You do understand that Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency that exists, right?

The cable is only an issue because someone decided to turn VR into the Wii and the rest of the idiots in the industry followed suit. Motion controls combined with VR are always going to be dangerous cable or not. I just want to play with a controller sitting on my ass. As for latency, we are trialing a number of headsets at work, and you can absolutely tell the difference (also there are compression artifacts but those aren't that bad). If these don't bother you then by all means go for it. But they bother most people, which is why VR couldn't break into the mainstream.

Why in the world would anyone think that an LLM would know what products humans would want to buy? To the LLM, all the products are merely words. Just descriptions. It cannot perceive anything about these products, but only knows of them indirectly via words. Further, all the LLM knows about what things are appealing to humans is also from words.

The whole thing is absurd really. It reminds me of something like Futurama where Bender is trying to cook food for humans. Or Star Trek and Data is trying to do something human but failing at it. Just not nearly as entertaining to watch this store fail though.

Correct: I do not grasp. I think you simply don't notice where the equator was, because it's so common for it to be below the centerline that nobody notices or pays attention.

I gave links to six examples of the common ordinary maps you see all the time; I could have given a hundred. Did not even one look famililar?

Here's a clue. If on a Mercator projection Antarctica isn't larger than all the other continents combined... the equator isn't centered.

You already explained where, and why. This is why they put the equator below the center:

"Dark" just means "we can't see it". Anything that isn't either emitting light or other electromagnetic radiation, or reflecting light from something it's close to that's emitting light or other electromagnetic radiation, is "dark".

The data is, if you look at the motion of the stuff we see, and calculate the motion based on the masses of stuff we see, the trajectories deviate. The obvious thing to guess is that it's the gravity of something (or things) we don't see. This has worked before-- for example, this is how Neptune was discovered; it's how close binary stars were discovered.

An alternate hypothesis is that there's some other force pulling or pushing on them, or else gravity doesn't work the way we think it works. Either way, you're hypothesizing something unknown.

Every large galaxy is believed to have a black hole. Dwarf galaxies (like the Magellanic Clouds) may or may not.
  https://www.astronomy.com/scie...
  https://astronex.net/why-is-th...
  https://science.nasa.gov/missi...

"That's nothing, our latest model has more than 20% chance of killing mankind!"
-OpenAI tomorrow

Also took down the PACS server at our local hospital. The D drive didn't mount after this update.

Exactly. That's what happens when you move the center of the map up above the equator; the bottom part of the map goes off the page. If you kept the bottom part on the page, the equator would be in the centered. By definition.

Did you not actually read what I posted that you're responding to?

A Mercator projection which actually showed the entire world would be infinite in size, because the north and south poles project to + and - infinity. Every Mercator projection leaves out parts of the world near the poles. However, the standard Mercator projections leave out more of the southern polar regions than they do of the northern polar regions. Which means the equator is below the center of the map.

I suspect you're so used to it that you don't even notice that in most Mercator projections the equator isn't in the middle:
  https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w...
  https://printable.rhinoplax.co...
  https://image.shutterstock.com...
  https://scholarlykitchen.sspne...
  https://www.mapsales.com/map-i...

For comparison, here's a Mercator projection with the equator in the middle: https://www.alamy.com/politica... Antarctica is larger than all the other continents combined!

This is why we need to ban encryption!

Or get larger screens on our phones.... wait a minute!

No satellite can read text messages through your car window.

Look up diffraction-limited image resolution

I am not sure that the UN should be in the business of defining a "standard" map projection-- why shouldn't everybody use the map that they find most useful? But if they have to set one single standard map, I'm happy it's not Mercator, because, indeed, the Mercator projection is misleading on area.

In its defence, though, while Mercator distorts areas, it keeps shapes correct (locally), and it also keeps directions correct. Small-area accuracy and correct directions are more important than the large-area distortions for most practical use.

Any projection that keeps areas correct must distort shapes. You can't mash the surface of a sphere onto a flat surface without distorting something.
My favorite is the Lambert equal-area projection, which actually gives you the impression of being a projection of a globe, but you can't win-- all the projections have flaws.

I'll also note that the new UN standard map has moved the equator back up to the center of the map. Pretty much every Mercator projection you ever see has the equator moved toward the bottom, because (1) the far southern reaches are not important to people in the northern hemisphere, and (2) if you put the equator in the center, the Mercator distortion makes Antarctica absolutely HUGE, which puts too much of a highlight on how inaccurate the projection is.
 

I will also point out that the UN logo itself shows a polar view, different from ANY of the other views (but very clearly is favoring the northern hemisphere).
https://globalsymbols.com/uplo...

Exactly. Automation of processes that used to be expensive is an excellent example of how treatments that started out outrageously expensive become cheap and routine, and dirt-cheap genetic testing is the poster case for this,

What is happening is Flock's coverage density in existing areas is increasing, while other areas are losing coverage entirely. So instead of actually growing the network geographically it is now shrinking.

In my county and town there were 11. The county Sheriff had 4, the town Police had 4, and Lowe's Home Improvement has 3 on their private property. In the last week the Sheriff and Police both decided to remove their Flock cameras.So have most neighboring counties. This has caused a massive gap in the Flock geographic coverage in this entire region. 8 cameras doesn't sound like a lot, but when they are positioned on the major arteries coming in and out of the town at the access points to the interstates, the amount of coverage and vehicles being scanned is impacted tremendously.

Increasing their coverage density in existing areas just shows more details of the same vehicles. So instead of a vehicle being scanned three times while driving from point A to point B, it might be scanned four or five times while it moves around a city.

It's a vastly different thing completely losing the ability to scan vehicles at all in entire areas, and I argue that even though the raw number is increasing (if what you say is true), their overall capability is drastically decreasing.