11,867 karma · joined July 28, 2012
Your rights are limited in interactions with CBP, or to state the inverse: CBP have claimed more powers than traditional law enforcement. This has been true for quite a while; they have at various times been more and less careful about your rights while exercising those powers. They are being less careful now.
I feel like this translation is easier to misunderstand that it is to understand in many cases.
I think the effort is still good, but I also feel like people give up after a few tries. I know I do - after the third re-phrasing or re-framing you have to let things settle.
----
Once someone is "grown up", no one can raise them again.
The biggest actual problem would be in a fire, the PLA will burn and let the fire into the wall cavity, where drywall would maintain a barrier for much longer - that is why we have drywall in the first place, it is a decent fire barrier.
It would be really cool if I could zoom out and have everything scale properly!
If I say that somesuch social movement is causing problems, then people in that social movement will feel attacked. Even bringing up somesuch social movement is a great way to increase vitriol on social media. It just makes people angry because people already feel justified in their anger at the demons on the 'other side'
It feels there there are too many things that are 'Agree with me 100% or we have to fight'.
I feel like the true luxury good of the future is human attention, and specifically careful emotional validation.
Which indicates to me that the value add will come from somewhere else, which would seem to be whales and addicts.
Cost of goods goes down - think factory automation improving line rate.
There is less human intervention, but that intervention requires more expertise.
In some cases it is relatively easy, but in many cases it requires some subject area expertise.
I do wish it was easier to punish media organizations for slop; however any feedback mechanism would also be (ab)-used for political purposes and reputation laundering.
Modern media is a combat arena.
Feel free to substitute "Officer Jones" for any other occupation.
A very large fraction of news comes from media relations people at the organizations being reported on. Good news agencies will get context from another organization.
Great news agencies will sometimes do the kind of digging that makes leaders of large organizations uncomfortable. The costs in time, money, and reputation (even when you get it right) mean that even the very best news agencies can only report a small fraction of stories in depth.
Situation: There are 14 competing ways to set environment variables on Linux
We should create a universal way that just works and isn't terminal specific to set environment variables!
Situation: There are 15 competing ways to set environment variables on Linux
Yes, you get a lot of the energy back, BUT there is a huge problem!
Large airliners incur a LOT of additional drag to slow down while landing. Some of that is entirely intentional, some is less intentional.
It is highly preferred to deploy the landing gear before touching down. Failure to do so may lead to a hard landing and additional paperwork, so airlines do not allow the captain to exercise their own discretion.
Extending the flaps maintains lift at lower speed, and higher flap settings allow even lower speed. The highest flap setting generally also deploys leading edge slats.
If the wheels of the airliner touch down and detect the weight of the plane then spoilers kill the lift of the wings, air brakes fully deploy, as well as thrust reversers.
All of these things add drag, which uses up all that energy you've been converting.
The upshot is that each landing attempt uses a LOT of energy, and you have to use fuel to replenish that energy after every attempt.
In other words, yes you get it back, but only for one landing attempt.
Examples are very nice. One way to create examples is with test cases. Test cases can also be packaged with source code!
You manage surface area, not volume or area, and the coastline is pretty bumpy.
An automotive assembly line consists of many "footprints" chained together. Each footprint is scheduled to have the same amount of work (in seconds). That work rate is also called the line rate, often expressed in jobs per hour. So 70 jph could also be expressed as 51.4 seconds per footprint.
Working backwards from the time you drive the finished vehicle off the end of the line, a truck assembly plant works like this:
v Engine line -------------
Final Line <-- Chassis (frame) -------------
^ Trim Line (body)--------Paint Shop <------ Body Shop <--- Stamped Metal
graph TD
subgraph Chassis Shop
Fr[Frame Line] -->EM
EM[Engine Marriage] -->C
C[Chassis Line] --> BM
BM[Body Marriage] -->F
F[Final Line]
end
subgraph Engine
E[Engine Line] --> EM
end
subgraph Body Assembly
B[Body Shop] --> P[Paint Shop]
P --> T[Trim Shop]
T --> BM
end
So setting the engine on the frame must not take longer than 51.4 seconds, and setting the body on the frame also must not take longer than 51.4 seconds. (Along with all of the other ~~1,000 assembly footprints)
As a matter of simple evolution, no design that takes longer will be produced, because it does not survive the first round of selection: Assembly.
Designs that survive Assembly may eventually need Maintenance, but by then the genes have already been passed on.
Now you may say that Engineers are smart enough to fix both problems, but I don't believe in Intelligent Design.
Snark aside - maintenance falls under "residual value", and "residual value" may be a luxury that the automaker cannot afford.
*** To be clear, I am using 51.4 seconds as a stand-in exemplar for many other requirements in the assembly process.
Show me the outcome, and I will describe the incentives ~ Inverse Munger
Automotive design engineers have to satisfy MANY criteria, the following items entail LISTs of requirements, not a single req.
- the part must function (includes failure modes)
- the part must be manufacturable (make the part itself)
- the part must be assembl-able (it has to fit with the parts around it)
- ... be lightweight, environmentally friendly, comply with government requirements
-
- then, to actually exist:
- the part will be prototyped in a pre-production environment
- a component plant will be set up to manufacture that part
- the manufactured part will be tested to ensure that it still meets the design criteria
Now, once you have all the parts you need to make a vehicle, you can design the vehicle so that all those parts work together.
If you find out that you have to change the design of a part while you are designing the vehicle, this pushes back your project completion date. This makes the spreadsheets upset, and the spreadsheets take it out on your stock price.
----
Ok so "why don't they just" make the design better for the next model year?
Because those engineers have been assigned to another project! Also, design changes incur costs, which pushes out the program pay-off period.
You amortize Research and Design costs over the actual vehicles produced. Those vehicles have to be competitive in the market - price per value.
The Value Proposition for maintain-ability/repair-ability is not readily apparent at time of purchase.
This is why "residual value" is a luxury. No one gets to pick all of their own success criteria.
~~~ Again, this is all just like my opinion.
---
Working on a legacy codebase last year I kept repeating to myself: They made it work, they didn't make it sensible.
The less you can change about the product and environment, then automation run slower and less effectively.
Air liner operations could be automated, but the minimum equipment list would be more stringent, the destination airport would not be able to take any equipment out of service for maintenance, visibility minimums would increase, takeoff and landing operations would require more slack time.
Besides all of that, the owner of the airplane would still want to have some crew on board.
In short, it's not worth it yet.
===
There is also the paradox of automation: Automation generally makes the hard parts harder and the easy parts easier.
I feel like it's very easy to get angry about politics, so speaking clearly is difficult.
I would like to point out that the power dynamics do not always shift randomly, or by the will of the people (be that citizens at large, or party-line voters). The power dynamics have been shifted with intention.
Apart from that intentional push for power, we also have social media dynamics. It feels like online self-critique is always towards the extremes. Once someone becomes energized or activated on a topic, they may start to feel that even trying to understand other viewpoints will cause harm.
===
To be clear, some of the Make America Healthy Again goals are quite reasonable to me. I wish they had started with those.
** "in my opinion" is always implied, unless a source is given **
Reading about airline crashes has radically changed how I view blame.
The way I was raised and the choices I made as an adult have given me a relatively rare point of view: people are made of humans, and humans are made of animals, and animals have limited capabilities.
I can explain someone's actions, or I can excuse someone's actions, and the difference is largely in the mind of the beholder.
Social punishment is micro and macro. On the macro it looks like shared morality and it feels like safety. On the micro it looks like emotional invalidation and it feels like danger and isolation.