seanot

I turned on the AI features last week. Last night, Carplay noted I had an incoming text message. Instead of reading me the whole message, it summarized (poorly) the message, and then asked if I wanted to hear the entire message. I replied "yes", but it did nothing. A few minutes later, another message was received and the same thing happened.

There is no way this feature saw any acceptance testing prior to release.

I wear a Motiv fitness monitor ring and it tracks sleep very accurately. I've noticed over the past year wearing it that the nights that leave me feeling best in the morning usually have a period of 45 minutes to an hour that log as awake time -- usually about half way through my sleep session. Oddly, I rarely recall being awake during this time.

I've been pleased overall with Migadu as well.

Was there evidence presented that the Las Vegas shooter was motivated by hatred for some group (political or otherwise)? I guess I missed that in the papers.

It's not practiced in ND out anywhere else. The export market won't accept it and it's not deliverable against spring wheat futures so it's not marketable and never has been.

You're discounting the technology sector and nearly the entire 19th century.

Scanning the article, it appears that the author is using two years of data in order to reach conclusions and this is because only two years of data was available to the author. If these same criteria were measured with two years worth of data ending on December 31, 2008, the results would look quite a bit different.

I spent several years in securities and derivatives trading and the most frequently cited reason for avoiding open-source software I heard was that, in the event of a major foul up, there was no one to sue if you got sued yourself. It's not that difficult for an attorney to paint you as reckless for using "free" software.

The author cites research that ties a downfall in civic engagement to the demise of local news coverage. While I find this correlation to be obvious (to my line of thinking), she assigns no responsibility for this demise to her peers -- the ones writing news and opinion.

In the large Midwestern cities in which I have lived, local newspapers generally choose to align themselves on the side of local governments and chambers-of-commerce on virtually every new development subsidy or tax deal regardless of the costs to be incurred by local residents and businesses and/or the sketchiness of the scheme.

Readers look to the fourth estate for a voice when elected representatives collude with special interests. If they are merely mouthpieces and cheerleaders for those in power, readers will look elsewhere or disengage.

I have a site that creates a subdomain for each new enterprise account and all subdomains relay on one StartCom wildcard cert. Ultimately, I can write a script to create a let's encrypt cert for each new subdomain but I've got plenty of other work on my plate at the moment.

But the people running bombing raids regulate the securities industry. Therefore, they make the rules. This ain't Plato and Aristotle's polis.

"The instructions signaled to motorists that automated vehicles would not be a Wild West where companies can try anything without oversight, but were also vague enough that automakers and technology companies would not fear overregulation."

That ought to set back automated car evolution by twenty years. It's always fun to watch lawyers trying to write rules for industries in which the technologies change before the ink dries in the federal register.

Yep. It's bad enough when the democrats and republicans rig elections.

Can you cite your reference on extremely limited government being bad at protecting the poor from the rich? I'd be happy if you could just provide an example of extremely limited government. From what I've seen, government acts as enforcer for the rich.

After the stock market crash of 1929, op-ed pieces were written calling for an end to the telephone as it "must" have caused the collapse. Fear of technology and a general misunderstanding of its uses and implications will always create great storylines and fuel populist campaigns.

Politicians believe in government -- generally powerful government. There is no place for a powerful, forceful, government in libertarian philosophy. Why would politicians or those who support their actions have an interest in a philosophy that is at odds with their beliefs?