lopmotr

Unlikely. It also directly says 40 minute battery life. If changes extended it, it would be unlimited.

Although reducing speed and fuel usage reduces fuel costs, it increases fixed costs (you need more ships for the same throughput) as well as operating costs like crew. It might turn out to still be more expensive in the end. Then there's the problem of less certainty about price changes if you have to wait longer for the product to be delivered which leads to inefficiency (over/under-supply if mispredicted). There's also the opportunity cost of money being tied up for longer in the delay between production and consumption.

I don't understand either. Somebody else made the same comment but typical electric cars still have diffs. Examples include Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, and Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model S. Where are the electric cars with independent left/right drive motors? Even cheap toy electric R/C cars have differentials.

The alt and title text of the first image seems to be AI generated:

"Line, Grey, Black-and-white, Exercise equipment, Monochrome, Machine, Monochrome photography, Barbell, Circle, Gas, "

Other non-car images on the site have text that's really disconnected from the context, such as an Apple logo on a story about the Apple car called "Christmas shopping in the city of Hamburg" which I guess came from the context of the stock photo being a Hamburg Apple store photographed at Christmas time. Pictures of people seem to be labeled with the events they're photographed at, even when it's nothing to do with the article.

Poor blind people having to figure out that "f1 eifel grand prix" means "George Russell".

Do any site operators actually block non-Google search engine crawlers because being listed DDG/Bing/etc isn't worth the extra cost of serving the crawler? It sound a bit ridiculous unless they actually don't want to be found. Maybe they only allow GoogleBot because that's all they thought of and the extra cost is in researching what all the other search engines call theirs.

Perhaps other search engines should spoof GoogleBot. Browsers have being doing that since forever spoofing Netscape (Mozilla), Safari, etc. for the same reason.

> Why don't we have Google share the results and we can use that money to do more productive things than recreating that work?

This sounds like a common fallacy of people criticizing the free market. Duplicated effort looks wasteful but turns out to be far more productive than the lack of incentive that comes with not being able to profit from your work/investment.

I expect it's like how stamp collecting used to be the world's most popular hobby. It might not have been anybody's favorite activity, but it was commonly accessible to everyone. They call these things "lowest common denominator". If you have to pick something for everybody, that's probably a better choice than any niche group's favorite thing.

You know what's worse than aspirations to become a celebrity? No aspirations at all. I know people like that. They just seem to see the future as a regular life with nothing particularly to do in it except exist and perform normal regular practical activities to sustain it. I can't imagine how dull it must be, but they seem to cope, and get all their excitement from immediate events. I hope you can be happy that your relatives at least have ambition, even if it's not quite accurately targeted yet. Not everyone is that fortunate.

Which all doesn't matter at all because it'll recover afterwards. Framing it as an ecological disaster is just a way to engage all the people who are prone to worrying about the environment.

Except that they're not independent and that looks like a fact which the model discovered.

Seems like an overhyped danger. Does anyone actually think that? You would have to not even know that the purpose of a language model is to model human language. But if that's the level of your understanding, why would you select a language model to use as a career guidance oracle? Such a negligent career advisor would be just as likely to use those children's posters with pictures of female nurses and male doctors.

I'd like to add that there's also a danger in people trying too hard to avoid bias and losing important information. For example, a man who's a homemaker instead of a programmer is a less attractive partner for a woman. So such an occupation might harm both his quality of life and that of his partner. There is some useful information encoded in cultural bias. Even if that information turns out to be entirely socially constructed, it still has real harmful effects on real humans who go against it.

Who cares about ML when we already do that:

https://www.slideshare.net/yuyomajadero/jobs-occupations-pro...

Sure, TIV has appearing weak and BDP has rages but since you didn't state that explicitly, I wondered if you'd omitted it because it wasn't present in those people you knew.

I kind of wonder though, if the way we end up classifying these things is unreasonably influenced by the existing classifications which maybe just sort of coalesced from observations that psychologists have made of their patients. Since they're often things that people won't get treated or don't even think of as disorders. The data must be very biased and flakey.

It's not clear that feeling like a victim is ever a good approach to life and maybe a bit of bludgeoning would help in the long run. No matter how bad things are because of someone harming you, it can be just as bad because of nobody's fault. For example, born with a disability vs acquired on from an assault or unemployed because of discrimination or unemployed because of lack of ability. The outcome is the same and perhaps we should be encouraging all people to make the best of their lives and not suffer from feelings of vengeance and blame.

Sounds more like incels than SJWs. SJWs are often not members of their victim classes themselves.

> Weak, soft, approachable in the beginning but, becomes silently more dominant and sucking your energy for their survival. If you cannot regenerate fast enough, they throw you to the side to find their new victim.

That sounds a lot like Borderline Personality Disorder. Another tricky one because the disorder itself causes resistance to diagnosis and treatment.

You can't just declare it. You have to have the political power for people to respect it. Even after Xi became president, he didn't have that power until he purged his opponents. Trump certainly never will.

I think these days you cannot operate a crowded theatre where people will get trampled if they're panicked by the thought of a fire. At least I hope not. That's the real problem with yelling fire. But people should stop using that example for other reasons others have mentioned anyway.

Yes but the difference shrinks when all the private entities that dominate the communication between people impose the same censorship and competition is effectively prevented by network effects. It's more of an anti-trust problem. Nobody would be complaining if it was just some small internet forum doing it.

The bigger conversation isn't really about YouTube, it's that some people want these ideas suppressed from everywhere and some people don't. Youtube just happens to be more flexible than the government, but don't think for a second they're all going to draw the line if the government passes a law prohibiting saying those things. Legally enforced censorship is what many of them ultimately want.

On the other side of the coin, the anti-censorship people also want the government to prohit Youtube/FB/etc. from censoring their ideas. That's just as anti-freedom.

I used to live in China in the pre-Trump days when most westerners believed in free speech. Sometimes I would hear about "draconian" Chinese censorship. It seemed obviously bad by western standards. For example, they would prohibit industrial action in case it threatens some vital industry or prohibit protests in case it threatens the power of the government which could lead to unrest and violence. Or they prosecuted someone for spreading a rumor after Fukushima happened that iodized salt protects against cancer which led to supermarkets getting sold out of it. Or they would suppress anti-government talk like what Falun Gong and the Uyghurs were doing. In the case of the Uyghur, they did actually commit some terrorists acts because of the anti-government things they were telling each other. All that seemed like bad totalitarian censorship. But now American leftist believe similar censorship is OK for essentially the same reasons. "social harmony" was never seen as a valid reason for censorship by westerners before, but since Trump, they changed their mind.

You example of accusations of child abuse as a way to insult somebody is actually fine as long as the society can recognize unfounded accusations from actual reality. This is still acceptable for many other insults, like "you're stupid", but somehow, people seem to have elevated sexual abuse accusations to the status of truth. I'd say the antidote to that is to allow more open unfounded accusations so we're all immunized against their effects. We do have the justice system to address real allegations.

If it wasn't blurry, it would be obvious what it was, and hence not a UFO. The extra-terrestrial idea is a bit far fetched, but generally, they're just objects/phenomena that can't be identified, not necessarily exotic.

They do it to blacks and whites just about as much as each other. You don't hear about the random people much, just the special cases that are suitable for the news. Don't mistake press coverage for the actual distribution.

I just skimmed the paper but I don't see what's novel here. Engineers design clips all the time. My company produces off the shelf software to help them to this - modelling the geometry, friction and elasticity.

It looks like this is just a fun investigation into something that's novel to the author but not to the world. Shouldn't it be a blog and not something with a DOI?

It's not glass wool. It's essentially the same stuff duvets are made from. Very comfortable actually! But maybe has some special fire retarding additive or something - I don't know.

Just looking up the product now, the brochure says "Please consult a fire engineer when specifying GreenStuf insulation ". That certainly didn't happen. Oops. But as another replyer said, it doesn't really matter for a normal house. It might burn down but you'd have escaped because of smoke alarms and just walking out the door.

The polystyrene is exposed to the outside with no covering.

You probably don't live in the same country as me so the rules are different.

For elegance, it's a bit artificial, being tied to the technology of things that use pixels and popular software that zooms in on pixelated images as a grid of single-color squares. Maybe some unintelligible character-like symbols would look more elegant?

Huh? Because conservatives don't like safety? Or they like dishonest business practices?

It's funny to think "obviously polyethylene is flammable, how did nobody notice" then realize my own house has expanded polystyrene and polyester fiber batts insulation under the floor. I wondered about fire risk but saw some vague claims by the manufacturers and that the local authority approved them, and just trusted that, despite these local authorities having a history of approving bad products. Decades ago, my dad was very critical of all polymer building insulation because of the fire danger. I thought he was just out of touch and obviously it wouldn't be allowed if it wasn't safe. This isn't the olden days! We're more strictly regulated now!

Not at all. Investors do this all the time to gain an edge over each other. It's ethical because they're actually providing a service by moving the stock price towards a more fair value so subsequent investors don't get ripped off. Some investors will lose money but those are the ones that didn't bother to do useful work investigating the company.

Why do you think they treat religions as being as important as race but not other beliefs like political, conspiracy theories, or certain other religions? BBC certainly isn't doing much to damp down political hatred so what's their true aim? I'd guess it's just to reinforce whatever arbitrary ideals of "good" and "bad" their culture has converged on and actually stoke hatred towards their perceived enemies because their culture encourages that.

Modern Islam is pretty strongly anti-science and has been for half its existence - since the end of the golden age. So it's probably not enlightening to think of those ancient people as being part of the same group as modern Muslims. It's almost a different religion. Then, it was open to free thinking and tolerant of outsiders and non-Muslims. Now, it's socially conservative, rigid in what thoughts are allowed, isolationist and intolerant of anyone critical of the religion.

I think the problem is that most of the content is general subjective anti-Trump ranting, and not specific to this incident.