HN user
chicken and egg problem, there won't be a need for increased charging infrastructure until there are more EVs on the road.
Which we don't have the electricity infrastructure for.
The solution is to get rid of cars, period. Ownership should require a permit like gun ownership requires in some cities (i.e you should only be able to buy one of the DMV agrees you have good reason to need a car).
If they really wanted to cut, emissions bycicles and trains are the way to do it.
Exactly, what we really need to do is have a restrictive permitting system for cars like some cities have for guns. If you can't show good cause for needing a car, you shouldn't be able to get permit to buy one. Just use public transit or bike.
My brother is a contractor in the Bay Area and he told me that PG&E will not allow the installation of 220 volt EV charging infrastructure in new construction or a home remodel unless the homeowner can prove they already own an EV.
How can they do that? Could you just say you want to install an electric dryer in your garage (or even buy a used one off of CraigsList and literally do it for a week)?
Many people, including many people on this site (and, yes, including myself) wouldn't think twice about plugging into an available port if they need a charge. Maybe I don't plug into an unlabeled port in some random location where it doesn't look like it belongs, but honestly I wouldn't think twice about charging at a designated area at a conference.
This is the solution to that problem:
https://www.amazon.com/PortaPow-3rd-Data-Blocker-Pack/dp/B00...
https://www.amazon.com/PortaPow-NA-USB-C-Data-Blocker/dp/B08...
https://www.amazon.com/PortaPow-Data-Blocker-USB-C-Converter...
Personally I predict that generative AI is going to be the next Metaverse and crypto.
A common thread tying those three things together is that, in large part, they're all impressive technologies in search of problems to solve.
Technologies like that are pretty much always overhyped and oversold.
What you're experiencing is confirmation bias. You read about one crime, then started noticing all of the stories about crime, formed a theory based on this hyper focusing, and now you believe it's worse than ever despite the stats clearly showing otherwise.
Exactly. The whole "crime is terrible in SF" is just a Republican propaganda narrative that people who should know better are buying into.
So much of the problem in SF comes down to the progressive politician types who only want to things that "impact the root causes of crime" and its extremely frustrating and frequently just plain wrong. Yes, you do not solve the "root problem of why people choose to commit crime" by putting repeat offenders in jail, but you do make the world way better for everyone else who is not a criminal.
AND by doing that you do harm, by perpetuating racist systems of of injustice and oppression. The only way to solve that more important problem is by addressing the root causes and allow longer term healing to happen.
Yes, that means some people will be inconvenienced, but that's acceptable and a necessary part of the solution. The only way to speed that phase up is to implement comprehensive reparations quickly.
I think the architecture of Notes/Domino was technically very interesting - a rapid application development environment incorporating a replicated document-oriented database, cross-platform GUI forms designer, and scripting language.
And so ahead of its time I understand it's been used to kill patents, as a demonstration of prior art.
I think I read an article once about a patent case that featured someone tracking down a still-shrink wrapped copy of Lotus notes, then having a developer use it to demonstrate it had the features that had been erroneously been patented by someone later.
Notes was pretty horrible for creating all sorts of legacy technical debt. Some handy Joe would create some database that would worm itself into critical business processes but be completely unmaintained.
And is the "better" alternative is to avoid that "legacy technical debt" by forcing that "handy Joe" to keep doing things by hand, by denying him the tools to solve his problem? Because if you don't have the connections to get budget to pay a professional developer, you shouldn't be able to solve your problem with software?
IMHO, it's better to think of those kinds of "handy Joe" apps as prototypes.
That's not title case - you don't capitalize words such as a, the, of, etc. unless they are at the beginning of the title.
Exactly. Capitalizing every letter is the lazy, half-ass pseudo title case that I always have to correct. Unfortunately its becoming normalized because many major companies that should know better don't even bother to do it right.
I wonder what they used instead of outlook
Maybe something like Pine? Even into Web 1.0 days, it was still pretty common for people to use. Everyone in my high school accessed their school-provided email account by telnetting into a Unix server and accessing Pine via a menu system.
There is _still_ no other word processor I'm aware of that can properly convert to title case. Not to mention Reveal Codes. I... might actually use this, not just play with it.
Like this?
Neat idea, I bet the intern had fun implementing it, why was it on by default?
Total speculation, but Firefox seems to be pushing out a lot of UI gimmicks. Maybe they're trying to drum up interest in the browser that way, since they seem intent on killing many of their other differentiators.
I think this movement will collapse and people will return to traditions/religion. Others part of society that don’t will self extinguish as is already apparent in the birth rate and divorce rate.
That will probably take a long time, as the "part of society that ... will self extinguish" will parasitically attach itself to the parts that don't (e.g. through compulsory education and mass media), dragging everything down in the process.
Luckily, this may be a convenient way to dispose of all the excess labor that capital will no longer will need once it's been made obsolete by AI and automation.
Those who write articles and engage in battles of attrition over article content are not idealists doing it for the sake of humanity. Instead they are marketeers getting paid to polish celebrities biographical articles, authors peddling books about the joy of circumcision, people paid by governments to carry out psy-ops, etc.
Or obsessive low-level ideologues, who have little else going on in their lives, pushing some agenda. My impression that's the largest group.
I always found it odd that Progressives love him (I still see "Free Tibet stickers on cars here) even though he stands for nothing that the Left in the US stands for. I get it that we don't like big China to push little Tibet around but that doesn't automatically make Tibet "good".
Isn't "Free Tibet" kind of passe? Like it was big in the 80s or 90s, but it's not a trendy issue anymore.
But in any case, the attitude that you expect progressives to have is one that leads to paralysis and inactivity. Nothing is ever going to perfectly conform to one's personal or factional beliefs, so if perfect conformance is a requirement you can't support anything expect yourself. Realistically, once has to reduce something to its parts and then ignore some, or pick the best of "bad" options. In the case of Tibet, (more sensibly) that's a desire to support national self-determination in the face of foreign occupation (by authoritarian Communists, no less) before all other issues, (less sensibly) that's ignorance that lets a progressive project his own attitudes and beliefs on some foreign group and not notice the error.
Another, more jarring, example is Palestine. If Israel ceased to exist and the Palestinians got their own state, I'd expect that new state to be close to the top of the progressives' shit list. After all, conservative Muslims aren't very friendly to LGBT stuff.
What's the cheapest wearable or device that can probably tell you if you have apnea?
Years ago I was once concerned I might have had sleep apnea. I did see a doctor, who said I almost certainly didn't have it. I also bought a $40 pulse oximeter that could do logging, and taped it to my finger over a couple nights. I didn't see my oxygen level drop below 90% (or something, I can't remember), so I figured I didn't have it.
My understanding is oxygen level is one of the most important factors to track for sleep apnea. I am also super-skeptical of movement-based sleep tracking. Since my impression is it's typically half-assing with cheap sensors that aren't very suited to the task (on their own).
Night of the living brain fog dead or how I hacked myself better via open source
The use of "hacking" in the title is unfortunate, since it strongly brings to mind software engineers confidently loading up on weird supplements to do stuff like "boost intelligence" without much understanding of what they're doing.
This article is very much not that, and is very sensible.
The German Wikipedia feels to me like stuck in 2006. Many pages don’t have any of the recent developments, and the information is very outdated.
There are a lot of English Wikipedia pages like that, too. Sometimes it's pretty blatant, like super-comprehensive list of something that just stops in 2013 or something.
Sometimes that abuse is relatively easy to identify. In 2019, ArbCom disciplined the two editors most involved in this subject area, instituting a topic ban for their “incivility and inflammatory rhetoric.” But what about the more insidious cases when there are no blatant signs of harassment? Wikipedians told me that these “civil” disputes are much more challenging to resolve because of a key jurisdictional issue: ArbCom has authority to decide on user conduct disputes but is not permitted to rule on article content.
Also Wikipedia's toxic culture often refuses to call a spade a spade, and gives some favored problematic editors a long leash to be uncivil, so long as they learn to avoid a few of the most blatant unacceptable behaviors. IMHO, they need to be more consistent and more final with their bans, because a community with a lot of individuals who've been taught how to obscure their misbehavior and/or expertly push it right up to the line is still a shitty community.
I've ordered food from Chipotle online, taken 30-40 minutes to get to the store, and very often it would have been more convenient (I would have gotten my food more quickly) if I had skipped the online order and waited in the in-person line instead.
Chipotle is so terrible I've stopped ordering from them. If I tried that, there'd be a decent chance that when I'd get to the store, I'd fine it would be "online orders only." I've also put in online orders (which were accepted) only discover the store was actually closed.
I answered your question. How about you answer mine?
Personally I find the term "intellectual property" to be more messed up. It isn't property, it's a government granted monopoly...
So, in other words, it's property.
There's nothing that guarantees a particular lump of atoms are "yours" besides a government-granted monopoly to control that lump. The atoms don't care.
Just saw your edit as well. Yes, people can feel free to file whatever claims they want, but the key thing is that there is a pattern of allegations. It is the very nature of discrimination claims that they are excessively hard to prove unless you have recordings or someone willing to act as a witness and burn themselves along with you on blacklists.
I don't know if you saw my subsequent edit (and long quotes from the court), but the case I found was frivolous.
A "pattern of allegations" doesn't prove anything if the allegations are lies. People lie all the time. They can even lie to themselves and convince themselves they were wronged to avoid dealing with their own problems.
It absolutely is a problem Apple has, judging by at least three lawsuits which I could find in literally 30 seconds of Googling [1][2][3] - and it isn't just recent claims either, I could find one that went back to 2001 [4].
You're moving the goalposts. In your opinion, is being "very Trumpian" a problem that Apple has? Is Tim Cook running around in a MAGA hat and I totally did not notice?
Edit: Regarding that 2001 article, it's just an article about a lawsuit being filed, which anyone can do whether they have a case or not. I haven't yet found that case, but I found a similar one from 2005 by an apparently obese Black lesbian woman represented by the same law firm:
Here's the trial order. Skimming it, it seems the plaintiff was a terrible employee and her case was so bad she and her lawyers were sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit:
https://casetext.com/case/patterson-v-apple-computer
Burmeister offered plaintiff an opportunity to support the Apple Hardware Engineering organization, believing that this opportunity would give her a chance to showcase her skills and build a base of support for her clients.... This assignment was not successful. Plaintiff's engineering clients, including Cheryl Smith ("Smith"), an African-American HR Senior Director, found plaintiff to be unresponsive, unhelpful, and rude. Smith believed plaintiff had minimal interpersonal skills. According to Smith, plaintiff frequently responded, "No," or "That's not my job," when Smith sought her assistance. Plaintiff was also resistant to providing data on bonuses, stating that the task was hard. Smith received complaints from her HR team about plaintiff's attitude and refusal to perform work. These problems caused Smith ultimately to limit her interaction with Smith, and to seek intervention from Burmeister.
Judy Goodson ("Goodson"), another African-American HR Director, found plaintiff to be often unavailable, rude, disrespectful, and negative. To create an opportunity for plaintiff, Goodson invited her to make a presentation to a Senior Vice President and his staff. However, plaintiff declined....
According to plaintiff's colleague Deborah House ("House"), plaintiff was frequently absent from department staff meetings and quarterly HR Department meetings. According to Burmeister, plaintiff was rude to her colleagues in the Compensation Group, prompting Burmeister to counsel her repeatedly about her inappropriate tone, demeanor, and ability to work with others and be a team player.
Plaintiff's work day was also interrupted by ongoing personal appointments and activities. She maintained a standing weekly hair appointment during working hours. Starting in February 2002, she commenced weekly sessions with a psychologist whose office was in Oakland, approximately 60 miles from Apple's Cupertino offices. She also spent up to and hour and a half a day trading her personal stock portfolio, and at other times played video games and did crossword puzzles on her computer.
Plaintiff believed she was entitled to yearly merit increases and promotions. However, Apple had a salary freeze in effect from the time plaintiff was hired until late 2003. Thus, the first opportunity for plaintiff to receive a merit increase was in connection with the review cycle in November 2003. When plaintiff learned that she was not receiving a merit increase, she accessed two Apple databases during work hours to obtain confidential salary and tenure information regarding certain of her colleagues....
Subsequently, as part of the investigation, plaintiff met with Parker and Hull. Plaintiff confirmed that she had accessed and reviewed her manager's and co-workers' salaries and confidential information independent of any business reason. She considered it appropriate to access the information, and admitted that she had distributed the information to her attorney and therapist. She also confirmed that she had chosen to use a personal laptop for her work at Apple, and therefore possessed confidential Apple information on that laptop. At the conclusion of the meeting, Parker told plaintiff she was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation....
On November 18, 2003, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (charge No. 377-2004-00145), alleging discrimination on the basis of race, and retaliation for engaging in protected activities.
The court finds that the motion must be GRANTED. Plaintiff has provided no facts to support the racial harassment claim against Walker, failed to state any factual or legal basis for the retaliation claim or the defamation claim against Walker, and stated no facts showing that her invasion of privacy claim was well-grounded in fact or law. On more than one occasion, defendants put plaintiff on notice that her claims against Walker were frivolous, but plaintiff persisted...
The court awards defendants $5,000 in sanctions against plaintiff and her counsel, the Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy.
It's not actually a right - it's a privilege. The system is entirely artificial and wouldn't exist without active social and legal enforcement. And if the privilege is abused in ways that don't benefit society, then it can and should be curtailed or even revoked.
In other words, it's a right.
Because I suspect that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
> * Tell me, who's going to invest 10-200 million dollars to make a movies or TV shows on a regular basis, without copyright?
We can have a world where:
- Every child has access to humanity's best information
- We cure cancer
- 90% of American's media is controlled by 6,000, not 6, corporations
- College tuition costs drop dramatically
- Lower taxes
- More income equality
- No more opioid pandemics
- Making the world resilient against AI domination
LOL. The thing preventing us from curing cancer is copyright?
Sir, you have created an entertaining satire of software engineers. I congratulate you on your achievement. Good job!
The only article referencing those claims that I could find when Googling just now was this very article. Beyond that, there is a Glassdoor page with negative reviews that suggest the same.
I'm thinking those accusations are probably just slurs by someone with a grudge.
I'm running into all kinds of paywalls with Glassdoor and I don't want to register, but google searches make it look like pretty much every company under the sun has a Glassdoor review complaining of racism, sexism, etc. For instance this one claims that Apple is homophobic, racist, sexist, and "very Trumpian":
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Apple-RVW1...
You're missing the point. The question isn't "is it important for someone," it's "is it too big to fail" (i.e. does the government think it's sooo important that it must swoop in and save it).
If the Internet Archive shuts down and its archive lost, the economy will keep humming, masses of people won't lose their jobs let alone be inconvenienced, etc. Sure, some paper about Geocities culture cira 1997 won't get written, some researcher won't be able to access some old dead link, and I won't be able to access the download the PDF manual for some old product from a company that went out-of-business. Life will go on with almost no disruption, and no one will lose an election because they failed to act to save it.