Yikes. sounds like they’re model, in this case, for what is “safe driving” is too simplistic. driving like granny and pissing everyone one else around you off, most likely, makes for a less safe environment. road-rage is a thing.
but this leads to another thought.. if Tesla has this data stack and, and lets say your a current non Tesla user, road-raging pass a granny Tesla driver. Tesla probably could pick up your plates and other forms of identification and label you as not so safe. Some data sharing later, Your insurance rates go up. or rather when when you decide to buy a Tesla, you already have a bad score.
This is getting more hilarious by the minute.
-the modern tech sector is a big scam at this point.
-the personal data silos is archaic, and most of the time kyc isn’t necessary.
-the idea of proof of vaccination seems like a bad idea in that the ease of creating a faked proof has much much larger Societal consequences compared to a fake id a teenager uses to get booze.
I think I’m in Favour of the idea, that if your not interested in personal vaccination, certain areas have restricted access. for the sake of human... economic... protection.
you upped the jargon for expressing an opinion.The KYC is indeed necessary because people will fake these.
You mixed up a technology whine, with politics, in one sentence. Unpack things a bit and you might have got less downvote.
I want to travel. The sector needs a reboot.
I want a vaxx QR code tied to me, which has good fake protection which lets me travel. I am not stupid (very, maybe a bit) and I know there are all kinds of complications. but, we've had yellow fever "passports" forever and they work: they help prevent wildcat breakout of yellow fever in tropical climates.
Australia down-voted a health card 30 years ago (the "australia card") on civil liberties grounds. Right now, I think it would be bloody useful. The online mygov ID is not actually badly done, and I know people who work in medical data structures, and how complex it is to structure health information to share even amongst health professionals.
I don't. Nor do I want to be micro-chipped like the family pet.
The article is not about travel, it's about gaining entry to an ice hockey match. It's in same realm as gaining entry to a restaurant or any local business.
Not everyone wants KYC enforced on basic human activity such as satisfying your hunger for dumplings or meeting a friend for coffee.
They claim it's a temporary measure at certain venues, but they claim a lot of things. "We're announcing a 2 week snap lockdown" was said hundreds of days ago here in Melbourne. Only the tip of the Untruth iceberg.
Australians have already been tricked into a mandatory MyGov account. You can't delete that online account like you can your social media. Technically it's fine, but the concept and heading is concerning.
The voting public have less and less say in these things, and the fog of a pandemic is perfect cover to introduce a range of new mandates, otherwise shelved for being too unpopular.
Some will call this paranoia, others due diligence or an integrity test / pub test. I don't think it helps to exempt things like an Australia Card from the pub test because you think it would be "bloody useful". That's inviting the Trojan horse in with full knowledge of what's inside, and being okay with it because of the travel permissions it grants you.
Fine. We want different things. Like I said I know people in health informatics, they're professional and highly motivated about improving health outcomes. This isn't a simple black or white good or bad space and it's not (in my view) a boil the frog slowly moment either. That said, I distrust the L/NP and Dutton especially, regarding PII.
I don't want to go back into indoor dining and venues with whackjob libertarians breathing all over me. If you want to avoid governments, get vaccinated and prove it somehow or stay outside. I'm voting for parliaments which impose societal controls on stupidity, the state has you from birth with a blood sample and footprint.
the rate at which Amazon is burning through workforce vs it’s rate of automation is starting to look like the balance is diverging fast. They’ll collapse before they automate
As much as I loved Sam Kinison, I doubt they chose to live in a place that is sand today and will still be sand in 100+ years. But when someone chooses to live in SF, Seattle, or now Austin in exchange for taking a low wage job, they need to own that they are creating their own personal hell to subsidize the lifestyle of the top 5% or so. You can do better than that. This is not a binary problem. It's analog. If enough people leave SF, there will be much furrowing of brows and bellyaching of the wages, but things will improve. That FOMO keeps things status quo is exactly why that's not going to happen. Too bad. I passed on SF for exactly these reasons myself and I'm a techie.
America is literally composed of people who came here for work. The trope that people have their feet nailed to the ground and can't move is just not reality.
Given how bad most US cities are at building sufficient housing, it wouldn't actually shock me if a well-planned company town was short-term financially much better for their employees than average... at least Amazonville won't have NIMBYs complaining about new high-rise condos ruining the neighborhood.
And like it or not (not, probably), housing is 40+% of low-income worker living expense, so even fixing rent could turn a worker's life around...
There are plenty of places in the United States where there is little resistance to building more housing and the local government would love for people to come there and start businesses.
But they are not considered desirable places and they often end up on 100 worst places to live in the United States lists made by the same sort of people rationalizing their high cost of living. Amazon has apparently taken notice of this and decided to monetize it. But if it becomes a broken Orwellian dystopia like this camera system, that's a made for TV horror movie.
And if you suggest someone in an expensive place like San Francisco who is sinking into debt should move to a place like that and bootstrap you will hear an unending stream of profanities from them. Because the people who are willing to do that sort of thing have mostly already done so. Your priorities are not their priorities. They'll take the NIMBYs if they're close to their friends and family.
Those undesirable places are partially that way because a community is not just housing. It is good infrastructure, good governance, good society among many other things.
Look at all this anti-vax nonsense...look they are free to act the way they want but it does scare away investment into those communities.
Low taxes could mean less red tape but it can also mean non-existent governance and investment into infrastructure. People are starting to realize this scam for what it is.
I remember an earnest soccer mom sort asking me what she could do to stop Trumpism in 2017. And I replied that she should move to a blue city in a red state before the 2020 election. She bristled and responded with profanity at the very thought of that. And then walked away in a huff.
So I conclude people are unwilling to walk their talk. You're not wrong though, but all those really cool communities were built by pioneers who did something exactly like the above. The only way to beat the stupid is to infiltrate and vote their insane representatives out of office. As long as the educated are corralled and contained to the coasts, this will just keep getting worse IMO.
> So I conclude people are unwilling to walk their talk.
You are holding that person to a ridiculous standard. They talk to you about wanting to do something, and if they don't uproot their entire life just to shift a single vote around you're going to pretend they were speaking some enormous talk and now refuse to back it up?
Talk is cheap. Lowering standards is how you get craptastic AI like the camera system here deployed. But it's even worse than that because it's obvious they could improve its false positive detections, but seemingly given they already got paid, they don't care. Now imagine an entire city designed around that principle. That's either a British sitcom or a made for TV horror movie depending on where you go with it IMO.
But you're demanding an enormous act with a tiny benefit. It is completely unreasonable for you to complain that someone doesn't meet this standard you made up.
They asked me what to do not the other way around. I told them something that would make a difference, even if tiny. No fate but the one you make and all that.
They asked, and then you set up an extreme scenario, and then you blame them for not taking it.
Should I do a dumb analogy? Imagine if they asked for advice on getting fewer under-pressure tires and you suggested buying an entire new car with pressure sensors. And then declared they'll talk the talk but not walk the walk when they refuse that option.
It's not an extreme scenario at all. We just see things differently. Don't ask my opinion if you can't accept my observation which in your strawman would probably be exactly what you suggest because in my experience getting a person who asks a question like that to use a tire gauge is pulling teeth.
That said, there are plenty of inexpensive used cars out there as well that will be both easier on the environment and safer to drive at no additional charge. For this must be a pre-2000 or so car to not have at least an idiot light for the tires and unless they've treated it lovingly (which seems unlikely) it probably has one tire in the grave already.
Its is happening but the people who are moving to these places seem like those who cannot make it in the more competitive markets. At the same time, you only live one life so people who can afford to thrive in the expensive markets don't want to spend their time not living their best lives. So this catch-22 exists.
The sanders approach had hope: Invest in all these communities to help bring those people up to the same level of quality society as the coasts and the hope was that enough would abandon Trumpism as their prospects improved. Instead we are repeating the mistakes of the Obama years and I guess after Biden, the only way forward is more pain and suffering when the next demagogue makes it to the white house.
If we fall as a nation, just under 7.6B other people get a shot at running the show and fix what's broken to whatever extent we can. Good for them, bad for us.
I can't see any other nation becoming the world superpower any time soon with the exception of China. The US is unique in that it has a trifecta of components necessary to maintain its power. It has the natural resources, it still has a great talent pool and one thing it seems to have over everyone else is a level of net immigration that allows it to mask the population implosion that is happening in all other western nations and China. China may very well surpass the US or at the very least rival them but I just don't see how they are going to overcome the population implosion that is coming for them in a few decades.
A loose confederation of 1.8 billion Muslims or approximately 1.4 billion Indians might have a thing or two to say here in the long run. It's not all about China and the US. Even more so as they both pursue policies leading to their own irrelevance in that same long run. But also; "Prediction is hard, especially about the future." - Niehls Bohr
Well none of us will know what happens in the long run. Maybe climate change will wipe most of us out? Best we can guess is short term (next few decades). That time frame is where my comment was really aimed at.
The next few decades will determine the impact of climate change. It doesn't seem like a particularly hard problem to solve: embrace solar and nuclear power ASAP globally, but nothing is easy when people get involved. But even China seems to have read the memo now. But also, if someone even blurts out "clean coal" point and laugh.
Seems like Chairman Xi is serious about tackling Climate Change so he does not get deposed if the Gobi desert grows and eventually swallows up half of China.
Amazon has adverts on TV saying how wonderful it is to work for Amazon. My first thought when seeing them is, that's a PR campaign, and the truth is almost certainly the opposite.
Will they, really? Their workers would not work at Amazon if they had other choices.
The real problem is that there is no Amazon delivery and logistics equivalent. Workers would leave for it. There would be price competition on wages.
Perhaps antitrust split of Amazon should divide the company down the middle in each state, creating two logistics and delivery companies nationwide, evenly and randomly splitting their assets.
There are plenty of retail jobs. If you haven't seen the news recently, there's a record shortage and large wage increases happening in that entire sector. The reason people still work Amazon is because Amazon pays better than the competition. For example, a lot of restaurant workers have left that sector for better choices. You don't see that happening in Amazon but I would think that workers in both sectors are somewhat overlapping (unskilled labor).
Im not sure where you have been for the last year and a half, but a lot of retail workers and restaurant workers have been laid off or suspended on reduced pay. Shops were empty, restaurants were empty. Thats still mostly the case. Thats why there is a shortage.
Its those same companies that laid people off that are now trying to tempt them back with increased wages. Chipotle, for example.
My local Chipotle is advertising $17.50/h wages and $750 signing bonuses. My local Amazon starts at $19/h. The market for entry level unskilled labor has never been better in the last decade.
Maybe you live in Europe or another country where growth is stagnant?
I keep feeling companies should only be permitted to operate in a single trade category.
What we call 'anti-competitive' behaviour now is basically down to deep pockets being able to subsidize projects unrelated to the core business (whatever the hell that is).
once it’s out out the ground it’s life cycle is nearly infinite(in our time frame reference) and isn’t single use. Battery’s have a very very long lifecycle befor turned back into new batteries.
And it’s more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a power plant to power a ev than it is to burn them directly in a vehicle.
Still rockin the original iPhone se. I’ve shown friends/others, with a little patients, replacing a screen/battery/port is fairly simple and cheap. the “new” feeling, and the feeling that you “cheated” the system wash over you... it’s great
Batteries are to the same degree. if you really wanted to, you could take a bunch of liquid cooled Tesla modules and fit them in a old leaf, when it’s batteries degrade.
Gasification, using it as a fuel makes more sense. Reducing it down to basic carbon constituents. At least in this forum it’s productive and photosynthesis can turn it into organic mater.
If you do incineration right (with pollution controls and energy recovery), simply burning it is more direct.
Gasification is a nice intermediate step if you need to mix it with syngas or natural gas to augment supplies, but if you really just are going to convert to electricity or heat eventually you may as well just do it in one centralized step.
Either way the plastic product is just one stop on the path from hydrocarbon to energy and CO2+H2O, but I do think centralized incineration is more practical (especially since it's already done all over the place) with little real downside.
Just assume as a rough estimate that the gas you'd get from gasification is displacing natural gas production. If you just burn the plastic (and other trash) in a way that prevents serious pollution from getting into the air it's bound to be more efficient to do that and then just burn less natural gas -- versus trying to turn what is essentially already fuel into natural gas substitute.
and? few questions I have
- how much energy is consumed from Christmas lights each year? Or idling home devices? (Phones,TVs, speakers, chargers, etc) we don’t talk about these numbers.
-how much of btc’s energy consumption is “high commodity/demand” energy? Opposed to say energy from a remote hydro electricity plant that has a small or infrequent demand?
- what price changes that dichotomy between unused vs used electricity?
we need to use less energy all around, and use the energy we produce more efficiently. the grid is use it or loose it. So what is btc’s real energy impact?
This this a Bifurcation of the issue. lumping people whom; have a cation bias, are alt medicine nuts, classic anti vaxers, etc, together shuts down discourse and divides people.
150 from f150 refers to its carting and load capacity.. not its actual weight. the weight difference between a 150,250,350 is not a very significant one.
This issue is a 150 is being used outside its original use case. And dose the job a Corolla is intended for. But with twice the weight and size.
Thank you. I know what the 150 stands for. But, it is not a heavyweight vehicle. That term refers to a type of vehicle that hasn't been made since the 1920s-1930s.
The conversation I replied to was about deducting "the purchase price of heavyweight vehicles (e.g. a Ford F-150)". A Ford F-150 is not a heavyweight vehicle.
I think in the context of this discussion heavyweight is defined by Section 179 as having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating greater than 6000 lbs. While the curb weight of a F150 is less, the GVWR is 6,010 to 7,150 lbs.
but this leads to another thought.. if Tesla has this data stack and, and lets say your a current non Tesla user, road-raging pass a granny Tesla driver. Tesla probably could pick up your plates and other forms of identification and label you as not so safe. Some data sharing later, Your insurance rates go up. or rather when when you decide to buy a Tesla, you already have a bad score.