raxxor

You have linked to all kinds of videos that can only be described as malicious propaganda, and yes, that sadly includes the Amnesty ones. A few years ago that org drifted in a strange direction. But these videos try to manipulate you.

Israel was accused when it build a wall towards Gaza, but in the end it protected from suicide attacks of brainwashed children that were instrumentalized by a fundamentalist genocidal cult.

A lot of Palestinians did work in Israel, given that is over for quite some time now for Gazans at least.

I can agree on Ben-Gvir being a moron, but Israel justifiably demands security guarantees.

That is wrong. There were conflicts before, the Hebron massacre (1929) for example. There was an Arab nationalism and the Mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler and planned a middle-eastern Holocaust.

Also, Jews were expelled from surrounding nations when Israel was founded, even more than Palestinians were driven from what now is Israel. There never was any compensation or talk about their right to return and these are not Jews with European ancestry.

Frankly, I think not a single statement of yours is true.

I learned that they did this because some though that personell or staff would be too offensive. Same thing happened in Germany, were the English term HR is now more commonly used.

Whowever decided HR being less offensive shouldn't make judgement calls like that at all.

The arguments about woke being correct are quite recently and often framed in a way it reminds you of groups like johovas witnesses or student fellowships.

I disagree with equality of outcome being the same as equality of opportunity. Some of the most totalitarian regimes promised equality in a way equity is understood today.

It is tiring to repeat mistakes that often were made in the past. There is enough literature about arguments that fall short very quickly, since not all people are equal. Not in wants, looks, interests or ability.

If you want precise movement, I always recommend an external encoder, even if the motor itself already has one. You probably use some form of transmission and there is always some transmission tolerance.

Also a good engineering rule is to have your stepper provide double the maximum torque than you need by specification, especially if you use partial steps.

Common dc motors don't need as much tolerance, but it doesn't hurt anyway.

Also, you still need to debounce signals from optical encoders because of the inteference you mentioned, even if your physicist tells you that optical encoders cannot bounce.

To read encoders try to use timer interrupts instead of pin change interrupts. A bit unintuitive for software developers, but polling is safer because you have specified maximal speed and your µC program isn't disabled from magnetic interference as well. There are specialized µC for quadrature encoders, but you usually do not need them if you don't have high speed applications.

Not all men is a sensible argument because it condemns generalization, a foundational principle of humanism.

There is no spirit of argument, your axioms are lacking. Either you can form an argument without generalization or it is very weak. That is mostly the gist of the criticism of contemporary progressive arguments.

Especially on the topic of racism it is paramount to stay precise in your wording and especially if your own policies circle around changes in language.

And if your argument gets the basics wrong, you should not wonder about any headwind and no, these arguments cannot form a revisited civil rights movement.

Woke ideas also collide with general humanism. "I don't see color" is an example here.

But the ideas of humanism are better and woke people often dislike that their ideas get rejected. Still, people were made fun off on TV for expressing "old" humanistic ideas in favor of idpol. I don't think that some woke ideas fly very high on an intellectual level so that too much discussion would not even be necessary. Not that the criticism is taken seriously if you have your dogma at hand.

There are well known dynamics that even putting people in camp blue or red creates conflict. Woke ignores these dynamics completely, but did further ideas of that kind to the letter. Current conflicts are further empiric evidence that some assumptions do indeed hold.

I don't think you can reframe that in a way if you introduce policies that treat people differently. And I don't believe people feel they lose rights as long as they are treated equally.

As I said, rulebook of toxic middle management. Treat people differently and they fight among themselves and you don't have them on their back. Simple workplace dynamic, even if not intuitive.

It can be a boogeyman but it also a generic term for a bunch of different phenomena that are connected through the way they are brought up, which is mostly very paternalistic.

In some cases people tried to change or police language, mostly around the topic of gender, but it isn't restricted to that. In some countries that use "gendered" languages there were aspirations to change language to be more inclusive, with the indirect accusation that common language cannot be so. That reaches from Latinx to trying to remove any form of gendered language, a culmination of sexual and grammatical gender.

Many just saw this as a vanity project, but even language changes in some official capacity persists. Again, these isn't agreed upon language, it was paternalistically described for people to be better, allegedly.

Of course the worst aspects get the spotlight, but that isn't unusual in todays exchanges on social media.

There is also another factor of "woke" and that is where it behaves pretty similar to the "far right". These are both nebulous terms for that matter, but both promote policies that a summarized as "identity politics". Another volatile term, but I believe there is a strong connection here.

Still, just as people point to the woke excesses as being representative, the same is happening with criticism towards some of its goals and tenets.

They do have that right as long as they do not sabotage the integrity of the system. Personally I would quickly use other software developers and banks. Competition would sort that out quickly.

Today banks don't want to be liable for user error that lead to scams. They adhere to such policies out of fear, but they don't help as the most prominent victims of scams are still the same people, open system or not.

I think a definition would exclude µC, dsps asics, fpga, etc. While most of those have the ability to program themselves, not all programs support such features.

And for external programming you need programming devices who would also need physical interfaces where no standard connector exists.

But a definition for general purpose computing devices wouldn't be harder than to craft legislation that requires my banking app to run on a certified shitty app environment.

There would be no piracy on smartphones. That would require desirable applications. Those don't exist because the environment is that shitty.

If you explain all details about the advantages and disadvantages to them, I am sure they would think differently.

There are much more "hostile" smartphone apps that exfiltrate your data and sell it to the largest bidder than there are compromised executables these days. Also there are more profitable scams than compromising a PC system outside of industrial espionage.

PC in contrast to consoles always were a cost or usage factor. The difficulties of operating a PC isn't significant. It also heavily increases digital competency of the user for computer systems. If you really don't want that, you have other options.

Because it isn't at all reasonable. There is no argument to not allow root access. You don't have to use it, perhaps most users would be safer with a conventional user account, but it is not reasonable to outright deny full system right to the owner of a device since there are so many disadvantages connected to that.

If protection of the casual user was an argument, there would be an easy option to unlock your system, be that phones or desktop computers.

But on many systems these options do not exist because the vendor likes people dependent on them. This is why devices like chromebooks or all mobile phones are more or less e-waste in the making. In my opinion it is a waste to use any development capacity for these systems apart from consumer devices offering the next shitty app that hopefully always stays optional.

We even have dysfunctional laws that require banking apps to only run on these shitty systems. In my opinion, these errors need a quick correction.

Also, the most cases of scam still work as they did before and exfiltrating information, e.g. tracking and "diagnostic data" by bad operating systems are an additional security problem.

You absolutely can host your own mail server. Or use one of your IT partner of choice. Out business still has an exchange. Today you have to jump through some hurdles with SPIF/DKIM, but it is still very possible.

So Microsoft believes it can only sell its AI application through a significant dark pattern. That isn't very convincing advertising for copilot at all.

I think in the case of X this wouldn't happen and this was political influence trying to silence him. Far more effective than Russian propaganda for that matter, here a presidential candidate was silenced. Fact checkers would make such phenomenon worse while community notes would just deliver more context.

Be that as it may, that is a positive side of Musks takeover of X.

The special occasion is that their phase angles are all of a similar value so they are aligned next to each other. The phase angle describes the position in their respective orbit. If you imagine to look "down" upon the solar system, it would be the angle towards 12 o'clock.

It is rare because the further the planets are from the sun, the longer their orbit periods are. While Earth completes the circle in just a bit above 365 days, Neptune for example takes nearly 165 years to do a round trip. So it would take some time for the slower planets to meet again in the same region in the sky.

That is a worrying amount of conjecture about something nobody knows anything about in any direction.

Take the project, do your finals and then throw the project again if you don't want to take the legal course.

I just had a new headset that I cannot pair in Windows without a third party adapter.

Windows has momentum, but it certainly isn't because it is easier or more reliable anymore.

It is the general insecurity about new tech although I haven't seen a single job being replaced by AI yet. And I also think the market for SWE is still very good though. And the only ones that use AI on a large scale for that matter.

Salesforce came into discussion as a CRM solution for us, but the salesman was so arrogant that he was quickly booted out. If first thought it would be nice to develop against a more modern system, but today I am glad we never jumped on that train. And I hear it devolved into the same mess that CRM systems somehow always seem to be.

Nuclear power is expensive for Germany. Uranium would need to be imported and enriched, there is no storage capacity for waste, former solutions have failed massively.

Chernobyl irradiated a huge part of the whole continent of Europe and poisoned parts of the food chain. This is not the same risk dimension as unsafe cars.

And the radiation of Fukushima probably entered the food chain at different points as well. Contrary to popular belief, radiation doesn't homogenously disperse in the ocean. Measuring the negative effects isn't trivial. Sure, water is a very good radiation absorber, so you won't get problems from direct radiation.

I would totally buy the Enron egg for personal use but that is beside the point. And I still would have no means to recycle it, so I would make it a problem of future generations as well.

Of course coal isn't a solution, I am happy that nobody starts with ideas like liquifying it into oil. But I think nobody is disputing that.

I don't know. I believe the average internet user has less to gain to feed me wrong info. It happens of course, that is why you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

A fact checker however has economic incentive towards their employers. You can paint them as independent, but the will always be in a precarious situation or are influenced by third party financiers. This does not at all evoke more trust than a random internet person. Trusted source is pretty subjective, but for me "official" fact checkers don't have too much of that.

I think the people most influenced be terrible influences by people like Musk are those that mirror this opinion.

Banning social media sites is a pretty draconian approach that probably will not work anyway and I believe it to be completely reactionary. The EU formerly did have influence on Twitter content. They lost that and aren't too happy about that.

I think it was a necessary correction and I don't want to live in the EU silo and I don't trust their DSA "trusted flaggers". What do they ban next, HN? I don't think it has official fact checkers either.

I don't know Dana White and I don't know any predecessor. It isn't really relevant though apart from which actions they indeed did take in their approach.

Your second point about why people in Texas might be less biased is the distance to primary locations of tech companies perhaps? I don't think that it is convincing, but a lack of trust is the most severe problem of fact checkers.

I believe the concept cannot work though, especially if I look at the broader context.

No, user feedback is the better control mechanism. Also these fact checkers would never be independent and they would develop their own interest for even more moderation. They would never report that there isn't any more controversial content to be checked, because that is their raison d'être from day one.

I do not follow, I do not believe this is correct. Third parties introduce the censorship.

This is outrage bait and pretty low even for CNN.