Since he was looking affordable to him and basing that on residents income small towns in the midwest aren't likely to hit the radar. Those places are cheap because the locals don't make much money and therefore can't afford to pay much.

As for walkability, traffic might be low in a place like that but things are actually more spread out. The denser the population the more walkable somewhere becomes. The reason is simple, in a dense city there are enough people to support a walgreens and mcdonalds every few blocks, there are automatic walk lights and bike lanes, etc.

In a small town there will be only one mcdonalds and one walgreens for the whole town and those might be on opposite ends of town and fry's is likely in a different larger town 30-40min away. There likely are no bike lanes because small towns don't have the budget to be trendy and most people don't ride a bike 3 miles to go to McDonalds.

Hell city suburbs are ridiculously dense and walkable compare with small towns and yet they aren't particularly walkable unless you live in the "downtown" of your burb.

Most TV's out there are 3D now and most new content is 3D. 3D showings at the theater are generally packed.

I appreciate it, you fall into one of the three groups who don't like 3D. People with glasses, People who are super sensitive and get headaches even with the new great refresh rates, or People who formed an opinion without having seen modern 3D. For the rest of us, we are oddballs who fall into the "life is in 3D therefore a quality 3D picture is more realistic."

They did seriously overrate 3D in the pitch to sell it. Close one eye, open it back up, is there a difference in depth perception? Yes. But that difference is all 3D is and all it should be. Ideally they don't do anything different because they are filming 3D. No gimmicks or throwing things at you. You should forget you are watching 3D and just walk away feeling like the movie was especially exciting and immersive.

Finally, if we dump the cpu-centric view of computers that became obsolete the day the 8087 arrived (if not before), we can restructure the entire PC architecture to something rational. That will redistribute demand for capacity, to the point where we can actually beat Moore's Law on aggregate for maybe another 20 years.

Please explain how your vision is different from, say, OpenCL?

He also showed that one particular thing was absolute, if you recall.

Nope. Einstein showed consequences of the speed of light being a constant of nature. He didn't show or even predict that it was one, that was done by Maxwell's equations and various attempts to measure Earth's velocity relative to luminous aether (which turned out to be "zero").

And as it happens, one of those consequences is that timewise and spacewise distance are relative.

You never have 50,000 death per year in the US to coal.
Perhaps 5 to 10 in the long time average due to mining accidents. I really doubt the total number of workers mining coal is close to that number.

As you surely know, coal plants are huge polluters and pollution causes health issues, which in turn add up to early deaths, even if we ignore damage done to environment.

But then again, opposing nuclear power is not really about protecting humans or nature, now is it? It has long since turned into politics, where opposition is based more on identity than rational calculation of risks and rewards of various options. And who knows, perhaps being hit by the double-whammy of full-power climate change and energy crisis simultaneously will finally teach humanity to not treat important decisions as tribal identifiers. It's something we must learn before we venture beyond this planet, since the cost of irrational stupidity will continue getting higher. But I fear the lesson will be exremely painful, even by the scale of these things.

And: fix your damn mining safety issues instead of blaming it to 'coal', mining of uranium is only marginally more safe.

Thousandfold decrease in mining causes a thousandfold decrease in mining-related deaths, even before factoring in such details as coal being highly flammable and uranium being not. Also, unlike coal, uranium can be extracted from seawater, so with it we could theoretically eliminate mining altogether.

When's the last time you went out to eat at a sit-down restaurant? Just how many of the staff there had been replaced by technology?

The staff of restaurant A eats at restaurant B, and the other way around. At every iteration, each restaurant's income shrinks, because it's a fraction of what the other restaurant earned at last round, since even if these are nonprofits that don't need to pay shareholders, they still need supplies. Bankruptcy is inevitable unless the restaurants can lure some customers working at the manufacturers of said supplies and close the cycle of money. Too bad such customers get ever harder to find as industry gets automated.

Services have a supportive role and can't carry the economy. A wealth of society is roughly how much stuff it produces per citizen. As industrial workforce shrinks, a smaller and smaller proportion of that enters economy through Joe Average and higher and higher proportion enters through Joe Shareholder. But no matter how gluttonous Joe S is, there's physical limits to how much he can eat, so the restaurant is screwed, regardless of how many other people might like it - they simply don't have the buying power to keep it afloat. And as wealth concentration advances, economy gets ever more twisted into providing for Joe S, at the expense of Joe A being worse and worse off.

precious little snowflake

I see what you did here.

At upper Minnesota temps, all vehicles need some thermal considerations.

To start, yes. And badly designed ones might need engine compartment airflow to be altered. However, if Tesla can be damaged by merely standing in the cold for too long, it might be a problem.

Also, let's not forget that IC engines get heating for free from their waste heat. An electric car needs to use its precious battery charge to keep the windows clear. So colder locations might need their own specialized model.

Yes, as an adult, you realize that. But would you have realized it as a child? Probably not, if the only experience you had with guns and death was video-game based.

As a child, I also had no experience with bashing tile walls to pieces with my head, yet I somehow managed to comprehend that emulating Super Mario would be a bad idea.

Children aren't idiots, just impulsive and inexperienced.

The video would have been served well by spending a few minutes at the end of it making practical suggestions about what people might do in the changing world to keep themselves relevant, but the way the video stands right now, it just seems like needless fear-mongering about the future. Maybe he's entirely right, but even if he is, what good will it do us today to worry about it, since there doesn't seem to be a damn thing that actually *can* be done?

"The world" - actually our socioeconomic system, to be precise - exists to see to the needs of the people, not the other way around. If it fails at that bad enough, it'll be torn down and replaced with another one. Since it's doubtful the Powers that Be will be any wiser about this this time around than in the past, what you can do is to learn to build and operate a guillotine, so that when they've wasted their last chance to survive the inevitable consequences go as smoothly and painlessly as possible.

Powers live or die by their legitimacy or lack of it. Capitalism got a boost from fall of Communism, but this very thread shows that it's almost gone. When the tone of the discussion is whether we'll be servants or dead, the obvious question - "why should we settle for either?" - won't be far behind. And since Capitalism seems unable to provide a non-dystopian future, and it's questionable whether it can provide any future, it seems unlikely its mythos can continue asserting loyalty much longer. Which, ironically enough, is perfectly consistent with the spirit of Capitalism itself: it fails to deliver, so it gets the boot.

So yes, there will still be some sort of economy, but it produces a horrible life for most people.

I'm beginning to suspect this is actually seen as desirable by a certain type of people, a just punishment for being less competitive in a meritocratic society. Some people are so taken by the Heaven/Hell mythology they want to create both on Earth. That this also lets them play the role of God and decide who goes where is surely just a coincidence.

We see all the time arguments that prisons should be as nasty as possible, to make them better punishments, and that poor deserve to be so, so why should someone putting 1 and 1 together and getting 666 be so surprising?

That is stupid. What do you think "do not get a choice" could mean besides repression?

That you don't have a choice, obviously. Stupid.

I understand charity for the poor, but demanding that poor people pay less for everything simply because they are poor defeats the point of a market economy. If you are going to do that, why not go all the way to a state planned economy?

The ultimate purpose of economy is to provide goods and services to people. If people can't afford them, the economy fails at its primary task, and will soon fail, period. Since US - and increasingly other Western countries - seems hell-bent on making almost everyone poor for the sake of a few ultra-rich, it's quickly approaching the point where it must indeed switch to planned economy, since a capitalist one is inherently controlled by demand, yet people who can't afford what they need can't send signals to control production.

Viewed alternatively, US already is a planned economy, since that's what a "supply-side" economy is. It's just that the planners are laboring under the delusion that they're capitalists, and thus doing piss-poor job.

Capitalism, even with all its problems, is the best way to distribute limited resources in a world with unlimited demand.

Demand is not unlimited. You only generate demand for things you actually (try to) buy, and you only buy things you can afford. Just because some kid wants a pony doesn't mean he's generating demand unless he or his parents go shopping for one. And since wages have long since stagnated, employment has become a precarious prospect, and keeping consumption up with debt has finally hit a wall, the economy is now collapsing since the demand needed to keep it going simply isn't there.

You mean other than the license agreement which specifically indemnifies them against things like that?

The one that tries to unilaterally alter a deal after the fact? Why would that make Microsoft not subject to consumer protection laws simply because they said they aren't?

If it's possible to play this back at 24 FPS, we can shoot that 3 minute homemade porn we've always wanted!

The very definition of totalitarianism is that you do not get a choice in the matter.

If this was true, then totalitarian nations would have no need for propaganda or censorship, now would they?