Comment Re:Tests rarely go better than expected (Score 1) 21
Hoover or Dyson?
Hoover. Dyson is a sphere, and you can't have a spherical cow in a spherical vacuum.
Hoover or Dyson?
Hoover. Dyson is a sphere, and you can't have a spherical cow in a spherical vacuum.
for the crew that's about to take a ride.
Or do I have my spaceships mixed up?
If by "about to", you mean September of next year, then maybe it might, but I suspect you're thinking of the Boeing Starliner crewed test in a couple of days. Completely unrelated.
They're all capsules, but Dragon is basically intended as a replacement for Soyuz, Orion has the ESM (European Service Module) attached, which lets it be useful as a habitat for longer missions, and Starliner has more crew and cargo capacity, I think.
The other key difference is that Orion is designed for reentry from higher altitudes (more heat shielding) than Dragon or Starliner, which are both designed only for LEO (e.g. ISS). A version of Soyuz (Zond 5) did fly past the moon, but I have no idea if the current versions are built to withstand high-altitude reentry.
What's needed is a cow. Cows have known how to jump over the moon for centuries, we just need to learn how to strap on the appropriate harness.
The hard part is finding a spherical cow that can survive in a vacuum.
I can't complain about Software Center.
P.S. The "apt" on command line still works (but I hear they are going to f*ck it up with "snap" too). Back to good old "apt-get", I guess.
but worrying about men in a women's restroom just sounds like people are looking for a reason to "other" people and using that as an excuse.
Sometimes you can see through the cracks in the stalls, and that really worries some people.
And that's a fair concern. Of course, that's really just one of many reasons to use real doors instead of those craptastic panel abominations that are so common in U.S. restrooms. (Another good reason is that normal doors are more likely to still be on the hinges and have functioning locks after a decade or two, which was a big problem in my high school with those cubicle restroom doors.)
One very left-leaning university I know of solved the problem in a different way, by putting in plastic strips that sealed the gaps. That works, too.
Either way, it's nothing that can't be solved. You just have to convince the owners that it is important enough to solve it. It's still way easier than trying to guarantee that you can correctly determine everyone's biological sex just by looking at them.
"Also, gender segregated toilets that are located in convenient, safe locations at school can protect girls from violence and assault. Women and girls are often vulnerable to harassment or violence when they must use shared toilets or are forced to go to the bathroom outside. In one survey of schoolgirls in South Africa, for example, more than 30% reported having been raped at school; often these incidences occurred in school toilets that were either shared or in unsafe, isolated locations. Such violence is a major deterrent to school attendance, not to mention a girl’s self-esteem and desire to learn."
There's a lot wrong with that, so it's hard to even know where to begin.
First, they're lumping together bad behavior in shared restrooms with bad behavior in "unsafe, isolated locations". The fact that unsafe, isolated locations even exist is solid evidence of inadequate staffing, so we can start from the assumption that these schools aren't otherwise safe to begin with. No bathroom policy will change those, and lumping them together disguises the signal that they're complaining about (women being abused in shared restrooms) with a giant pile of noise.
Second, it goes without saying that in a school situation, a shared restroom has to be monitored. Even if you didn't have people getting raped, you'd still have people sneaking in to have sex, smoke, drink, do drugs, and so on. The real problem is not the shared nature of the restroom, but rather the lack of monitoring.
Also, you can bet that there are incidents in those same schools where people have been beaten up in the restroom, but nobody is complaining about those, because that doesn't give them an easily defined group of people to hate. Yet the same fix — proper staff supervision — would fix both problems, whereas a non-shared restroom only fixes one of those problems, and potentially doubles the number of staff needed to fix the other one.
Finally, the "or are forced to go to the bathroom outside" part is the point where most rational people would simply write off the entire argument as nonsensical in the context of any rational discussion of the United States unless you go back a hundred years or more.
If you lump in enough unrelated signals, you can absolutely create something that *looks* like a signal. I can do that, too. In Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and San Francisco, people with hunting rifles kill [insert number of people] every year. Therefore, we need to ban hunting rifles in San Francisco. See how absurd that sounds when it is used to defend something the left would be more likely to support? It sounds just as stupid coming from the right.
A sexual predator however, will also enter this places. They will use the loopholes you created, they have been actually doing it, a young girl in a school was sexually assaulted, it IS happening, as was anticipated. How do you tell the difference between a sexual predator identifying as a woman to get into woman spaces and someone who just has a different mental illness who identifies as a woman to enter woman places? Figure that out.
You tell the difference based on whether they are keeping to themselves and just using the restroom or walking around with their genitalia out or peeping on women in the next stall over — same as if those things happened in an alley somewhere.
Flashing or raping or molesting or peeping is a crime, and those people should be arrested, and will be arrested even without laws to close the "loophole" as you put it. In cases where such behavior isn't happening, then your only reason for making their bathroom use illegal is that it makes you feel icky, and that's just not a good enough reason to put someone in jail or subject people to harassment or other mistreatment.
Men in female attire are infiltrating women's spaces and the supporters of these men are incensed that anyone would call it out.
The other way around, I can understand being worried about, because men's rooms have urinals, but worrying about men in a women's restroom just sounds like people are looking for a reason to "other" people and using that as an excuse.
I mean, think about it. In many parts of the world, bathrooms are unisex. You're in a stall surrounded by walls by yourself. Why should you care if there are people of a different gender/sex at the sink next to you when you're washing your hands? Are you hand-washing-shy? Does it just make you uncomfortable to know that you're touching a towel dispenser that might have been touched by someone with cooties?
From my perspective, the entire reason for these laws comes down to a bizarre American fetish with keeping men and women apart, a fetish that causes substantial psychological harm for a lot of people (and not just trans people, but also people who simply like doing things that society has declared are "boy things" or "girl things", not to mention the subset of young people who, because they happened to attend a gender-segregated school, have little or no experience interacting with the opposite sex until college, and end up interacting in self-destructive ways as a result).
These sorts of laws are actively harmful to society because they promote distrust of others to an irrational degree. If someone truly is "infiltrating women's spaces", which I would interpret to mean "breaking into bathroom stalls and peeping on or molesting women", then they're already committing a crime, and you don't need a new law to throw them in jail. If they're just in the next stall doing their business, then you don't need to throw them in jail. Either way, these laws are just plain dumb.
Besides, there are a decent number of people who are not trans, but who get frequently mistaken for the opposite sex. These laws quite literally encourage people to harass people who aren't trans, all to fix something that is only a problem in the minds of people who spend way too much time worrying about how other people behave. How can anyone think that this is okay?
it's not that they consider the mirror itself as an object.
it's that they recognize _what_ they see, ignoring the phenomenon of reflection.
I can very reliably motion to my cat "here" through the reflection _on the stove's front glass_ and he comes to me, not towards the reflection.
the intricacies and metaphysical aspects of "perception" intrigue me a whole fucking lot. What we consider "vision" has nothing to do with optics. It's all _thought_. All of it. What we name "vision" is the *result* of whatever subconscious operation is done. It's an *after-effect*, it's only tangentially related to what is physically in front of our eyeballs.
Really weird shit, let me tell you.
But don't necessarily write off iOS and "big boy" Applications. Apple now sells (rents) full-blown Logic Pro for iPad. $5/mo or $50/yr. And Projects can Round-Trip to-from macOS Logic Pro.
The very fact that they're able to do that, rather than having to sell the app outright, is prima facie proof of an unhealthy ecosystem with inadequate competition.
I've used Logic on the Mac, but I prefer Digital Performer. Others prefer Cubase. Only one of these three exists in its full form on iOS. The same is true across a wide range of products.
The problem is that there's no advantage to using an iPad over a computer for any of this stuff and a giant pile of huge disadvantages (limited screen size, limited storage, limited connectivity, etc.), so most users don't really want to use these apps on an iPad, so the developers mostly don't bother to port their full apps to iPad. And realistically, I don't see that changing any time soon.
As for the whole "App Store Only" on Mac thing not happening, if Apple thought they could get away with it, I'm pretty sure they would, but they couldn't, so they won't. They would have to go back in time and build the platform that way back in 1984, so that people wouldn't have thousands of dollars in software that can't be readily shoehorned into that distribution model.
But the App-Store-only model definitely holds back the iOS platform. If you could run actual Mac apps on iOS, all of those limitations would go away, and the iPad would be a viable second computer for a lot of people while traveling, and could replace the computer for a much larger percentage of people than it currently can. And the fact that Apple still hasn't recognized this and opened up the iOS platform is what makes me so certain that if Apple could somehow make Mac users stomach the idea of not allowing direct distribution, they would. Fortunately for everyone, there's zero chance of their users accepting it.
Apple or Amazon would also be decent homes for Paramount, IMO, for the same reason as Netflix.
Sony, IMO, is already way too big in the content industry. Antitrust regulators should absolutely step in and block any consolidation like this.
The ipad works great with printers. I know its very confusing, but any wireless printer works pretty well with cloud printing. It detects the printer automatically and can print to it if its on the same network. It works better than any windows or linux based device does with HP's own drivers.
Wireless printers with AirPrint are to printers as Ford Fiestas are to cars. Let me know when it natively supports sending PostScript (including duplexing options, paper tray routing options, paper thickness options, etc.) to my large-format Konica Minolta color laser without having to run an AirPrint server on my Mac and without everything being scaled down to 80% page coverage, and then I'll start to take iOS printing seriously.
The iPad is for people who need a computer, not a phone, but don't need any of the accessories of a computer (Eg no printers, computer mice, keyboards, cameras, storage, etc)
The iPad is for people who need an office suite and/or a web browser — the same sorts of people for whom a Chromebook would be effective. It is way too limited to be a good general-purpose computer replacement, and will continue to be way too limited until you can either run macOS or Windows on it (whether directly or in a virtualization environment).
Tablets are great as web browsers or for consuming video content. They're downright miserable for everything else. It's all about the apps, and even now, 14 years after the iPad came out, the rich app ecosystem still just isn't there.
MacBooks aren't moving toward being iPads; iPads are moving toward being "Lite" MacBooks.
The firmware and middleware was created on the ipad, then made its way to macos. Not the other way around.
Having said that, I do wish I could just load macOS onto an iPad Pro
Apple really wouldn't like that. In fact, during litigation in recent years they've only ever made a case for why they believe it should be exactly the opposite. Right now they're working to convince you that you don't need to install unapproved applications on your mac. When, not if, they succeed in that, there won't be a macos.
And all of the Mac users will switch to Windows. Right now, at least the Mac is useful. iOS is a toy that can only replace about 1% of what I use my laptop for, because approximately none of the software I have to use exists on iOS. There's no Finale, no KiCad, no OpenSCAD, no Snapmaker Luban, no Xcode, etc. A large percentage of the apps I run are licensed under licenses that are incompatible with Apple's App Store, and most of the others are unlikely to get ported to UIKit ever.
Yes but the argument that all those measures add cost and weight is still valid.
Not enough weight to meaningfully affect range, though. A few extra ounces is margin-of-error stuff when the car weighs two tons.
Whether it is phase cancellation (which would require a redesign, still have lots of noise harmonics and consume more power) or shielding.
Sure. Anything you do will consume more power. But a more complicated radio circuit with a differential amplifier that probably draws just milliwatts more power would once again be completely lost in the noise when compared with a self-driving computer that consumes two or three hundred watts continuously, and adding a couple more loop antennas right next to the drive motors would likely add just ounces to the vehicle's weight.
The point is that this doesn't necessarily have to involve some thick metal shield that adds a hundred pounds, and nobody is going to complain because the vehicle's maximum range drops by ten or fifteen feet.
Moving the antenna isnâ(TM)t an option since the motors are in each corner of the car for most EV.
No, they're actually in the middle underneath the car, typically. EVs almost always have two electric drive motors, not four. (CyberTruck has an option for three motors.) With antennas on top, that's a heck of a lot of metal between you and the noise source.
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!
