yareal

Autowiper sensors are some of the simplest, well understood technology around. You place an infrared led at a low angle to the windshield, you place an ir collector so the light from the LED hits it. (Remember that at shallow angles, light reflects off glass.)

When water is on the sensor, the angle of refraction and reflection change, and the ir collector suddenly sees much less light.

Two components, plus a microcontroller. Usually two such sensors are on the windshield. Absolutely dead simple and cheap.

Why the fuck would you replace that with a camera trying to parse video?! That's so much more complicated. That's like trying to determine vehicle speed from a camera rather than sensors on the tires or whatever.

Aseprite files also can be ingested directly by tools down the line. Godot, for instance, with a plugin can setup all your animations directly from an aseprite file.

Sort of, anarchy does not mean individualism. It absolutely can be built around syndicalism and federation. If a group of people says, "we believe it's best to take turns doing this labor" then they can do that.

Typically there's a cultural expectation of "wellbeing for all", which becomes a significant social expectation. If it's the cultural standard, it changes the relationship to chores significantly - I can contribute to them knowing that the general person out there is also doing chores with my wellbeing in mind.

The basic theory is that when something is abundant and everyone has what they need, the incentive for theft doesn't really exist. If you set out a barrel of forks and say, "take what you need" then at some point everyone has taken as many forks as they need. If we assume this is also happening for other bulk items, and everyone can just have as much as they need, there's nothing to trade those forks for, so taking a bunch doesn't benefit you at all.

Ask yourself, why would you take more than you need? Not some hypothetical other person, but you, personally. Do you think other people are in general likely to behave like you? (Put another way, do you think you are fairly typical when presented with a "take what's fair" scenario?)

It's like the candy bowl at an office or someone's house, or the "take a penny" cup at a store. I'm sure occasionally someone takes everything from it, but by and large people take what they'll personally use.

I live in Seattle and have a mid tail cargo bike. I regularly shop at the local nursery, hardware store, or Costco on my bike. My bike configuration can carry about one full but not overflowing shopping cart. Because I don't need to stop at stop signs (wa state law) I make roughly the same time to my destinations within about 5-8 miles. I also never need to worry about parking.

I have a seat that a kid can sit in comfortably for school drop off.

I carry rain pants and a waterproof shell in my cargo pockets on the bike, and my helmet has a magnetically held visor. Once you have a waterproof shell, weather is really not a deterrent until it's physically difficult to move the bike.

So, it's a mode of transport that covers nearly every trip, in nearly every condition, nearly year round.

When I go to the country to visit family, I take my bike. I can navigate just as well, but much slower in rural areas (most people drive faster on rural roads than in urban areas and the distances are longer.)

I'm also (believe it or not) a real person. Bikes absolutely work for real people who live real lives.

Some of us genuinely believe in mutual aid and practice it. Talking about mutual aid inspires mutual aid.

It's ok to tell stories where good things happen because you got involved.

This is called mutual aid, and is one of the fundamental underpinnings to anarchist theory. People will help each other, generally, if doing so is not too much of a burden on themselves. Systematizing that behavior into genuine community support for one another would (hypothetically) lead to outcomes of increased wellbeing for all.

In your example, the person who left out the chairs isn't worried about being paid back for the chairs. Someone has excess, they shared it freely without expecting anything in return, and the community is better for it.

Spend ten minutes googling, it's really not hard to find articles that talk about men and unique needs of men in traditionally women's spaces, and they stayed focused on men.

It's trivial to demonstrate that these exist. Maybe your wife just doesn't read Vogue, glamour, Elle, etc. but for those of us who do, this sort of thing is a mainstay.

https://www.voguebusiness.com/beauty/everyone-wants-in-on-me...

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/men-talk-about-your-mental-h...

https://www.elle.com/beauty/a26342438/ryan-reynolds-armani-c...

https://www.glamour.com/story/mens-sperm-and-lifestyle-choic...

Trans women are women. What the fuck is this hate shit doing here?

Then I retract b) in this case. You are in the nearly impossible case - a woman who does know that, for them, the situation was worse as a balls-haver.

But it's hard to generalize, and the original comment did an extremely typical thing in men's spaces -- taking a woman's experience and immediately responding with "but men also!" Could be your comment simply coincidentally fit the pattern.

Also, extremely fuck that transphobe poster. They can eat shit.

You aren't paying attention to women's media if you think that's the case. Plenty of women's media discusses the difficulties in men's lives. And when they do, for instance talking about testicular cancer, they tend to stay away from, "ok but breast cancer is worse actually. "

We should all be comfortable lifting each other up, rather than focusing only on our own demographics. Otherwise those without power will suffer needlessly.

That's not an excuse. Men can and should be capable of "oh shit, we should fix this bad experience women have!" Without needing to center men's experiences.

What an absurd statement. It's a) not a fucking competition and b) nearly impossible for you to know that and c) not going to be universal for all balls-havers and all labia-havers.

Also, like, what is your comment even aiming to achieve?

Are you hoping people will be like, "oh yes, I'm interested in learning how we could improve the lives of women but this insightful comment about balls made me really think about how I shouldn't"?

I'm 40, I got a sleeve done this year. I've never been more thrilled to get one. Get tattoos. It's your body, if the art is meaningful to you, why hold back?

Well, obviously, right? They started with the premise of, "what if we committed wholesale intellectual property theft" and moved immediately to, "I bet we can put a whole lot of people out of work and keep the profits to ourselves!"

It's astonishingly clear we need to regulate them.

First syllable plus diminutive is a super, super common English construction though. Beverage to bevy, for a sort of contrived example. Sometimes these take a bit of work to go from the shortened version to the long one.

They specifically said, "their reviews are fair". Maybe you missed that part of their post?

My phone plan costs $14/month and could power music indefinitely at high speeds. Notably, it's something I already have and already pay for.

$300 more for a new stereo is still a lot to many people. Plus, if I buy beater cars but put a nice stereo in them I'm at risk of theft. And I have to pay install fees again if I buy my next beater.

Blaming the victim of a con is just intellectual elitism. Everyone, literally everyone is vulnerable to a con that's obvious to someone else.

Sure, tech cons are more obvious to us technical folk, but we have our own blind spots in other industries we are vulnerable to. (I cannot be as sure I I'm not being conned by construction, automotive, medical, or education industries, for example.)

Continue to hold the con artists in contempt, not their victims.

The parent didn't say "no car" they said "cheap car". Most people can't afford to buy new cars.

This is a fascinating misunderstanding of history. Were you not around when phones all had unique, non USB charging cables? It was a nightmare trying to charge a phone or device if you forgot your charger.

You are saying you can reduce e waste by whole integer percent with a simple bit of legislation? That's a clear win.

It's surprising to me that people see examples like this and somehow still think, "well, it's one bad apple. One bad decision from one company" rather than a systematic problem with incentive structures.

Capitalism, and particularly capitalism that emphasizes profit, warps incentives away from building things for people.

And we have other functioning models! Open source is about as close to anarchist theory in practice as there is, for example. "Wellbeing for all" isn't some pipe dream we could never achieve, FOSS is built on the principle of "I'll build it, use it if you like. Help me if you can."

I meant more generally, in the sense that if someone is never in the role. Like if someone says, "we don't need engineering managers". Of course you are correct in the short term where I'm stepping away from my role temporarily.

It's a function of scale. Hundreds of engineers is very, very small scale. In an environment like that I totally agree that you can delegate these responsibilities to individual engineers and it's probably fine.

When you have tens or hundreds of thousands of people working together, those responsibilities become large enough that centralizing them makes sense.

Engineering management is just specialization of a role, based on the need to have a specialist fill that role. Just like a games studio with 5 people doesn't need a dedicated build engineer, but a game studio with 1000 people probably does.

I'm an engineering manager who was formerly an engineer. I have always held that an engineering manager is not above the team, but within the team with a different role. Like, I do the following things:

Prevent other teams from reaching in and randomizing our priorities, work on promotion plans for anyone seeking promotion, manage customer/partner team relationships, ensure everyone has balanced feedback regularly, mediate disputes, collect information to manage upwards so we can still be funded, advise on team process but never mandate it, facilitate accommodations, manage poor performance so the team isn't dragged down, try to consolidate and clear meetings from calendars across the team.

If I'm not around, then all those things either don't get done or fall to the engineers themselves. I personally think it's useful to have someone on the team specialize in those activities for the benefit of the team. But I'll admit my bias.

I can imagine no ways in which this ends poorly. Like, News Corp in particular, but news in general, has become an entertainment product with heavy biases. Are we really thinking it's a good idea to just wire those into systems we don't fully understand, and haven't yet reckoned with?

I'm not opposed to AI, but it all feels so ham fisted and reckless as everyone tries to be the first to some imaginary finish line.

The rule of thumb is that employees cost the company double what they pay the employee. So, still hundreds of thousands per employee.

An engineer costs $500k a year. Salary, benefits, office space, equipment, hr, legal, and other overhead. The engineer will only see a fraction of that, of course.

If you told me it took a hundred engineers to run Wikipedia I'd say, that's not totally unreasonable. Features, design, api, scaling, moderation, there's a ton for engineers to be doing.

Your own link shows investment income as about $3-4m. Nowhere near enough to pay for infrastructure and engineers, let alone all the other things you need to operate Wikipedia.

If you want to argue against finding Wikipedia you are going to have to do so in something approximating reality. Because the idea that they could somehow operate on one percent of their first budget is completely off base.