moocow01

Hype has become culturally embedded into the tech world unfortunately. There are whole ecosystems incentivized to hype the next new wave of whatever in hope of monetary or other gain. After this there will be something else so best to practice maintaining a reasonable perspective on tech advancements. I agree its annoying but am trying to use it as a tool where its useful.

Can't wait for all the consulting jobs on AI generated software that "we can't get the AI to add any more new features to correctly" and nobody knows anything about the current code.

They do technically have coat hangers in back but they pop out.

Parking lots, especially in cities like LA, are not going to be repurposed into green spaces if this comes to fruition

Lonely introvert... as an introvert myself I find this to be an oxymoron

In the medium to even sometimes short term, clean code IS what allows you to ship features to users quickly and efficiently.

I see Neuralink as just a next-gen version of deep brain stimulation where we could have a lot more stimulation nodes than 1 or 2. Just that could be quite exciting as it is already known that targeted electric stimulation in the brain can do a lot of positive things for those who can benefit.

Even though I enjoy work mostly I've learned to take a mental tally of the hours and stressful moments vs. pay. In my personal situation it seems to me that certain promotions aren't worth it. Basically I don't think its worth it to me to take on extra responsibilities that I'm not going to enjoy for a marginally higher compensation. That means I'll never be high up in the org chart but thats fine. Based upon what you are describing I'd decline the promotion and it may push them to negotiate higher compensation for the additional work.

Is this true? From my memory, many car brands were only good for 100-150k miles when I was a kid. Now it seems like just about all cars made in the last decade are expected to be viable to 200-300k miles

I think the unknown really is the progression of battery technology. If in 5-10 years every EV's range is 1000 miles, charging stations could be very limited in their economic viability if apartments and homes have ubiquitous installations. Commercial is a bit different but still battery technology would likely have similar effects where it would still push charging to be at the home base.

"Will they use their position to artificially inflate the price of electricity"

Maybe but they have significantly less power to maneuver with solar, batteries and on-premise charging. All property is potentially a cheap gas station and for those that don't own a home with cheap electricity or solar, I'd guess that the market would respond with some form of airbnb for charging if prices at charging stations got too out of whack. Shell doesn't have the ability to create the strangle-hold that is possible with gas.

The thing is as adoption increases there will be less charging stations and just spots with EV charging whether its in a home, apartment or street parking. I think the idea of a station where you go to fill up with electricity or gas will become obsolete - it'll be ubiquitous as anywhere can effectively be a gas station for very little investment comparatively.

I'd guess actually we'll need significantly less charging stations than gas stations at full electric conversion being that you can fill up at home and its most desirable to do so time and cost wise. I have an electric car and use a charging station about once every 3 months when on a long trip.

I work with both but maintaining a large backend in JS with a large team has made me really appreciate Java and all it’s uncoolness

I actually share you're hesitancies but to play devil's advocate could these more fine-grained mediations lead to better policies in scenario's where those in control work for the greater good? Things that come to mind are reasonable speed restrictions on a driver caught going 50mph over the limit rather than an outright revoke of license or auto-detection of dangerous driving behaviors that could be punished with micro-fines. Maybe some would see those as a dystopia but it seems like you could utilize these to improve driving behavior as a society and decrease the need for overly harsh punishment.

"after some time, loses enough social credit that the government decides to deprive him of the ability to use his car"

I know its easy to mentally walk down the dystopian road on this, but hasn't this always been the case? The only thing new is these policies are now getting codified using technology as society embraces it. Even from an apolitical stance, we as a modern society have always had mechanisms to take away a person's driving ability and car based upon a number of benchmarks based upon social behaviors.

Wasn't this sort of baked in after Biden won but it just was a matter of when (meaning before or sometime after the 20th)? He obviously brought in an incredibly large audience to Twitter as president for an array of reasons and it seems obvious that that audience was bound to recede in the span of the next month or so.

I've recently been thinking that the current version of social media is our generation's version of smoking. I think it's going to take another 25 years but eventually I think it will be seen as something detrimental to everyone's (mental) health that people have to work to remove themselves from.

It hasn’t been studied yet but it’s very unlikely this is true.

Is there any previous vaccine that this has ever been true of? If it was wouldn’t that enable the disease to continue to be rampant among groups who were not vaccinated?

To be fair Tesla hasn't moved as of yet

This narrative has been recycled for as long as I've lived and its not wrong but just continues to re-highlight what is actually just a constant current. California is a place where technology companies are birthed largely due to the educated talent here along with progressive values. When those companies become mature they start looking for tax cuts to bolster their established revenue model. Texas and the like is where these companies go to live out the rest of their lives

I'm more curious why there was an algorithm involved at all. Based upon the number of doses they had, they should have immediately been given to as many staff on first responder units, like ER, ICU, etc as would take it. My wife works at a hospital as a nurse and this is what they have done for the first phase of vaccination. After that I can see a need for an algorithm to determine who is most at need but there is no excuse for the administrators for what happened at Stanford.

COPPA

Yeah doesn't seem like a well conceived plan if there really is a consensus amongst the super rich to isolate themselves all together on one relatively small island. First of all globally there are a hell of a lot of super rich people. Secondly I'm not sure you'd want your neighbors to all be other aggresssively well resourced people in a world of survivorship. Third, if the masses blamed the super rich for the catastrophes of the world we'd know where to find them.

Without knowing much about ship dynamics it sounds suspicious that you could make an unsinkable ship based upon this concept. Isn't the above water mass of the ship held up by the (large) amount of air in the hull? If you punctured the hull (releasing the air) then wouldn't this material have to support the entirety of the ship with the minuscule layer of air bubbles across the surface of the hull? I notice the person's hand pushing the disc down with relative ease so I'd assume its buoyant but not super-buoyant

Your mortgage payment with 60k down on 1.5m would be about 10k per month

I think the problem really is profit. Pepsi and Coca-Cola both sell sugar water, a commodity, at a profit. Lyft and Uber have made rides a commodity but at this point it looks like commoditization of rides is not able to be sold at a profit. I think they both are touting that scale and technology will lead them to profitable rides but its not obvious that this is going to ever come true in a way that justifies their value. To me the scary part for them is that they already have commoditized their product.

How do you know that gold mining uses more energy than bitcoin mining?

Is this really more efficient? A bunch of smaller drones making individual trips between a supply point and destination per package versus a truck loading up once to serve each area?

Skimming through this Im not sure that this answers this question (maybe Im missing it). Think about it from the perspective of the pollution on a square block. Does a speeding higher emitting car that leaves the block quickly leave more pollution than a slower lower emitting car that takes longer to leave the block? Im pretty sure there has got to be something to this because at the very extreme Id imagine if I idled at 1 mph down a block Id leave a lot more pollution