Or maybe power grids are teetering because utilities raked in profit for the last two decades by ignoring upgrades that would obviously be necessary... Just a thought :)
My utility sells $400 Wi-Fi touchscreen thermostats for like $25, the catch being you let them turn your AC down/off when grid load peaks. A few truckloads of thermostats are cheaper than grid upgrades, so they do the thermostats and kick the can down the road more.
I sat wait. Right now Lemmy and this instance are working and usable. IDK why they'd pull captcha given the number of spam bots but that's worth waiting for IMHO especially if it's only a few days.
'We DGAF if the mods are abusing the community that's only there because it has a good name. As long as the clicks keep happening, it's all good. But the second they cause US a problem, we'll squash them'.
I don't think Reddit has done one single thing in the last week that doesn't reek of 'we don't care about our users'.
I have heard they are filtering out 'fuck Spez' posts. This will probably get filtered also. I would suggest add a bunch of other stuff, like make a a list of sentences that support this point and pick three or four of them to put in each post so that doesn't immediately show up in a filter
Quite correct. Even if the outer casing is enough to contain the rotor, that is still 32 kilowatt hours of kinetic energy that goes somewhere. They're saying they saved money by putting it above ground, that means if potentially the casing fails you have little shards of metal going out with great energy in every direction.
The wording of these threat messages gets more hilarious by the day.
Mods have a position of trust- so do admins and company management. We trust them to maintain a non-evil platform, and in exchange we give them content and ad impressions. That applies to all users not just mods.
No more is it 'we provide a platform, you are welcome to grow your communities on it with minimal interference', now it's 'you'll run your communities as we tell you to for our benefit, and if you run your community in a way we don't like we will take said community away from you'.
If that had been the offered bargain from the beginning, many if not most of the Reddit communities would have chosen a different home.
Perhaps. They also took money from the Chinese. Of course it's totally coincidental how anti-China articles sometimes seem to disappear for no apparent reason...
That's easy.
Reopen the sub and put a sticky post with info on how to join kbin/lemmy and encouraging users to give it a try and join the fediverse alternative sub you've created.
Then if you post any content- do it on the fediverse, and if you post it to Reddit just make it a link post to the fediverse page that has the content. Optionally disable comments or filter them.
Agree that rationality is not a safe assumption. None of this has been rational- it feels like Spez is having a temper tantrum (as would a small child) and those around him are desperately trying to channel it into professional-ish actions.
Also makes sense if Spez is Ellen Pao 2.0- board decides unpopular changes need to be made, so they pay Spez extra to do 120% of what they want and be the fall guy. He goes nuts for a while, then resigns, and is replaced with some suit who looks good on TV and has a bit of social media cred. That guy then says all the right things to the community and walks back 20% of the changes.
This probably all pushes the IPO back a year or so, but if they think they can increase revenue in that time, it makes some sense.
At this point though I wouldn’t put anything past Reddit.
I have to think someone there is smart enough to know if they block fediverse links that’s a huge escalation that makes them OBVIOUSLY the ‘bad guys’ even in the eyes of people who DGAF about the API nonsense.
From the POV of a 3rd party observer, it COULD be argued that Reddit is just dumping freeloaders, a bunch of the users don’t like it and want shit for free, and it’s a stupid forum drama squabble.
But as soon as they start actively suppressing competitors, that becomes a lot harder to see as anything other than ‘actively stopping their users who want to leave from leaving’.
A pox upon both houses. Both sides are hypocritical as hell. And both sides fucking suck.
Unfortunately the American electorate is too afraid of change to do anything about it, and/or too lazy to vote in primaries in significant numbers, and/or the opposing party puts forward stupid candidates that have no change.
Thus Congress has like a 18% approval rating, but a 80+% re-election rate.
And in most cases, I'd argue that's because candidates insist on pushing stupid wedge issues. The Democrat down south is going to go anti-gun which makes them unelectable. The Republican up north is going to go anti-abortion or anti-LGBT which makes them unelectable in a blue state. And rather than set those wedge issues aside and recognize that there's FAR more important things at stake, we keep squabbling over bullshit rather than actually making progress.
Didn't mean to imply that LGBT is not an important issue. Not at all. Just that it's something that one side feels more strongly about than the other.
To an Evangelical (usually conservative), persecuting LGBT people is good policy and good for the country. To a Liberal (and to many like myself, FWIW), persecuting LGBT people is a civil rights violation that makes a person unelectable.
To a Liberal, gun control is good policy that will save lives. To a gun owner (usually conservative) gun control is a civil rights violation, an unconstitutional violation of the Bill of Rights that makes a person unelectable just as much as if they suggested needing a license to exercise free speech.
So what I'm suggesting-- if the GOP stopped trying to persecute LGBT folks, or the Democrats gave up gun control, either one of them would GREATLY increase their appeal especially to moderates and people on the other side of the aisle but who are fed up with their own party.
Put differently--- if a bunch of politicians came to you and said 'we'll stop trying to take away LGBT rights, but in exchange you stop trying to take away gun rights', would you agree to that?
With respect I think you haven't spent much time listening to pro-gun people.
Different people have different opinions. Sure, there are some absolutists. But that's not everybody.
The 'line in the sand' that almost ALL pro-gun people will get behind, is semi-automatic small arms- pistols and rifles and shotguns and the like, as we know them today. Not machineguns or rocket launchers or cannons. Do you see people rallying on the steps of capitol buildings demanding machineguns and rocket launchers be re-legalized? I don't.
If you want to understand why there's no negotiation, this comic explains the pro-gun position pretty well.
To put that in perspective, you must understand that in the early 1900s, you could order a machinegun, a fully-automatic weapon (hold down the trigger and it will rapidly and repeatedly fire), through the mail, delivered to your doorstep with no background checks or other interference. And you'd order this from a hardware catalog. There were shooting competitions in school- kids brought guns to school all the way up to the 1970s or so because shooting was a competitive school sport.
So follow the history, and it's the same thing repeated over and over. Anti-gun people want to compromise, we'll regulate this but not that. Wait a few years and it happens again. Go through a few iterations of that and guns are now one of the most highly regulated items you can (sometimes) buy. And yet there were no school shootings in 1920, even though you could buy a VERY effective firearm for such purpose in the mail.
So I suggest instead of writing off anyone who takes a pro-gun position as a 'gun nut', you should try listening to those who disagree with you and try to figure out WHY they disagree.
Please read my post again. I didn't make a pro-gun argument. I explained why pro-gun people don't want to 'compromise'. There's a big difference between the two.
Short version- they feel they've 'compromised' many times already and each time they give something up and get nothing back, so why should they keep playing that game?
Imagine if it was the first amendment rather than the second. Would you 'compromise'?
'Last year the compromise was we can still post anything we want online, but we need a free speech license. This year the compromise is we can still post anything we want, but we can only criticize the government in special contained free speech websites that don't show up in Google.' You'd be like the character in the comic, flipping the table and saying 'I don't want another compromise that takes away more rights, I want REAL free speech back!'.
If you step back from the confident belief that you are 100% correct and reasonable about this (or any issue really), and try to understand the other person's point of view, you'll be able to make much better arguments for your own POV. But that requires NOT writing off anyone who doesn't partially share your POV as a 'nut' (which is EXACTLY what you did when you say anyone not willing to 'compromise' by instituting your list of gun regulations is a 'nut').
What an utterly ridiculous argument you make, saying there were no school shootings in the 1900s when there were likely no guns CAPABLE of that kind of thing at the time, and certainly none in regular circulation.
This is simply incorrect.
Semi-auto firearms were available starting in 1902.
One of the most popular semi-auto pistols of all time is the M1911. It fires a .45 caliber bullet, and the design of the bullet and the gun have not majorly changed since they were invented in 1911. 1911s are very popular today still and are sold by many manufacturers.
And if you go even earlier, Thomas Jefferson owned a Girardoni Air Rifle- that was a weapon that fired a half-inch metal ball and was quite lethal at 150 yards. It wasn't semi-auto but it could fire 20 shots in fairly rapid succession (about the same as a modern bolt action rifle).
Point is-- it's not accurate to say mass shootings didn't happen in the early 1900s because suitable weapons weren't available. Such weapons WERE available, and if anything, easier to buy than they are today.
I wrote out a whole reply to your various points (which I’ll send if you want) but one thing in your post caught my eye as the most vital and important…
I want training and licensing, universal registration and background checks, widespread mental healthcare, and poverty intervention. I want to see that immediately.
I’m fairly pro-gun (if you hadn’t figured that out already). I also DESPERATELY want widespread mental healthcare and poverty intervention. I want to see these things IMMEDIATELY and in great quantity. As in, let’s pass a bill today and start this vitally important work tomorrow. This to me is vital to the health of the nation that I love, because the nation is made up of its people and too many of those people are poor and suffering. I don’t think it is (or should be) the American way to just sit and laugh at our fellow countrymen and women and let them suffer while we live the high life.
We disagree on everything else, but I think we agree on this. So why don’t we set aside arguing over the things we disagree on, and focus on implementing the things we DO agree would benefit our nation?
And that was the meat of my original point. When it comes to guns, I suspect you and I are fairly opposite. But I suspect that when it comes to taking care of our fellow humans, you and I are not so different.
Yet the political machines on both sides have us at each others’ throats over gun rights vs gun control, while they push for their own power. What we (people on both sides of the aisle) SHOULD be doing is TALKING to each other, figuring out what we agree on, and focusing on getting THAT done.
But top of just about everyone’s list is end corruption in Washington, so there’s a vested interest in making sure we keep fighting each other rather than working together. And right now that interest is winning.
If you could push a button to make a deal, that was ‘you give up further pushes for gun control, but in exchange we get universal mental health care and poverty intervention’, would you push that button?
FWIW, in the opposite- ‘would you codify gun regulations as they currently are, but in exchange get universal mental health care and poverty intervention’ I’d push that button in a heartbeat.
I won’t push a button that forces us into a no-compromise position. And anyone who would is the enemy of progress. Is the enemy of the entire human race.
I don’t EVER suggest no compromise. I don’t EVER suggest that nothing should ever change (and I agree that is anti-progress). I suggest that ignoring a previous compromise is disingenuous. I say that it’s valid to say ‘we compromised last year, we’re living the compromise today, why should I compromise again if I get nothing in return?’ And I suggest we should focus on doing what we agree on, rather than fighting over what we don’t.
So here’s a compromise I (as a pro-gun person) would agree to.
You get universal background checks. Every permanent gun transfer between people requires one. Per existing law, these checks can never be used to build a database. The government must provide the check for free (right now it costs about $50 to do the check at a gun store). And there’s an exemption for temporary transfers between known people, and transfers between family members (IE, I can lend my buddy a rifle for a hunting trip without ‘transferring’ it to him and then back to me), and father can pass guns down to son without paperwork).
In exchange, gun owners get national reciprocity. That means if they get a carry permit from their home state, that permit is valid in all other states, just like a drivers license. They must comply with all applicable laws of the state they visit, for example magazine size limits and where it’s permissible to carry.
That IMHO is a real compromise. You get something, I get something. What you get has a few limits from what I want, what I get has a few limits from what you want.
he fact that a given piece of policy is designed to reduce crime and save lives and does you no harm isn’t good enough
And this is the core of the pro/anti debate, right here.
I accept that gun control proposals are intended to reduce crime and save lives. I accept that anti-gun people generally have the best intentions, they want to save lives (I do too). I (along with most pro-gun people) just don’t believe that gun control laws will have a significant effect on reducing gun crime or overall making our society safer.
Also, let’s talk about Democrats. I feel I have some authority to speak on this subject as I am personally registered as a Democrat, and I come from a very blue state (Connecticut). I identify as liberal-libertarian- I think the married gay couple should have AR15s to defend themselves, their adopted children, and their legal marijuana farm from criminals, secure in the knowledge that universal health care will be there for them if they get hurt. I suspect we’d agree on a great many ways the GOP is utterly failing our nation.
But one thing that infuriates me about the left these days is an inability to even consider the possibility that we are wrong about anything. There’s the Left side, the Correct side, and the wrong side. And if you don’t support most of the liberal agenda you’re the so called deplorables and fuck you.
I’ll give a perfect example- the AR-15 rifle. There’s a big push to ban AR15s and similar rifles.
But consider FBI expanded homicide table 8. About 300-400 people each year are killed by rifles, that includes both ‘assault’ rifles and other rifles like hunting rifles.
To put that in perspective, about 300-350 people per year get struck by lightning. Getting struck by lightning is so rare we make jokes about it.
In comparison, every year about 800 people (mostly children) die from being tangled in their own bedsheets. And about 180,000 people per year in the US die of obesity-related issues.
So WHY are we burning tons of political capital and alienating all gun owners to ban something that is statistically not a serious threat to our society? If we put half that much effort into fighting obesity, we’d save 10x as many lives.
I'm not sure what kind of serious trouble they are actually in. I have spent most of today being driven around by my Tesla, and aside from the occasional badly handled intersection and unnecessary slowdown it's doing fucking great. So I would Tell anyone who says Tesla is in serious trouble, just go drive the car. Actually use the FSD beta before you say that it's useless. Because it's not. It is already far better than anyone expected vision only driving to be, and every release brings more improvements. I'm not saying that is a Tesla fanboy. I'm saying that as a person who actually drives the car.
My point stands- drive the car.
You're 100% right with everything you say. It has to work 100% of the time. Good enough most of the time won't get to L3-5 self driving.
Camera only is not authorize in most logistic operation in factory, im not sure what changes for a car.
The question is not the camera, it's what you do with the data that comes off the camera.
The first few versions of camera-based autopilot sucked. They were notably inferior to their radar-based equivalents- that's because the cameras were using neural network based image recognition on each camera. So it'd take a picture from one camera, say 'that looks like a car and it looks like it's about 20' away' and repeat this for each frame from each camera. That sorta worked okay most of the time but it got confused a lot. It would also ignore any image it couldn't classify, which of course was no good because lots of 'odd' things can threaten the car. This setup would never get to L3 quality or reliability. It did tons of stupid shit all the time.
What they do now is called occupancy networks. That is, video from ALL cameras is fed into one neural network that understands the geometry of the car and where the cameras are. Using multiple frames of video from multiple cameras at once, it then generates a 3d model of the world around the car and identifies objects in it like what is road and what is curb and sidewalk and other vehicles and pedestrians (and where they are moving and likely to move to), and that data is fed to a planner AI that decides things like where the car should accelerate/brake/turn.
Because the occupancy network is generating a 3d model, you get data that's equivalent to LiDAR (3d model of space) but with much less cost and complexity. And because you only have one set of sensors, you don't have to do sensor fusion to resolve discrepancies between different sensors.
I drive a Tesla. And I'm telling you from experience- it DOES work. The latest betas of full self driving software are very very good. On the highway, the computer is a better driver than me in most situations. And on local roads- it navigates them near-perfectly, the only thing it sometimes has trouble with is figuring out when is it's turn in an intersection (you have to push the gas pedal to force it to go).
I'd say it's easily at L3+ state for highway driving. Not there yet for local roads. But it gets better with every release.
Don’t have the paper, my info comes mainly from various interviews with people involved in the thing. Elon of course, Andrej Karpathy is the other (he was in charge of their AI program for some time).
They apparently used to use feature detection and object recognition in RGB images, then gave up on that (as generating coherent RGB images just adds latency and object recognition was too inflexible) and they’re now just going by raw photon count data from the sensor fed directly into the neural nets that generate the 3d model. Once trained this apparently can do some insane stuff like pull edge data out from below the noise floor.
This may be of interest– This is also from 2 years ago, before Tesla switched to occupancy networks everywhere. I’d say that’s a pretty good equivalent of a LiDAR scan…
Not sure the exact details- I heard they were sampling 10 bits per pixel but a bunch of their release notes talked about photon count detection back when they switched to that system.
Given that the HW3 cameras started being used to just generate RGB images, I suspect the current iteration is working by just pulling RAW format frames and interpreting them as a photon count grid, from there detecting edges and geometry with the occupancy network.
I’ve not seen much of anything published by Tesla on the subject. I suspect most of their research they are keeping hush hush to get a leg up on the competition. They share everything regarding EV tech because they want to push the industry in that direction, but I think they see FSD as their secret sauce that they might sell hardware kits but not let others too far under the hood.
Recommend me an android ebook pdf reader
I want to start reading some ebook, what's your recommendation?...
Reddit mods are calling for an ‘affordable return’ for third-party apps (www.theverge.com)
Power Grids Are Teetering Worldwide. Here’s Why. (www.nytimes.com)
Archive Link from archive.today...
Lemmy v0.18.0 Released! (and some thoughts before upgrading)
Official Announcement: https://lemmy.fmhy.ml/post/263377 Github Release Page: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/releases/tag/0.18.0...
Well, I'm probably banned now. Here's to the future of kbin/lemmy! (media.kbin.social)
The only thing left for me to do on reddit is comment "r/spezresign" on other critical subs, whenever they have a trending post. if you still have an account you might join as well 💪😤 (media.kbin.social)
Flywheel mechanical battery with 32 kWh of storage in Australia (www.pv-magazine.com)
The admins finally came for r/FreeAtheism (kbin.social)
The usual admin threat to reopen here:...
Well shit, they're even going after tiny not-so-active subs like mine (lemmy.world)
What should I do now lol
House to vote on Biden impeachment (www.axios.com)
Right-wing lawmakers are proving increasingly willing to force potentially divisive votes.
Musk Overruled Tesla Engineers, And Now They Are In Serious Trouble (medium.com)