akira2501

> I doubt that.

You doubt that which is easily verified?

> don’t pay another business for dealing with the inventory

What do you think UPS and FedEx does? Shipping is not instantaneous and most of it is logistics. Warehouses are often rented. Amazon produces very few physical products and most are on consignment anyways. What model are you imaginging?

> Sounds like it would result in less accountability and efficiency

To have multiple businesses competing for these deliveries? I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

> and an arbitrary line to draw.

As stated, they _used_ to do this, it's not at all arbitrary.

The overwhelming majority of retail businesses use third party fulfillment. Amazon itself used to. It's clearly possible. Plus the website is retail, digital, production, publishing, and a cloud services provider.

I hope the Amazon retail and fulfillment operations are separated.

Money.

Sure.. but there are infinite series that sum to a finite value. Perhaps a pertinent example would be summing all the distances between each successive reciprocal of 1:

    Sum[1/x - 1/(x+1), {x, 1, ∞}] == 1

You do actually need infinity to arrive at that 1.

> We don’t actually have any computer science for DELETE optimized databases.

There is actually a fair amount if you consider databases with fixed length records. Which used to be the dominant form.

Technically the opposite of documentation is anecdote.

Literal interpretation of anecdotes lead to superstition.

Ironically this leads to them becoming documented.

I think most modern chips are routing constrained and not floorspace constrained. You can build tons of features but getting them all power and normalized signals is an absolute chore.

> but was shipped anyway, possibly so someone could save face

Was shipped anyway because it can be disabled with a firmware update and because drastically altering physical hardware layouts mid design was likely to have worse impacts.

> the U.S. used force to either displace, subjugate, or kill all of those people.

Except for all the land we paid for.

I never had that be a problem in practice because the interface was separate from implementation. It was exceptionally easy to sort that rare corner case out.

> they're infrequent and small

So far. Now you're introducing new technology. Are you comfortable prognosticating that it always will? Are there no lessons to be learned from previous tragedies, in particular, how _small_ radioactive sources are _way_ more dangerous due to peoples inability to identify them and tendency to pick them up?

You introduce medical radiation sources into a country without radiation controls and just a few years later you have an outbreak of tragedies. I'd rather not learn the lesson again the hard way.

> Most nuclear waste is stuff near the reactor,

And now your containment has a much larger surface area.

> And nuclear waste isn't the Armageddon stuff it's portrayed as in mass media.

When it's contained. Uncontained waste has been the source of multiple tragedies.

> waste volume won't be an issue.

Process frequency will be.

At the time Ford was looking to build EVs, and all manufacturers were trying insane things leading into the 1970s, where an oil production crisis severely impacted American drivers. Chrysler made a turbine car that could run on either Jet Fuel or Soybean Oil, some of these are still driving, and are amazing in their own right.

Exxon responded to the 1970s by recognizing that data was going to be a huge part of the world going forward. I'm guessing their early experiences with what was "big data" at the time to do oil field exploration clued them into what was about to happen.

Then the 1980s happened with massive shifts in geopolitical borders and in the energy sector in particular so both companies got cold feet on these long shots that previously seemed existential to their futures. This isn't a particularly surprising story.

Your engine is part of your crumple zone. You do not want your battery to be. Same reason the fuel tank is usually in the back of the vehicle.

Loss of keys. If you expect the vehicle to be used by multiple different shifts then a lost key removes a vehicle from service unless you can reprogram it. Some cars let you program new fobs up to a limit then you need a dealership unlock to continue doing that.

Easier is just to key all the fleet vehicles with the same standard non chipped key. Then any key operates any vehicle which removes a ton of operational friction. When I drove cab we also just used fleet keys, but only because we bought old police interceptors, which also meant, our cab keys could open and drive police cars. Which is why police fleet cars sometimes have an extra interlock button or switch in them which disables the shifter so it can't be taken out of park. Similar to the switches in this post.

Vehicles assigned to a single officer may be different and will likely use the fob but the shift vehicles in a lot of jurisdictions just use fleet keys even today.

Contactless keys and fleet vehicles do not go well together.

I've seen people do this but I think it's unlikely. The weight on an ICE car is slung much differently from an EV and placing a battery bank where your engine used to be is not a great idea.

> meant you could not arrange your code as you saw fit as backreferences didn't work

The actual consequence is that you had to declare things at the beginning of the block. It handled forward declarations just fine. This had minimal impacts on actually "arranging your code."

> on modern ultra fast single user systems I wonder?

The latency of a 'syscall' is on the order of a few hundred instructions. You're switching to a different privilege mode, with a different memory map, and where your data ultimately has to leave the chip to reach hardware.

It's absurdly important and it will never not be.

Which is exactly why setbuf(3) and setvbuf(3) exists.

> which is make extremely confident,

One of the results the LLM has available to itself is a confidence value. It should, at the very least, provide this along with it's answer. Perhaps if it did people would stop calling it 'AI'.'

> proportional to their range than their size

Well and total vehicle weight impacts EV range far more than it does ICE range. So the leaf is both small and with shorter range but the gain is a smaller battery pack.

> as new battery chemistries improve energy density

You can have improved density today. You're just not going to like the charge and discharge characteristics very much. EVs have lots of multi variable problems due to their efficiency and utilization aims. To be fair it just is a harder problem to solve but the years of development and lack of clear gains are still showing obvious bottlenecks.

> so significant improvements in power to weight ratio are less likely to be forthcoming.

You can have vastly improved PWR now. Just ride a motorcycle. I think Power train Weight to Total Vehicle Weight is what you really want to think about. In either EV or ICE case there are still plenty of gains to be had here.

> before the Leaf - a Subaru Outback. It was also heavier.

A bigger car with more cargo capacity was heavier? Is that a surprise? How _much_ heavier was the Outback? Only 100 lbs or so? That's the surprise.

> then people will start believing it

I don't subscribe to this philosophy. People will repeat it in certain contexts to avoid sounding out of touch and incurring social bullying but I have genuine doubts that their beliefs can be so easily manipulated.

> and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

If you do believe this then your answer is just to write a bunch of articles in the opposite direction. It's a gross sort of world to accept living in; though, this is probably why I hold the belief I've espoused above.

> where you insist that every entry touches exactly two accounts

A ledger is where every transaction balances to 0. It can involve multiple accounts, but the sum of all transfers between all accounts in a single transaction must sum to 0. This is the property of double entry that actually matters.

> What a fundamentally narrow and depressing point of view.

I want to get work done. Not be a part of some "software taste revolution." If you can't help me get my work done you're not on the list.

It's your point of view that is narrow. If popularity is not material then the loss of a single developer will have no impact and Rust will be the same as it ever was. Otherwise popularity matters and you should endeavor to observe and catalogs Rusts shortcomings so they can be addressed.

> The tetanus vaccine is required for school in many places. Why are you saying something so obviously incorrect

No, it isn't. You're describing the _combined_ Tdap vaccine. Why are you saying something so obviously incorrect, and even worse, _intentionally_ misleading?

Tetanus is not communicable. You see the problem with your focus on this one point? You're clinging to it as a defense when it's _entirely_ invalid to do so.

> I can’t even.

Then why try? All you've done is inject emotion and falsehoods into this discussion in order to defend your ego and ideology. Just stop. It's okay that people have a different opinion than you. Running around like a psychopath and labeling things as "complete horseshit" is an absurd response. You are doing this to yourself.

I'm minimizing and ignoring this thread now. Have a nice Thanksgiving!

> Did you not notice that your Newsweek article rates this claim as false?

Yes.

> Definitions are always imprecise anyway.

That's the same conclusion the article arrives at in order to claim it as false, when in fact, it has to admit, the definition _was_ actually changed. You're happy they're waving their hands the same as you happen to be. "Complete horseshit" is really absurd thing to say in the face of this reduction of yours, isn't it?

> and it was changed because mRNA stuff is the first time something didn’t work that way

It was the first time something didn't work that way and was additionally being mandated. The concern was raised that mandating something which fails to meet the previous definition of vaccine was a flaw in policy and so the definition was, in fact, changed. You ironically seem to notice that it was changed as a result of public policy and not due to any other obvious reason.

> This is obviously wrong because no vaccine provides total immunity.

Most vaccines provide total immunity. That's because the disease they target is not a flu that has rapid genetic mutations and where the introduction of a leaky "vaccine" does not create evolutionary pressure on the target disease.

You can move the goalposts to debating weather a Tetanus "vaccine" meets the definition, but Tetanus is caused by a bacteria, so almost no definition of "vaccine" will apply to it anyways. Other than this oddity do you have even one other example?

> your first thought should be to look up what the old one said and see if it was actually an accurate definition

So it changed, but it was to make it "more accurate," so my claim that it was changed is somehow actually wrong? You've fallen into a tautological trap. You see why I consider you to be ideologically possessed?

> And you should have the basic knowledge to be able to understand when it was clearly deficient.

Yet they felt the need to change at the same time they introduced an entirely new vaccine and also decided that people needed to take this new vaccine or have their civil rights removed. That seems to be the "deficiency" they were trying to correct and were not at all suddenly concerned with improving accuracy at just a really unfortunate time.

So are there any other goal post distractions you'd like to hyper focus on in an effort to ignore the original point?

I agree. This has "secondary military goal" written all over it. For commercial flight these are just weird ideas.