kaibee

I think you could 3d print TPU half shells w/ some reasonable infill (i'm sure there's one with good force transmission characteristics for this?), and then seal the magnet array inside of the two halves.

Seems like you could make the skin pretty straightforwardly in a home-shop. You'd just need to 3d print TPU and embed some high quality magnets (you can remagnetize your own pretty easily probably, not cheaply though? https://www.magnet-physik.de/en/magnetizing-technology/magne...)

And the board underneath is just a grid of these https://www.adafruit.com/product/4022 ?

> - Industrial robots do have very sensitive motor and arm feedback. However, these systems are bulky and unsafe to integrate into household robotic technologies. Sensors like AnySkin could be used as a powerful, lightweight solution in these scenarios, potentially by integrating with some exciting recent household robotics models like Robot Utility Models.

I bet having good touch sense would let you get away with much cheaper mechanical systems for the robots.

Just some quick notes: Lines should be customizable for what sound is played: ie being able to make drum beats would be neat. And a silent-line should be an option too.

A line that toggles on/off when a ball passes through it or collides with it would also be fantastic.

Also a trampoline line/shock absorber line(s).

The default/starting line should be a diagonal too, since it makes it more clear what is happening and you don't get that decaying bouncing thing.

very cool idea

Do people really go comparison shop between stores? Like, I recognize that I'm coming from a more privileged economic position to not do so, but I still go to the cheap grocery store because it's the closest to me.

I'd imagine that even for low-income people, it's the cost/benefit of comparison shopping has been squeezed out by how much prices change on a day-to-day basis. Like sure, if you're buying a lot of something all at once it might make sense to do on that occasion, but once you do that a few times you either learn:

1. Which store usually has the lowest price (and if they have coupons for store X, they might just only go there, because... they can't use the coupon at the competitor's)

2. The difference in price doesn't offset the time-cost of going to multiple stores (and the consolidation of stores means that going to two different stores will take even more travel time).

So, if most people aren't really doing comparison shopping anyway, then you make more money by matching your prices to your competition.

> Morality isn't derivable from first principles, it's a consequence of values.

Idk about this claim.

I think if you take the multi-verse view wrt quantum mechanics + a veil of ignorance (you don't know which entity your conciousness will be), you pretty quickly get morality.

ie: don't build the Torment Nexus because you don't know whether you'll end up experincing the Torment Nexus.

> Are you proposing we seize their land?

And how did they come to own their land? You trace the claims back enough and it'll resolve to "some ancestor took it from someone else at the point of a spear". But we don't need to seize the land. A land value tax achieves the same goals while leaving in place all the nice free-market stuff you're talking about.

I think we can also say that the former USSR has also failed to achieve capitalism despite having 30 years to do it. So maybe there's some other factors at play.

> Now for a followup question: How does any website surface any content when they're liable for the content?

Chronological order, location based, posts-by-followed-accounts, etc. "Most liked", etc.

Essentially by only using 'simple' algorithms.

This analysis misses kinda a major point. The nice thing about making mobile SOCs is that the yields are more forgiving. If you have 1000mm^2 of silicon that you're slicing into 10mm^2 dies, each defect (of which there will be many on early leading nodes), will only cost you a 10mm^2 chip, instead of a 50mm^2 chip. And because you're making them in volume, you get many many cycles to improve your process before you try to make bigger chips with it, ie: CPUs/GPUs. And because Apple wanted the increased performance/battery life, they reserved capacity from TSMC on these leading nodes in advance, helping to finance their development while providing a garunteed customer that was going to buy in volume. This gave TSMC a huuuge advantage over Intel that materialzied around ~2018.

Honestly at this point I'd be happy if employers would include on the paystub, the amount the company is actually paying for health insurance for the employee. So many people go around saying oh they have a job with great health insurance that's only $100/month.

> I pay a little over $100 a month for health insurance.

Sorry friend, your total comp likely something like $800~$1400 lighter per month due to health insurance. The fact is that your company is paying the vast majority of your actual premium and you just never see that money as coming out of your paycheck.

https://www.completepayrollsolutions.com/blog/how-much-does-...

> That is one perspective but I think people actually want digital scarcity.

In the same way that a heroin addict wants heroin.

> For some reason, some people outside a community believe they should have a voice on what the actual community wants. As if a community should be expected to want to ruin what makes their space attractive so interlopers can infest it?

I don't understand the notion that that community exists in a vacuum where they're entitled to be insulated from the world changing around them.

> I am pointing out that this is not a given, magic that will just happen. Capitalism is not always efficient nor reliable, based on the evidence.

I said 'if there's a market for it'.

The simple fact is that these rural communities are just not as economically viable as they used to be. Most rural communities exist around 'base input' types of industries that made money by exporting stuff extracted from the land. Farming, mining, logging, etc. The community existed because extracting those resources required a lot of labor, and that labor wanted to buy services after work. When you had 100 people who worked in the fields all day, they'd come back to town and patronize local bars, stores etc. However, farming, like mining, has continued to become less and less labor intensive because of better automation. There isn't 100 people coming back from the fields in most cases now. There's 1 dude who was driving a combine harvester all day. Or a planter, etc. And more recently, its one guy who was monitoring a dozen combine harvesters that were self-driving based on GPS.

Editing in a reply to below comments bc depth limit.

> This is why I'm very pro remote work for the broader economy. > It's much easier for remote workers who want to live in rural areas to patronize these local bars, stores, etc, when they're not already commuting to places with a much larger collection of services.

I'm also pro-remote work, but even if every job that is do-able remote becomes remote, that won't revitalize every rural community. No one is moving to North Dakota just because they got a remote job. The US is just too big and the number of remote-able jobs is too small. Sure, some rural communities, with particularly nice outdoors, etc will be winners. But you need actual 'large' numbers of people to sustain those local bars/stores. A few software developers moving to a dying mining town is just not going to be enough patrons to sustain a bar, stores, schools, etc. Even if they all keep their 500k Google paychecks, they can still only drink so much beer at once.

> In which case, that reminds me:

> The neat thing about central planning is that it can invest in things-- like rural electrification-- which are cost prohibitive for a market-based solution, if/when that need arises.

> So would you agree they are both neat in their own way?

Yes, they are both neat in their own way. I like that the post office has to deliver mail to everyone.

Central planning can react faster than the market, if the central planners have good foresight. But they can't see into the future either. If you have some rural mining community that could sustain a population of 5,000 in 1970, it made a lot of sense to electrify it. But then 40 years later, the mine is more productive than ever before, but only needs 20% of the labor because of advances in automation. It kinda sucks that you built an electric system sized for a population of 10,000, right? Cuz now you have a town of 5,000 where unemployment is extremely high.

Though I'd argue that rural electrification at this point (or in the next few years) is probably best by a home-solar-battery combo.

Yes, its pretty straight forward and there are many countries who already do it.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-3-c...

Those are about rural communities. It makes perfect sense that a very low-density community doesn't generate enough demand for a robust grocery store. The 2nd article mentions that the community used the newly built grocery store for a while, before going back mostly shopping at a Walmart 30 miles away. My guess is that those people were going to that Walmart anyway for this or that in many cases. So at that point, why drive to two locations, esp for most people in the rural area, that grocery store isn't actually that much more convenient, and can't compete on price with Walmart?

A property tax is typically assessed on the value of land + property, and honestly, we don't do a good job of accurately pricing the land value aspect of it. So if you don't build anything and just own the land, your property tax will be very low.

> because it doesn't actually make any connection to indicate that these companies wouldn't make even more money by building more homes,

I think it comes down to risk, effort, and available labor/resources. If it costs them nothing to hold the land and build only when they're very sure that the building will be profitable, then that's what they'll do. But once they have the whole construction side working on projects... if there's capital left over... why not buy up more land in the mean time? It makes it harder for your competition to build while you work through your backlog and it costs you basically nothing.

Really we just need a Land Value Tax.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/land-value-tax.asp

The neat thing about capitalism is that stores will be built to serve the community if there's a market for it. We don't need to centrally plan the whole community up front. We do need zoning laws that ALLOW those stores to be built though.

> It really just smacks of greed and nothing else... selling cars has a long history of being a profitable business on its own. You don't need to steal your customers' data to turn it into another revenue stream, but it sure looks good on a financial report.

Its not only greed, its also a race to the bottom. If you're GM, you might prefer not doing that, but if your competition starts doing that, then you're at a competitive disadvantage, because they'll have more money to invest in engineers/production optimization, etc. So the logic then goes that you might as well do it first.

This is a case where you need government regulations to enforce mutual disarmament.

> What I'd be more interested in is, does this also mean bigger/denser L1-L3 caches?

Just a semi-engineer here, not a semi-conductor engineer, but probably not. L1-L3 are on the die, so you'd just be making those at the same time as the rest of your CPU die, so they'll be made with the same process as that is. Which, once that process is the high NA UV, means yes, denser L1-L3. Though I wouldn't be too surprised to see an L3/L4 chiplet made with an older process for low-end CPUs... which might mean smaller cache?

Hey this is a cool project, but from a selfish perspective: Why would I use this over Aseprite?

Yes, we should have a Land Value Tax to replace income tax.

> Came across - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fgcxDRti5s recently which uses an array of IMUs and filtering, to they claim get accuracy similar to a fibre optic gyro.

I had this idea a few years ago when I was learning about VR position tracking issues stuff. Kinda surprised this wasn't a thing immediately after the first MEMS gyro honestly?

> I have yet to see a game on my computer that uses more than 0.5% of my CPU.

Just a nitpick here, you probably have some multicore CPU while the render-dispatch code is gonna be single threaded. So that 0.5% you're seeing is the percent of total CPU usage, but you probably want the % usage of a single core.

Generate the accompanying normal map and then just tesselate it?

Had this issue with Ubisoft recently. Installed Trackmania through Steam for free, then had to create a Ubisoft account, then had to buy the Trackmania annual pass for $20. I guess I followed the wrong flow or something, but I ended up with the purchase on my Ubisoft account, but I guess their system also auto-creates a Ubisoft account for Steam accounts? So the purchase on the Ubisoft account ended up on the account not tied to Steam.

Emailed support about it on 13/07/2024.

Got back a reply on 23/07/2024:

> Our Support Team is currently experiencing high case volumes, so we are reaching out with a message to check-in and make sure you still need help!

> If you've found a solution to your problem already, there's nothing you need to do. Just ignore this message and your case will automatically close in 2 days.

Didn't see the reply until the 3rd day.

> As we have not heard from you in the last 2 days your case has been closed automatically.

Excellent customer experience.

> I know you said "literally", so all bets are off in how you'll parse a reply, but yes, I do know about share dilution. You're describing practically the same thing. You want people to risk all their capital, and if the business does well you auto-dilute them. That's fine if it's what they signed up for, but it will have a chilling effect on investment.

We can lower interest rates for CapEx business loans to encourage investment. Do we really believe that if Bezos could have only become a single-digits billionaire that that wouldn't have been enough motivation?

> Again, the "literally" made it clear that this wasn't going to be great, but you're committing the apex fallacy. If you only consider the highest of high performing companies in how your instincts guide you, you're going to commit some very obvious errors.

Are we to believe that if Amazon hadn't formed, the hole in market would remain unfilled? I find this very unlikely. Someone was going to be Bezos. And we don't have to begin diluting their share in the first year of the company. And lets be real here, they're going to be paid the highest salaries at the top. They can buy shares that their employees sell on the market like everyone else. I mean, if you're a CEO of a company, you should want to buy shares right? Because you believe in your leadership? So they can pay themselves a large salary and reinvest as much of it as they want.