blind, 19 in 400 become pirates, I assume something along the lines of The Crimson Permanent Assurance.

I was trying to track down what the 5% failure looks like. The article source is here[1] for the 95% stat, which then references here[2], but I honestly can't find it, [2] refers to "Recent studies reveal that in most of the cases, the prognosis is excellent after surgery, almost 70 to 80%", which refers to here[3], which seems to refer to patient happiness(?), so I haven't the foggiest where that 5% stat comes from.

Ultimately, I have no idea what the 5% failure means or looks like or if it even is a real statistic. Maybe I'm just thick and there's an obvious link or passage I missed.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559253/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539699/ [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10243645/

> Keep your oxidative stress low and you will not get heart disease.

I think we should always be careful when we speak in absolutes. The conclusion from the article:

> This result suggests that oxidative stress may be a determinant of [C-reactive protein] levels and promote pro-atherosclerotic inflammatory processes at the earliest stages of [coronary heart disease] development.

I'm not saying the result is wrong, but I am saying "if you A you will not get B" is over-promising.

It's not knowledge, it's interest. You go looking because you care. But people don't even use desktops anymore. They could, but they don't, what's the point? I know devs who haven't even put together their own PCs in decades if they ever did at all.

I don't know how you shift that, but getting people interested would be the first step. They need to have a reason to want to learn.

> I don't really know man half the population doesn't know what open source means or cares whereas a lot of people seemingly have lots of opinions about AI.

I'm not the person you responded to, but I'm certain that way less than half the population knows about or considers open source, that's one of those living in a bubble illusions.

Ultimately those people aren't here and have no interest in being here.

Have we had any articles about people vibe coding Doom onto a toaster yet? If not, I'd say you're likely incorrect.

The states were listening to people through their TVs in the 1940s?

Doesn't it snow in NYC?

> And speaking of Waymo, let's not forget that they only operate in a handful of places. Their safety data doesn't generalize outside of those areas.

Yeah, I'm curious in seeing how they function in environments that get snow.

I throw the tickets into my (digital) wallet and then don't think about the app until the next time I need to buy tickets. But that's not helpful if you don't have a phone.

I agree with the idea that people want to do their best, and I think it's the machine itself that's really the problem day to day. That said, this is being filtered through a media mouthpiece, and that's where I raise an eyebrow.

I'm on a Pixel right now as well and, just like you say, it's the software experience that sells it. Enough to justify my next phone also being a Pixel? Jury is still out on that.

But we can agree that we aren't obliged to believe them, right?

Google certainly has to walk a fine line here because it's not like the hardware they are selling is compelling by itself.

Enhance. Enhance. Enhance.

Honestly surprised to see such a quick turn around on what was a Pixel 10 exclusive feature. I guess they did that for Circle to Search too.

That's my current, probably misguided hope. They couldn't justify getting the grid ready for electrical vehicles, but frame it as a way to make a bunch of money and everyone's going to jump on board.

Of course, the fact that xAI is throwing up gas turbines at their data centres seems to indicate that clean energy isn't a given.

At the risk of being called a luddite or a carriage driver, does the current iteration of AI actually increase quality of life that much?

Yes, they are bad sponges, that's the issue, both that they are sponges and that they are bad at it.

> The bigger challenge is with my windows open, my heating just can't even keep up! It'll be maxed out and only 18c.

They're trying to heat it.

The statement "The FCC was created in order to prevent the airing of opinions the government disfavored" does not seem to be "incontrovertible".

Important to note, the source for this section is an article from slate, which also includes paragraphs such as:

> During the blowback, Coughlin could still count on support from one corner. Nazi Germany characterized the efforts to rein in Coughlin as “a typical case of Jewish terrorism of American public opinion.” Coughlin agreed, portraying himself as a victim of Jewish-owned media.

> It got worse. On Dec. 5, 1938, in Coughlin’s house organ Social Justice, under his own byline, he plagiarized a speech by Nazi Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels, originally delivered in 1935 at the Nazi Party Congress at Nuremberg. By then, quipsters were referring to Coughlin’s church as “the Shrine of the Little Führer.”[1]

But I supposed this is spurious as well.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/father-coughlin-deplatf...

If you didn't think it was a worthwhile source, why did you link it? Seems to be a bit of a double standard if you're using it to bolster your claim (without actually using the page, mind you) and object to others doing the same.