They could say no. No-one is stopping them.

You're right. Also a professional baseball player *could* put their bats down and just stand at the plate, but pointing out that it's physically possible is stupid, especially if your argument supporting that "They Can Just Do That" is that baseball players *should put their bats down*.

This is why such people shouldn't be in positions of power.

Again with the should. It's dumb saying "they can do something, but they won't, but they should" because it's a moot point. Yes, they could also write a press release that is an 80 page Star Trek fanfic set in the narrative universe of Mr Rogers. Nothing is stopping them. But what is the value of pointing out something they are physically capable of when even you seem to understand why they won't? It's just a completely meaningless observation, particularly since you couch it in phrasing that suggests it's just a simple easy thing to do? You're trying to have your argument both ways - it makes you sound simple.

I'll add to that Africa's geography is fucked... the coastline is old, smooth, and shallow which means you don't get many ports. On top of that, the African escarpment means that interior rivers tend to have huge rapids that are basically unnavigable. All of this greatly complicates logistics and hampers internal trade... for instance, getting minerals from the east Congo to the Atlantic requires ~9 different transports (e.g., switching back and forth between water and land vehicles). Europe and North America, by contrast, have an embarrassment of riches... loads of glacier-carved deep water ports, extensively navigable interior rivers, and (at least in the U.S.) lots of inter-coastal waterways.

Geography isn't the only thing that hindered Africa. Tropical diseases and the Tsetse fly also fucked things up pretty well by devastating livestock populations. Cattle means you can farm more land with fewer people (and fertilize it too), plus they're a food source. I'm sure there are other factors too, but these are big ones that would inhibit any would-be society.

This is why such people should never be in positions of power.

What you're trying to do here is deal with the world the way you think it should be, not the way it actually is. So saying, "You can just do this" if the world was the way you think is should isn't a particularly well supported assertion.

That's actually a good question. Inks have changed somewhat over the past 5,000 years, and there's no particular reason to think that tattoo inks have been equally mobile across this timeframe.

But now we come to a deeper point. Basically, tattoos (as I've always understand it) are surgically-engineered scars, with the scar tissue supposedly locking the ink in place. It's quite probable that my understanding is wrong - this isn't exactly an area I've really looked into in any depth, so the probability of me being right is rather slim. Nonetheless, if I had been correct, then you might well expect the stuff to stay there. Skin is highly permeable, but scar tissue less so. As long as the molecules exceed the size that can migrate, then you'd think it would be fine.

That it isn't fine shows that one or more of these ideas must be wrong.

"The whole point of this is because Waymo isn't supposed to make those mistakes,"

There is no whole point in such a complex issue, but I would like to tell this person that the idea is part of the argument for automated vehicles is they may make less mistakes. Perfection shouldn't be a condition for improvement.

The project was doomed to fail from the very beginning.

Apple is too privacy focused. To make AI competitive, you have to be willing to share private data with it.

Right now, Gemini Live on Android sucks terribly, but I am more hopeful for it..

This.

Whoever came up with this strategy has not traveled since the pandemic or is rooting for appletv. If I have to setup a netflix profile on my hotel room / airbnb before I can relax after several hours stuck in a plane watching netflix - suddenly finding *anything else to do* has less friction. Even trying any other streaming app seems less cumbersome.

All of the headline changes go in during a two-week window at the start of the cycle, having been developed previously. Several people write articles during that window about what got merged, so the list is already known when the release actually comes out two months later. (That two-month period is used for testing in more unusual situations and checking for incompatibilities among the set of changes that got merged for the cycle.)

So this article is really reporting that two compact weeks of merge decisions in early October are now officially considered tested and ready, and they wrote the article and people checked it over a while ago now.

The part that's harder to track is ongoing development work, which happens continuously without a set schedule, but it happens in separate trees and only goes into the official tree when it's complete, has been reviewed, and has gone through various testing in systems managed by kernel developers. All of the work described here was done before 6.17 was released, and developed during several releases before that, but it didn't need to affect Linus's tree until he decided it would land in 6.18.

Yeah but radio ads are generic and not 2 way conversations. They are not an asking what you are saying and twisting it towards explaining why you need product X.

It will be as reliable as asking a used car salesman for advice. Somehow it's gonna be advice about how a car would for me

Investment is a tricky one.

I'd say that learning how to learn is probably the single-most valuable part of any degree, and anything that has any business calling itself a degree will make this a key aspect. And that, alone, makes a degree a good investment, as most people simply don't know how. They don't know where to look, how to look, how to tell what's useful, how to connect disparate research into something that could be used in a specific application, etc.

The actual specifics tend to be less important, as degree courses are well-behind the cutting edge and are necessarily grossly simplified because it's still really only crude foundational knowledge at this point. Students at undergraduate level simply don't know enough to know the truly interesting stuff.

And this is where it gets tricky. Because an undergraduate 4-year degree is aimed at producing thinkers. Those who want to do just the truly depressingly stupid stuff can get away with the 2 year courses. You do 4 years if you are actually serious about understanding. And, in all honesty, very few companies want entry-level who are competent at the craft, they want people who are fast and mindless. Nobody puts in four years of network theory or (Valhalla forbid) statistics for the purpose of being mindless. Not unless the stats destroyed their brain - which, to be honest, does happen.

Humanities does not make things easier. There would be a LOT of benefit in technical documentation to be written by folk who had some sort of command of the language they were using. Half the time, I'd accept stuff written by people who are merely passing acquaintances of the language. Vague awareness of there being a language would sometimes be an improvement. But that requires that people take a 2x4 to the usual cultural bias that you cannot be good at STEM and arts at the same time. (It's a particularly odd cultural bias, too, given how much Leonardo is held in high esteem and how neoclassical universities are either top or near-top in every country.)

So, yes, I'll agree a lot of degrees are useless for gaining employment and a lot of degrees for actually doing the work, but the overlap between these two is vague at times.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

I'm not the original poster.

Nexperia, I don't know. But the US did have issues with China having access to the technology from its Dutch sister company ASML.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

So it's not far-fetched to think that the US has something to do with this issue with Nexperia as well.

That couldn't possibly happen!

Foreign companies (Tesla excepted) are not allowed to own more than 49% of Chinese-based companies/joint ventures.

To be fair, (with the exception of Tesla), foreign companies are not allowed to own more than 49% of Chinese companies.

So if international law was truly applicable, then there would be parity between nations about foreign majority ownership.