Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Wha (Score 2) 13

"while state officials deny that residential or rural water supplies will be tapped."

What's that leave? Are they going to build their own catchments?

Closed-loop water cooling? Heat pump cooling? Immersion cooling? A lot of things, really.

Companies use water for cooling when it is cheap and plentiful. When it isn't cheap or plentiful, there are plenty of alternatives that don't involve any ongoing water use.

Now if you ask how the construction company is going to build concrete floors without water... that's a different question. :-)

Comment Re:This is good here's why (Score 1) 100

The law is not absurd. About a third of poor people are on metered cell phones for their home Internet connections. OTA TV is free. So consolidation of the OTA spectrum massively reduces access to a diverse panoply of voices for the poorest Americans.

The law wasn't written to protect the top 5% of Americans' ability to get news from a large number of sources. People with wealthy always had that ability.

Comment Re:This is good here's why (Score 1) 100

That's an absurd comparison, because the Internet is not a limited spectrum. Your analogy is like arguing that there should be no regulation of airline mergers, because you can always walk or drive. They're not equivalent, they don't have equivalent costs or benefits, and from a legal perspective, they're not even the same market, or at least not meaningfully so.

Comment Re:This is good here's why (Score 2) 100

TV was roughly 6 over the air channels and it was regulated monopoly - now its dying and thanks to the internet everyone has infinite channels. Today this rule would be like saying "California, you can't have Netflix because Netflix already reaches 39% of American's, you have to purchase Prime Video instead."

Not at all. TV is still a finite spectrum. There will never be any more over-the-air TV channels than there are now, realistically speaking. Not everyone has high-speed Internet. 7% can't get it at all, at least by the FCC's definition.

Another 16% use their cell phones for Internet, which means their data is likely metered. This number balloons all the way up to 34% when you look at low-income Americans.

Those folks don't have access to "infinite channels".

You're right that over-the-air TV is dying because of competition, but it's also the only remaining lifeline for the poorest Americans. And that's exactly why the Republicans want more control. They've made manipulating poor people with below-average education into an art form, and being able to get more stations in more markets owned by large right-wing conglomerates means more people who can be easily manipulated.

That's why, believe it or not, right now, in the dying days of TV, those rules are more important than ever.

There's no evidence that consolidation will reduce cost of operation enough to be meaningful, but there is evidence that consolidation results in fewer voices reaching the poorest and often least-educated Americans. And this is unquestionably a bad thing.

Comment Re:Meaningless statements? (Score 0) 197

He's saying "do you want robot cars to be as good as humans, or safer?"

If the goal is just "as good as a human" then (in theory) we have "proof of concept" that that can be achieved (humans drive cars all the time) ...

... but, humans also get in accidents all the time. If the goal of self-driving cars is to do *better* than the humans, stopping at what humans can achieve (with "cameras (eyes) only"), safety-wise, isn't good enough. If you want "safer than human", as Google evidently does, you need LIDAR.

Right now, self driving cars are just stopping in the middle of intersections because they don't know what to do. So "better" than the average driver they are far from. If a human driver just stopped in the middle of an intersection because they got confused we'd take their license off them.

Also, they should be better than the average western driver, if not the average Nordic driver. Saying they're better than Americans is saying they're still half as good as the rest of the developed world (1/4 compared to the UK or Nordic nations).

Comment Re:Side effects (Score 1) 179

One of the nice things about mRNA vaccines is that they tend to have fewer side effects. Flu vaccine always makes me feel pretty bad. Hopefully this will be better.

But the horse de-wormer chuggers have constantly told us how many bad side effects there are from mRNA vaccines... tell me they weren't lying. I mean we're all already dead from vaccine hurties within 2 years of even thinking about taking one as they predicted.

RFK Jr must be in a hell of a pickle, he wants to say "vaccine baaaaaad" but flu is a big killer of the elderly so it's literally killing his voter base and here is an effective preventer of that death.

Comment Re:test drive? (Score 1) 209

Apparently it was done as a software update at some point. I'd be booking the car in for warranty work to remove it, and getting a substantial refund if they can't fix it.

This. Also the car you test drive won't be the one you buy unless you're trying to buy a used demonstrator.

I suspect that they're will be a remotely deactivated "dealer mode" that will be turned off after delivery (or perhaps not even present on cars that are not intended to be demonstrators).

This will just be the test to see how much the frog can be boiled, after the backlash they'll say "it was just the marketing intern and we'll make sure it's toned down from here" and then slowly ramp it back up again after the backlash dies down. The only long term solution to this is to make it illegal, which will never happen in the US. It might happen in the EU and perhaps the UK, however I suspect most of those "70 markets" are not in the EU and do not have strong consumer protection laws like we have here in the UK.

Comment Re:Meaningless statements? (Score 2) 197

I agree that he was making empirical claims as though they were first-principle claims, and ignoring the fact that cameras are better optical sensors than the human eye,

Not necessarily. Pretty sure the older HW3 sensors from Tesla had considerably less instantaneous dynamic range than the human eye — probably not enough to be a problem most of the time, but still...

But more than that, cameras are notably worse than eyes, because they're in the wrong spot. A pair of eyes three feet back from the window sees the scene and focuses through whatever is hitting the glass, so unless it's a deluge, the contents of the glass are largely out of focus. With small sensors mounted close to the glass, you don't have the depth of field helping you in the same way. With cameras outside the car, it's even worse, and they get blinded constantly.

What cameras do have is quantity. Your eyes can look in only one direction at a time. Cameras can look in every direction. They can see that something is coming at you from the side or behind. They can see around corners better, if placed correctly. They can judge distance and speed of oncoming vehicles with mathematical precision that human brains can't consistently match.

They also don't get tired. They don't get drunk. They don't get distracted. They don't start burning when sweat gets in them. And so on.

These things can make camera-based cars considerably safer than human drivers, at least in theory, particularly once you consider that the average contains drunk drivers, tired drivers, distracted drivers, etc. And most driving accidents are not caused by loss of visibility, statistically speaking.

Comment Re:The "data center" hot topic... (Score 1) 51

The need for more data centers is questionable. If all this AI growth turns the corner and companies decide much of it was just overblown hype? Then those data centers will quickly wind back down again.

In the worst case, they'll add interior walls (and maybe add some windows to the exterior walls), and resell it as office space, residential space, factory space, retail distribution space, or even a community library. After all, floors built to support racks of equipment should handle the weight and distribution of stacks of books without breaking a sweat.

So the construction might be overkill for what they eventually get used for, but it's not like a newly built, solid building isn't going to find a use. Maybe a quarter of the effort is wasted? Just guessing.

Comment Re: Ok, so since market has started ignoring him (Score 2) 209

Republican "god" can do no wrong, though. The man could walk into the middle of 5th Avenue, shoot a woman in the head, and then fuck her shattered skull, and they'd still sing his praises. Indoctrination. Cultism. Brainwashing. So many different names for how they idolise this man.

It's worse than that. They will find a way to justify why that woman needed to be killed and skullfucked, trying to turn it into a necessary event that their heroic manbaby had to do. There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

The irony is, a few years ago you couldn't get them to shut up about dementia, government corruption or "crime" families... now their silence is deafening. Seems they were just trying to prepare us for Trump rather than warning us about Biden.

Comment Re:Pretty simple (Score 1) 125

Easy to read "Prop 13 (1978)" between the lines, which is California specific. IIRC[citation needed], Prop 19 (2020) while eliminating inheriting the assessed value (Prop 58 (1986)) make it possible to transfer the assessed value to another property statewide (previously available only where individual counties had made agreements). Why Modoc isn't being bought up in order to transfer the assessments to Beverley Hills is a mystery.

The main impact of prop 19 is making it possible for the elderly to not be forced to move to another state if they decide to downgrade to a smaller home. It likely has minimal impact on people's ability to move closer to their jobs, because it is limited to people 55 and older, so less than a quarter of California's workforce qualifies for transferring the cost basis to a new property.

More to the point, the people most likely to change jobs are younger workers, and none of them qualify.

As for Modoc to Beverly Hills, the difference in market value is added to your assessment. So if you bought a $50,000 home in the middle of nowhere that has appreciated to $300,000, and you trade up to a $3 million home, your new tax basis value is $2.75 million ($3 million minus $300k plus $50k). So it really doesn't make much difference in that case, practically speaking.

Comment Re:Defective by design (Score 1) 57

Which doesn't really work as users routine confuse their accounts and upload files to the wrong account, and then confusion ensues when files are stored partially on a work account and on a personal account.

And that's when the corporate systems are configured to warn if you try to share something with or from the wrong account, and you shame the user into doing it right. Besides, this is usually only a problem for brand new users. Once you have a bunch of files uploaded to both accounts, you're not going to suddenly see the files from your personal account, and think, "Oh, this is where my work stuff goes".

It's only confusing if you have access to the same files from both accounts. And then, yeah, you'll get confused about which account is editing the file, but it's not as if it really matters in that situation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...