In case you don't want to read TFA where they didn't even bother to do the minimal amount of research required to determine if it's AT&T or Verizon, according to Reddit, the new partner network is Verizon.
Refrigeration equipment should not be connected to the internet in any way beyond read-only monitoring of the system's operating state/temperature/error status/etc. Ideally, the monitoring hardware should be air gapped from the circuitry that actually controls the refrigeration system.
Yes, that means a human will have to physically go mess with the equipment when it isn't working properly, but speaking as someone in the trade - it usually is the case that a malfunction requires human intervention to replace a failed part, unclog a drain, or locate a refrigerant leak, in order to get things running properly again.
There is literally no copyright to infringe upon.
(He was accused of "improperly accessing a computer system" in the process of obtaining said public domain materials)
If you can't freely access something, is it really in public domain?
What he did should not have been illegal. This is the argument actually being made.
After the Van Buren v. United States SCOTUS verdict, it'd have just been an issue of copyright law and not hacking. Still illegal, but violating copyright law is much lower on the totem pole as far as computer crimes are concerned.
Either way though, definitely not something he should've killed himself over.
Maybe it's just me, but I've personally experienced the opposite of the so-called "rabbit hole effect" from algorithmic feeds. The first few videos might be decent, but the more I doomscroll, the more it seems like it scrapes the bottom of the content barrel. Before long, I'm just done with it and close the app because it's just serving up stuff that's no longer entertaining. Of course, my generation grew up with 57 Channels (And Nothin' On), so we turned our entertainment off when it ceased to be worth watching. Also, the TV stayed at home, so that was a bit of a limiting factor, too.
What I don't get about this is that the summary already mentions that the content is making some people depressed. How exactly do they think those people are going to feel when the algorithm is tweaked to serve up even worse content, ostensibly to break their addiction? I'm getting the feeling this was the only solution they could come up with, because imposing actual screen time limits upon adults is still just a little too authoritarian (but you know they'd do it if they could).
Why spend even more money on more equipment that you have to store and maintain, and buy increasingly expensive fuel for, when you can dual purpose what you already have?
As someone with two EVs in our household, I think I might be qualified to answer this.
1. As the other poster already said, the cars need to be usable as cars. Having one tethered to the house means still letting the food in the fridge spoil while one of us is at work. That's no bueno.
2. It's not expensive to have a portable generator. Yeah, the big monsters that the richer folks have on the side of their houses can run you a pretty penny, but something you keep in your shed for an emergency isn't going to break the bank to buy and maintain. As for the gas, presumably you've been saving a bunch of money not buying gas because you drive an EV, so having to buy some gas once in a blue moon to run a generator is no big deal.
3. You stock up on fuel before a storm. Yes, it feels very silly to take an EV to a gas pump.
4. The generator gives you another option for "fueling" your EV. We haven't needed to do it, but in a pinch the cars can be L1 charged from the generator. This essentially turns the EVs into extremely inefficient gas cars (somebody on YouTube did the math on MPG charging EVs from a typical portable generator and it's pretty bad), but it means not having to wait in some long ass queue at the nearest DCFC station that has power restored.
The point is the car is there already sitting in your garage.
Maybe if it's a secondary car. Can't very well power your house if your car is parked at work.
I've got a Bolt and saw on the Bolt subreddit that some crazy people have rigged up 12V inverters to theirs, which provides roughly 1kW for powering some essentials during an outage. I didn't see the point. I've got a 5.5kW portable generator in my shed, and if there is an outage I'm going to need what juice remains in my car for using it as a car (and to go to gas stations to get fuel for the generator, which always feels a bit silly in an EV).
I suppose it makes sense to have an EV that can provide backup power if you live somewhere with a particularly flakey electrical grid. Where I live, it only really goes out after a major hurricane and then it'll be out for several days. That's a use case more suited to a backup generator rather than tethering your car to your house for up to a week.
Nope. It's just not what I am interested in, and also, there's a whole bunch of old guys who have been asking for a simple electric pickup with this kind of functionality.
The problem is that the typical type of old guys you're referring to also tend to want the old school pricing, and those days ain't coming back. I know someone like this - they'd love a basic body-on-frame pickup truck from back in the day, but they're not paying $30k+ for it.
Yeah, we had it pretty good when you could get a base model Tacoma with a standard tranny and a four banger that couldn't get out of its own way, but damn if it wasn't cheap.
The type in question, however, is not designed for roads, only travels about 1-2 miles from it's origin, is pretty small and compact, and is better than a human delivery in every way.
So, how'd you feel if other businesses took the same approach? Let's clutter up the sidewalk with plumbers, electricians and other tradesman riding around in little vehicles that can't go in the road. It wouldn't be long before someone says exactly the same thing I just said for the food delivery companies: if you want to run a business, there's inescapable overhead costs, with one of them being the purchase of vehicles that can legally operate on the roadways.
If you have a problem with robots doing the work, then your problem is actually with capitalism and society, not the robots.
That's an entirely separate issue. I'm not getting into the socioeconomic can of worms that is job loss due to automation. I simply said the robots shouldn't be on the sidewalks in the first place, which would amazingly also solve the problem of their path being blocked by "protestors".
But because its Musk you have to find a reason to call it bad. Get some perspective.
Nope. When it was Sam Altman doing the whole "You're probably not going to have a job thanks to the tech my company is developing, so here's a pittance as a way of saying oops, my bad." thing, I felt the same way.
Hey kid, I flooded your bedroom but here's a free inflatable pool float you can sit in. We're good now, right?
If a factory opens in a less prosperous state isn't that a good thing?
I have a modest proposal: Let's build factories to manufacture glass panes in less prosperous states and then go around smashing windows to create demand for their products. What could possibly go wrong?
I'd settle for beefed up truth-in-advertising laws regarding the distinction between purchases and leases, but I can't get on board with flat-out trying to legislate product features into existence.
What you're actually buying is a license those do come with limitations. Heck, even when you buy a piece of piece of hardware it's not something you'll be able to realistically use for the rest of your life. With old cars for example, eventually the replacement parts become unobtainium and even if you really want to keep the car on the road indefinitely, there's a limit to how long such a goal will be practical.
Really, it is just an issue of making sure buyers are aware that they're only paying to play the game while it is supported by the developer. That's really the norm for most of the tech industry anyway *glances over at my obsolete Apple Watch*.
Under PA state law, personal delivery robots (like the one in the article) are legally classified as pedestrians with all the same legal rights as a human pedestrian.
This was clearly the wrong decision. The cost of entry to deliver food via robot should be by means of an autonomous car that operates on the road with the rest of the motorized vehicles. We're not talking about some college kid who needs to ride a motorized micromobility device on the sidewalk because an e-scooter is all he can afford and the road is full of multi-ton SUVs going 60 MPH. The companies behind this crap can belly up to the bar and pay what it costs to build machines that can operate in the road, or they can GTFO.
If you're not saddled with the costs of employing humans to do the work, you can certainly afford to come up with something that can operate in the damn road. The sidewalks absolutely should not become a commons to be plundered for every tech bro's get-rich-quick-scheme.
You're not getting a mid-tier anything for $120 in the RAMpocalypse era. That price point comes with a lot of compromises, the OP's implication that it's even close to "90%" of a $2k phone is laughable.
On the Android side, for true flagship performance we're talking something like $900 for a Pixel 11. Once you start getting into the real bargain territory (like the Samsung A17 5G), yeah, it's $270, but it starts at 128GB of storage and 4GB of RAM. Then if for some ungodly reason you absolutely can't spend the extra $70 for the Samsung, there's the Motorola Moto G Play 2026, which compromises on the storage (there's only 64GB) and has a truly awful 720P display.
Ironically, through a quirk of carrier subsidies one of the better bang-for-your-buck values at the moment actually is an iPhone. Metro has the 16e for a total of $160 if you port over a number from a competitor (which can be a burner number) and prepay for the first month of service. Let it sit in a drawer for a year and it will still automatically unlock (Metro's unlock policy is weird like that). Chances are, even after a year of waiting for it to unlock, it will still perform better than anything else you could buy for $160.
Foldable phones are literally on their 8th generation already, and while the first 2 generations had reliability issues, the same could not be said from about 2022 onwards.
My sister-in-law bought one of the recent-ish Motorola RAZR phones. It lasted a little bit past the warranty before the screen failed. She's now using an old iPhone 13. I'd say a folding phone is probably not for people who like to keep their phones for the long haul.
Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. Space is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen to you.
