Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1, Insightful) 121
The cops are lazy, not stupid.
Double-checking stuff is work, and there will be no repercussions for the individual cops, so why should they care?
Just call the towing company and go back to the donut shop.
Comment Re:There are always late adopters (Score 1) 41
because they don't think it works,
Ha ha.
or because they like coding by hand,
I wonder what their employer thinks about that.
There are event people who still write *COBOL*.
AI is very good at writing COBOL.
Comment Re:The manual? (Score 2) 41
Claude was able to hold my hand through creating different resources, and took its time explaining the concept of a "resource group" multiple times until I understood the concept.
"Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The terminator would never stop. It would never leave him, and it would never hurt him, never shout at him, or get drunk and hit him, or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would always be there. And it would die to protect him. Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine, was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice." -- Sarah Connor
Comment Re:Take Spain as an example. (Score 4, Interesting) 151
During the war, Franco wanted Hitler to help Spain take Gibraltar.
Actually, Hitler wanted Franco to take Gibraltar.
Franco refused because the British would retaliate by taking the Canary Islands.
Comment Re:What kind of profit do they make? (Score 2) 53
What motivation could they have for intentionally making themselves look incompetent?
Comment Re: I've said it before (Score 1) 181
When we have the money we spend it and it can do work.
Giving people money to spend is a Demand Side Stimulus .
A demand-side stimulus makes sense when:
1. Unemployment is high
2. Inflation is low
3. The trade balance is in surplus
None of these conditions are currently true.
A demand-side stimulus in today's economy would fuel inflation and would mostly be spent on imports.
Comment Re:I've said it before (Score 1) 181
IMHO: It's the hoarding that's the problem
Can you define what you mean by "hoarding"?
Rich people have most of their money in equity. That's investing, not "hoarding".
Comment Re:You don't have a choice (Score 3, Insightful) 181
That's only true until supply catches up with demand.
Plenty of new fabs are being built.
I predict that 3 years from now, the current DRAM shortage will turn into a glut.
Disclaimer: My predictions are usually wrong.
Submission + - Candy Corn Is Made of Bug Secretions (archive.is)
know-nothing cunt writes: The Atlantic reports:
Here's a tip if you ever want to ruin a Halloween party. Seek out the most squeamish-seeming adult or child you can find in the act of consuming candy corn. Then tell them they just filled their mouth with bug secretions. If this fact alarms you — or if you’re an inveterate hater of candy corn and thus think that you have been spared — I regret to inform you that by eating many classic Halloween candies, you are, to some extent, eating bugs. More precisely, you are eating a bug by-product that is in many cases listed on the package as "confectioner’s glaze." This glaze is used on jelly beans, Milk Duds, Junior Mints, Whoppers, Lemonheads, and Sugar Babies, to name a few.
Comment Re:Why does such a level of notability really matt (Score 1) 60
I used to contribute regularly to Wikipedia and spent many hours editing articles each week.
The deletionists ended that.
Too much of my work was being deleted for stupid, arbitrary reasons.
If someone is willing to spend hours writing an article about Trudaeu's son, then it's reasonable to assume others are interested in reading it. Even if no one reads it, it does no harm by existing.
The deletions need to stop.
Submission + - How Much Do Optics Improve Shooting Performance? (army.mil)
An anonymous reader writes: Iron sights force your eye to line up three things at different distances—a rear notch, a front post, and the target—while your eye can only truly focus on one. A red dot sight collapses that into a single aiming point using a neat optical trick: an LED sits at the focus of a curved, partially mirrored lens, a collimator, which reflects its light back as parallel rays. To the eye, parallel rays read as coming from infinity, so the dot appears projected onto the target plane and stays put as your head shifts, rather than drifting the way a reticle at a different depth would. That is what “parallax-free” means here. The catch is that it is only perfectly parallax-free at infinity; at closer range, a small residual error remains, roughly equal to the diameter of the collimating optics.
That optical simplification is why red-dot sights are often described as fast-acquisition sights: the target and aiming point sit on nearly the same optical plane, so the shooter can keep attention on the field of view rather than switching focus among three reference points. They are used in civilian target shooting, hunting, police work, and military applications, and non-magnified designs also avoid the eye-relief constraints of a conventional telescopic sight. [1]
The U.S. Army makes a broader case that optics are one part of a system: “Soldier + Weapon + Ammo + Optic + Training.” Its Dual Path Strategy document argues that optical sights can improve target-acquisition speed and first-round hit probability, but it also emphasizes zeroing, training, backup iron sights, and the fact that environmental conditions and shooter skill still matter. [2]
A retailer article on sight selection applies a similar idea to civilian shooting, arguing that sight choice affects accuracy, target acquisition, and adaptability, and that shooters should budget for an optic alongside the firearm itself. [3]
So how much of the improvement is the optic itself, and how much is simply better training with a simpler sight picture? For close-range practical shooting, red dots seem compelling; for precision at distance, magnification introduces a different set of tradeoffs. Where have you found optics to be a clear upgrade—and where are iron sights still good enough?
That optical simplification is why red-dot sights are often described as fast-acquisition sights: the target and aiming point sit on nearly the same optical plane, so the shooter can keep attention on the field of view rather than switching focus among three reference points. They are used in civilian target shooting, hunting, police work, and military applications, and non-magnified designs also avoid the eye-relief constraints of a conventional telescopic sight. [1]
The U.S. Army makes a broader case that optics are one part of a system: “Soldier + Weapon + Ammo + Optic + Training.” Its Dual Path Strategy document argues that optical sights can improve target-acquisition speed and first-round hit probability, but it also emphasizes zeroing, training, backup iron sights, and the fact that environmental conditions and shooter skill still matter. [2]
A retailer article on sight selection applies a similar idea to civilian shooting, arguing that sight choice affects accuracy, target acquisition, and adaptability, and that shooters should budget for an optic alongside the firearm itself. [3]
So how much of the improvement is the optic itself, and how much is simply better training with a simpler sight picture? For close-range practical shooting, red dots seem compelling; for precision at distance, magnification introduces a different set of tradeoffs. Where have you found optics to be a clear upgrade—and where are iron sights still good enough?
Comment Re:Terrible feature (Score 1) 177
Efficiency of an electrical inverter: 90%
Efficiency of a gasoline generator: 20%
A gasoline generator might work as an emergency backup, but would not be economical for daily load leveling.
TFS says the inverter's extra hardware costs $650.
A 10kw gasoline generator would cost at least as much.
Comment Re:It's about time. (Score 1) 119
I've always been appalled that an irreplaceable resource could be sold as filler for party balloons.
Why? Is filling the Super Bowl blimp more important?
Comment Re:They literally sold the last bit two years ago (Score 1) 119
If nothing changed in 20 years, perhaps the looming helium crisis is overblown.
Comment Re:There is no such thing as legacy anymore (Score 1) 68
We're running a business here. We need real software, not toys created as a fun weekend experiment with a chatbot or burning money to run an agent and get 50% (or more likely 5%) of the way there.
