ardy42

> My worry with a large number of modern tech heavy cars will be that while the centralisation of a lot of these controls and features into one panel may be convenient to the user

Centralization of controls into a single touchscreen is most certainly not convenient to the user, because touchscreens suck [1]. What is convenient is the thoughtful deployment of physical controls in ergonomic locations.

[1] Touchscreens are really only a good choice in situations where there's extreme space constraints, or as an enhancement to existing controls for very specific interactions where they make sense.

>> So for all the reasons above when any physician tries to suggest that a physician is the only “real doctor” you can roll your eyes and suggest they crack open a history book and then let them go back to stroking their own ego.

> As to the origin of the title in a medical setting, you may be right, but it has been used that way for a long time now. Being pedantic about its usage isn't helpful when there are lots of bad actors trying to confuse people by referring to its commonly understood meaning.

I wouldn't exactly call it pedantic, just wrong. It's little more than appeal to the remote past as true and correct, which treats and changes or innovations since then as illegitimate.

Also, IIRC, the physician = "real doctor" thing is often just a reflection of the respect and familiarity that ordinary people have for physicians, not some kind of pompousness by physicians themselves.

> I think we should do the reverse: No moderation outside of court orders or you risk losing 230 protections.

I hope you like spam.

Also, what you propose is equivalent to forcing you to pay thousands of dollars and wait weeks or months to take down an obnoxious sign that I put up in your yard. How workable does that sound to you?

> Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms.

> Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment.

Though it's worth noting the allowed infringements on free speech by the government are incredibly narrow.

> Every time the Democratic Party get some power they immediately pivot to gun control which is the ONE major issue outside abortion that motivates the other side to vote. It’s like they can’t help shooting themselves in the foot.

Yeah, it's baffling. Honestly, if they dropped the maximalist gun control agenda (and letting people know with stunts like AOC and Pelosi going trap shooting or something) and make it easy for reps from anti-abortion districts to be anti-abortion, I think they could literally break the back of the Republican party and get a lot of good things done in the process.

> Everything old is new again. They tried this with FB-DIMMs in the early 2000s and it didn't go well:

IIRC, Rambus RDRAM was also serial, or at least less parallel than conventional DRAM.

> No, seriously, what ongoing action(s) of China “must be stopped” and what actions by whom are likely to succeed without causing more harm than that which would be stopped?

I literally could give some likely possibilities of what they were specifically thinking about from memory, but it's basically a list of major news stories about the PRC from the past several years, which you're welcome to research yourself.

> The win/loss/left-a-mess ratio of the US doesn’t engender positive predictions of future actions especially given how many are in endless overtime. Is it fatalistic to be realistic?

The PRC is a genuinely difficult geopolitical problem. However, you seem to be taking Iraq and Afghanistan as your main precedents for action, when they'd be poor ones even if the US had been far more successful there.

> Wikipedia may have been an amazing idea in the beginning. Then it got taken over by a bunch of entrenched editors more interested in their own power than the accuracy of the pages' information.

Then there are also the people with ideological axes to grind, and the community's seeming belief that it's fine to merely reform a problematic user to just the barest level of acceptability.

Unless you find some forgotten corner, being a Wikipedia editor requires an inhuman level of patience or obsessiveness, which probably ends up turning off a huge number of potential contributors.

> So you agree we(you and us) can't agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters" but we(China) should accept reporters that you deemed trustworthy, and that really sounds alright to you? seriously?

Yes, seriously. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I mean: you're acting like you have something to hide, so I'm going to grant far more credibility to those who make claims you're hiding something. You're basically helping your opponents make their case.

> You're implying we're oppressed and you're not, if you're American(US), try saying "All Lives Matter" out loud, my point is, both of us are oppressed, just in different ways.

That's what we call a "false equivalency." Also, again, I make no claims that America or Western countries are perfect.

> The g-parent comment asserts that "China must be stopped" and I started thinking about what aspect(s) of China do they want to stop. Certainly they don't want to end the country and its inhabitants. Maybe they want to stop some behaviors that cause harm in the world? What behaviors would those be? The comment uses the past tense "stopped" instead of "stop" so the implication is that some not-China entity performs the stopping.

> So what behavior to stop and what entity to do the stopping?

Honestly, it sounds like you're playing ignorant here. Those aren't hard questions to answer, though the post you're commenting on likely had some government/nation confusion. I suggest you spend some quality time with Wikipedia and a good newspaper.

> Are the actions necessary to stop the behavior proportionate and are they likely effective? To predict this, I look to the track record of previous attempts to "stop" nations and it isn't pretty. My comment came from thinking about what has happened in the US over the course of this century as it has embarked on ever newer crusades to stop this or that.

The US had at least couple of successes in the last century. Anyway, your thrust seems to be towards fatalism, which is perspective that should be rejected out of hand.

> However, digging more, even the AAMC is saying you need residency slots:

Which are determined by federal government Medicare funding, btw. From your link:

> Federally supported residency training slots have been capped by Congress for more than 20 years, limiting the spots for medical school graduates to undergo additional training in a residency program before they can practice medicine.

So maybe this is more of a "call your congressman" issue.

> Enrollment != graduation and licensure.

> More people may be interested but nobody can practice until after residency, and you have a large pool of hopefuls basically in a lottery for residency slots.

But my understanding is that residency capacity is matched to graduating class sizes, at least in the US. The selectivity is intentionally placed up front (at med school admission) so the path is clear to residency and licensure as long as the student doesn't totally fall apart (which the selectivity is supposed to guard against).

IIRC, it's foreign medical school graduates may have trouble getting a US residency.

> Everyone complains about the cost of healthcare and nobody asks why the AMA operates like a cartel.

That's not entirely a bad thing. It would be bad for Medicine to turn out like Law, with a huge glut of unemployable graduates after a long, expensive training program (IIRC, an intense 7 years post-college, minimum). There's a need to balance demand with the need for all (or nearly all) the graduates to be able to find a job.

Also, you're neglecting Osteopathic schools, which aren't controlled by the AMA but graduate students with the same practice rights.

> The number of doctors allowed to graduate hasn't changed in 40 years.

Do you have any data to back that claim up? The Association of American Medical Colleges says enrollment rates are increasing:

> In response to concerns that a projected doctor shortage could impact patient care, the AAMC in 2006 called on medical schools to increase first-year enrollment by 30%. That target was reached in 2018-19, when first-year matriculation reached 21,622 students. Osteopathic schools increased their enrollment by 164% during this same time period, with 8,124 first-year students enrolled. (https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/us-medical-school-enrollm...)

>> Military solutions will fall back to inertial, celestial or optical guidance, and people using GPS for navigation will at worst show up where they need to be somewhat later than planned.

> The US Navy re-started celestial navigation a few years ago:

Also, the SR-71, B-1, and B-2 and other aircraft have automated celestial navigation systems to provide corrections to their INSs:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17207/sr-71s-r2-d2-cou...

Honestly, for military applications, GPS seems to be mainly useful for bad weather and providing navigation to the smallest units (and I'd think a small unit would be able fall back to a map and compass).

> Compared to other nations, the US has the least restrictive immigration laws. The US also benefits by bordering Canada with some of the most restrictive immigration laws. If you want to go where there is growth, there's no other option

I thought Canada was far easier. I knew a software engineer who, about 15 years ago, got the Canadian equivalent of a green card as a "backup" without ever having actually lived there, in case she had problems with her US immigration. It sounded like a box ticking exercise, though this person had two masters degrees (IIRC, the second was to keep her status since she graduated from the first into a recession).

> 2. Not in places immigrants want to immigrate to.

There's reason to doubt that. A lot of Trump's support was rural, and a lot of immigrants are farm laborers.

> I've already explained, we can't agree on a mutually acceptable definition of "trustworthy reporters", so this will not happen, ever.

You don't understand. We don't have to agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters." You seem to be trying to convince me that I should be more skeptical of these allegations, but that's not going to happen unless reporters I consider trustworthy have sufficient access to investigate, to the point where the people you criticize don't have to be relied on. It really doesn't matter what you think of the reporters, and attaching unnecessary conditions is just a deflection and indication there's something to hide.

I agree your petition can't happen ever, but for different reasons. It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.

> Yes, in a sense, You can judge us however you like, also in that sense, we're not obligated to accept your judgment.

You're not, but your decision reflects on you.

> Your point of view is that the western world represents absolute justice,

How did you come to that conclusion? That is not, in fact, any position which I have expressed.

> and you can judge us based on your value system, this is not the case, at least from our viewpoint.

Of course, and it's kinda bonkers to think that I would use someone else's value system to make my own judgements.

Also, please make the petition I suggested. I would like to find out how it goes.

> It doesn’t seem enough to blame the entire group.

It actually does the opposite, and takes care to not blame the entire group. Right after 9/11, I remember two main domestic messages:

1. A LOT of flag waving. Like, flags on everything.

2. Islam is a religion of peace/Al-Qaeda corrupted Islam/not all Muslims are terrorists/condemnation of racist attacks against Muslims, etc.

Why don't you petition the PRC government to open up the area to trustworthy reporters and to cease reprisals against locals who speak to them? You claim you're Chinese, so that's your right per Article 41 of the constitution.

Pretty much anyone out of Xinjiang who criticizes the government has increased credibility because of all the attempts to suppress information. If you think this group has issues, your bitching is going to fall on deaf ears unless the situation on the ground changes.

> CIA officers should mind their business. Their role is to collect information on foreign environments not give opinions.

Obviously not. If they just dumped a bunch of raw information on decision-makers, their output would probably be worse than useless. If I were a leader, I'd want to be provided with different opinions and options about a given situation, especially if I had to make a lot of decisions or make them quickly.

> You're probably going to get downvoted for that, but I, too, find it ironic that someone in the CIA said this, given their history of funding several terrorist groups to help act as a insurgency to overthrow foreign governments not aligned with America.

It's only really ironic if you look at it shallowly (e.g. treating all "insurgencies" as equivalent). Obviously the CIA doesn't think about it that way, given how their job forces them to operate in a gray area.

> Buying verified twitter accounts is also a non-scalable solution. Sure in the short run you could probably get quite a few, but in the long run there are only so many people.

I don't think that's a problem if your goal is disinformation or manipulation: the report this network details consisted of only 14 accounts.

> There's also a built-in compensating factor: To the extent that twitter accounts are worthless, it's easy to buy them. To the extent that twitter accounts are an important part of your identity online, people will tend to protect them. Try getting people to sell you their social security numbers.

> Right now they're closer to the "worthless" end of that spectrum. But maybe verification would change that?

I guess I'm disputing the presumption that Twitter accounts will ever be that valuable across all the members of society that the risk of loosing access to Twitter will be enough of a deterrent to any particular rando out there. Twitter's appeal seems to be mainly limited to certain slices of society (e.g. politicians, political pundits, and wannabes), and there are probably far more people outside those slices than inside them. If a rando waitress can get a verified Twitter account, and such accounts are useful for spreading disinformation, the GRU and black-hat PR agencies will probably be able to get all the accounts they'll ever need for something on the order of ~$100 a pop.

> Yes. It’s our own Tower of Babel. All built in the name of 3rd party advertising.

Do you mean Library of Babel [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel: "In any case, a library containing all possible books, arranged at random, might as well be a library containing zero books, as any true information would be buried in, and rendered indistinguishable from, all possible forms of false information..."

>> If verification is easy and accessible, what’s stopping a real person from getting a simple verification and then loaning out their account for bot actions (for a price)?

> When you get caught you get booted off the platform.

Which may not actually be a problem for most people. The thing that's stopping me from selling my Twitter account to a disinformation network is not my fear of losing access to Twitter, it's that I care about the problem of disinformation and don't want to see myself in the news for something like that.

I'm sure there are thousands of people who'd sell a simply-verified Twitter account, and they probably wouldn't even demand that much. People are already spending hours a day trying to sell their nudes, and still only making a few hundred dollars total (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/business/onlyfans-pandemi...).

> You might find that your attitude is the problem, and not the industry itself. If you’re so cynical as to compare writing code for a living to human trafficking and sex work, which are very real problems that you have carelessly and insensitively used as a metaphor, maybe you should find a new gig.

He's extending on a comparison by Dave Chappelle, who wasn't actually talking about sex work itself, but rather the kinds of manipulation exploitative people use to push others past their limits in order to profit from them more. Someone linked it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25997841.

I think the OP article has issues, but not the one you're complaining about.

> The new code of conduct bans harassment on and off the site, barring behaviors like hate speech, the use of slurs, stereotypes or attacks based on personal characteristics, as well as threats of physical violence and ‘hounding,’ or following someone across different articles to critique their work.

> It also bans deliberately introducing false or biased information into content. Wikipedia is a relatively trusted site compared to major social media platforms which have struggled to curb misinformation.

I'm a little confused. Weren't hounding and introducing false information already against the rules? I'm pretty sure they are, and I'd also be sure most of the other stuff is too (except maybe the "off site" behavior stuff).

> Dave Chappelle has a bit in which he talks about how this one pimp manages to "get extra mileage" from one of his (the pimps) whores who is on the brink of quitting, of breaking down. The horrible story, expertly delivered by one the greatest stand-up comedians and storytellers to ever live, is an allusion to what happened to Mr. Chappelle in Hollywood - an explanation on why he left and went to fucking Africa of all places, choosing to renounce millions of dollars, his cut from a show he created. The story is from a book written by an actual pimp:

> This story resonated with me, deeply....

So, what's the bit or the story that he's referring to here?

> Lincoln may not be evil, but he's a man of his times and we are in a different world now. Statues get torn down, that to me is a sign of progress. People recognize he wasn't an angel, maybe the best America could do at the time but the hope is to have heroes even greater.

I think the end result of that line of thinking is the end of celebration of those who have achieved positive things. I think we have to distinguish between people who achieved good (and definitely in comparison to their contemporaries) and pushed things forward, but who weren't perfect when judged by anachronistic modern standards; and those who's primary achievements are now rightly viewed in a more skeptical light. If we don't all we end up doing is just condemning everyone that came before, and if we are honest we could condemn the contemporaries we want to celebrate too, because sooner or later some later generation will come up with a test they will fail.

For the record, I also flagged the OP.

> This architecture accelerated Intel's downward spiral. It should have been shut down years ago, and I find it surprising in the changelog that Intel "is still officially shipping chips until July 29, 2021" no wonder Intel is behind on innovation.

I don't think so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4:

> Launched November 20, 2000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium:

> Launched June 2001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core:

> Launched January 2006

You seem to be basically claiming their downward spiral started before their biggest recent upswing, which doesn't make sense. Itanium (and the Pentium 4) were mistakes that they managed to recover from 15 years ago. However, it's only just being discontinued because Intel's not a company that's willing and eager to leave their existing customers in a lurch.

Edit: it sounds like HP was basically paying Intel to keep Itanium alive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium#HP_vs._Oracle:

> ...court documents unsealed by a Santa Clara County Court judge revealed that in 2008, Hewlett-Packard had paid Intel around $440 million to keep producing and updating Itanium microprocessors from 2009 to 2014. In 2010, the two companies signed another $250 million deal, which obliged Intel to continue making Itanium CPUs for HP's machines until 2017.

According the the article, the latest Itatium processor was released in, surprise!, 2017.