SirEDCaLot @ SirEDCaLot @lemmy.today

Posts

0

Comments

545

Joined

2 yr. ago

They wouldn't obviously. Especially since VR content is significantly more expensive to develop. But that is an Apple problem to solve. If you want people to buy your $3,500 toy, you have to give them a reason to buy it. Personally if I was going to attract developers I would give them a real sweetheart deal, like for the first two years of the platform the developers keep 95% of the revenue. Yeah that means for 2 years I make no money on software but it also means at the end of two years there will be software to make money on. And make the whole thing bring dead easy to develop on. Have a whole bunch of tools to import existing 3D content or write games or whatever.

I tried one in the store. It's an amazing experience, the augmented reality is done very well.
The problem is I don't think there's any content for it. If it could play 3D movies or games or something, that might be a reason to buy it. But for right now as far as I can tell the main reason to have one is to view 3D photos from an iPhone in actual 3D. And I'm sorry but that's just not worth $3,500.

The other issue is the competition. Quest 3 is very close in terms of technology, not quite as good but close, and it's 7x cheaper with a hell of a lot more content available.

Make it $1500 and release enough content that there's a reason to buy it, and it'll sell.

I would return that UPS and for about the same price or not too much more you could get a cyberpower unit that puts out a real sine wave. Obviously your server does not like Riello's fake sine wave, so why not feed it the good stuff rather than trying to force it to eat garbage?

Lol Just because the automation exists doesn't mean it's always used. In big planes, the system is called cat III autoland and it only works at some airports. It also produces a notoriously rough landing. In little planes, it's an emergency assistance feature that gives you a 'emergency land' button in the cockpit. Not something that you use everyday. And also not something most little planes have, it's part of a top of the line autopilot system. Given that everything for airplanes costs way too much due to ridiculous certification requirements that do more to keep safety tech out of people's budgets then to improve safety, not many little planes have it. To take a basic Cessna type airplane and add the system can cost as much as a car.

You can still get a private pilot license if you have 20/40 vision or your eyes can be corrected to 20/40 with glasses or whatever. Even without that, if you can drive you can fly a light sport aircraft. That's a different category that has more limitations. But those limitations are rapidly going away, FAA is working on something called MOSAIC which will expand the definition of light sport to cover an awful lot of single engine airplanes. And with that you only need a driver's license.

Pilot here.
There's already a huge amount of automation available for airplanes large and small. The current top of the line will allow the airplane to connect every phase of flight except for the takeoff, coming all the way down to landing on the runway. In your average airline flight, probably 80 to 95% of the flight is flown by computer. The pilots are managing the aircraft, talking to ATC, etc. So you could argue that that is already there.

If you mean the ability to conduct a trip without an operator, IE little girl jumps in the back of the car and says 'Tessie take me to school!' and the car drives her to school, that will absolutely happen in cars before airplanes. The simple reason is edge cases and emergencies. In a car, if something goes wrong, you simply pull over. Or, worst case scenario, just slow down and stop. It's not great but it's not terrible. If something goes wrong in an airplane, you need to keep operating the airplane for anywhere between 10 minutes and 4 hours including a landing. A lot of what pilots do in emergencies is figure out exactly how their airplane has been damaged and strategize around that. A lot of that is intuition, the rest is deduction based on understanding of how the airplane works. Since the computer can't see out the window or feel things like buffets and sound, a computer won't necessarily be as good at that. So the pilots aren't going anywhere.

This is all well and good but I don't see any changes happening and I don't see any lessons being learned.

We voted for Biden, not Garland. Advisors can push him whatever way they want but at the end of the day it's his call. And voters have been sharing every frustration for the last decade or two at getting presidents that don't actually push the real reforms people want.

IMHO, in Biden's place, The smart thing to do would have been go full Bulworth mode the second he dropped out. If he cut the bullshit and started calling everybody out he could endorse a damp paper bag as his successor and they'd get votes.

People voted for Trump because he is a reform candidate. He may not be a reform President (he wasn't the first time) but he talks a lot of reform on the stump.

Hillary was not a reform candidate. Kamala was not a reform candidate. Both lost.

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it's that DNC needs to jettison a lot of the old guard that have been the face of the party for the last 50 years. Get some young people with energy and new ideas and put them in charge.

After the United CEO shooting, it would have been a great time for Democrats to put the public option back on the table. That should never have been dropped from Obamacare. But there is enough sentiment in favor of it that they could probably get it through, or at the very least make Republicans pay in the court of public opinion for stopping it. Yet another wasted opportunity.

Yes exactly. If someone wants to block something, don't make it a little procedural thing that can be forgotten. Make it a big deal. Put it on the news. Let them put their face on it.

That also means that Democrats would much less need 60 votes to push many policies. Most of what they would do can be done with 51, and real filibusters would block the really bad stuff.

I don't believe either party has all the answers. I am disappointed that the GOP has gone down the rabbit hole of project 2025 and religious nuts, but there are some things they get right. Neither party deserves unchecked power.

I said get rid of the procedural filibuster. That's where a Senator can say 'I'm filibustering that bill' and it can't advance further until 60 Senators vote to end debate on the bill. The chamber then moves on to other business. That allows any Senator to mostly block any bill without consequence. That IMHO is bad.

The real filibuster- where a Senator will stand up for hours and read the phone book, that is essential to stop the worst bills. It should be used sparingly and it should be disruptive.

All those things would be worthy of a stand-up filibuster.

And, much like most Republicans over the last decade or two or maybe three, you are thinking about what's good for your agenda in the short-term and not what's good for the nation in the long-term.
The procedural filibuster is bad for the country. It's bad for the country when Republicans have a majority, it's bad for the country when Democrats have a majority. And if the GOP tries to pass something awful, maybe one of our Democrats could grow a backbone and actually filibuster the damn thing.

Disagree. The only reason 60 votes are needed is because somebody will filibuster it. So grow a fucking backbone, and call out whichever asshole senator is refusing to fund the troops because he cares more about sticking it to transgender people. Don't just vote for the thing, don't focus on getting it passef no matter what, put your fucking foot down and name and shame. Point out that one person is holding up a spending bill worth hundreds of billions of dollars over an objection to a line item that probably costs $100k.

Or better, reform the filibuster. The filibuster is a good thing in concept. The procedural filibuster however means that it now takes 60 votes to pass something instead of 50 and there's essentially no consequence for that. That was not the intent of the Framers.

If you want to filibuster something, you should have to get up there and read the phone book for hours. It should grind the government to a halt. It should be disruptive to everything, a measure used for only the worst bills.

Rules are rules of course. But when the car was approved for sale, approved as being rule following, and then retroactively after the fact, after it's been out for years with literally millions of units on the road, suddenly it's no good...., that doesn't seem like fair enforcement to me.

Frequent software updates are part of having a Tesla. If the vehicle is unable to do a software update, then it is broken and would require service regardless of the recall.

Which IMHO just shows that the recall in the first place was just NHTSA unnecessarily flexing on them

Sorry we don't think like that anymore. Nuance and multiple truths are a waste of time. Elon supports a Republican that means he is bad and everything he does is bad and everything he has ever done is bad and he has no vision or leadership of his own he is just a rich asshole using Daddy's money to buy cars and rockets and Twitter. Thus he is unworthy of praise for anything at all that he has done since he was born into a life of luxury and anything he touches is automatically shit worthy of being canceled or outlawed.

The warning icons were the exact same size as the car I had before that. No recall on that car, and if anything icons were even easier to see because the contrast was higher and they are closer to your face.

Yes absolutely. The term recall is supposed to be when they literally recall the cars, like bring them back in, in the same context as you recall your dog after he runs around the yard.
No cars are being brought back in. No dealers are involved here. It's just a bug fix for the next software release.

I also don't like how the ability to fix bugs is creating a huge number of 'recalls'. For example, last year Tesla had a 'recall' because NHTSA decided the warning icons on the dashboard screen weren't big enough. Like the icons for parking brake and seat belt. Which is frustrating because the car is operated for years with the original icons and nobody had a complaint.

But if this was an old style car, where those were individual LEDs silkscreened in an instrument cluster, that would never be a recall because it would cost millions to replace every single instrument cluster on every single car. But because it is remotely fixable, it becomes a recall.

This is a very good point. The other issue is security. The little mechanic shop that has no dynamic content, technically should be static pages, so when it's left alone and not updated for 3 years it doesn't get hacked by some WordPress vulnerability.

Absolutely. They were so arrogant they never thought it would happen to us. After all, we are in charge of our own networks so why would we expect the enemy to be at the gates? Let's make those gates out of cardboard so it's easier to spy on everyone.

Of course then you have things like CALEA mandating a back door, you have cheap telecom companies that will happily buy cheap lowest bidder Chinese hardware and install it "everywhere* without concern for security (after all, it's not their data being stolen) and now the enemy isn't just at the gates but inside the walls.

A decade ago, making sure the feds could read everyone's mail was the national security priority. Suddenly when the Chinese can read everyone's mail, good security is the national security priority.

It's too bad there was no way to predict this in advance. Oh wait...

Yeah I'm also not a fan of the arc fault breaker thing. I get the concept, but there should be a calculation of expense caused versus safety increase.

A good example of that in another field is NHTSA is going to start requiring seat belt reminders and nag beeps for every seat in the vehicle. This will increase the cost of every single vehicle, annoy the hell out of drivers who store cargo in the backseat, and the problem it addresses? Yearly 50 deaths and a few hundred injuries caused by unbelted passengers. Most of whom will probably ignore the nag beep anyway- it's 2024, if you don't wear your seatbelt because you want to stay alive you're not going to start wearing it because of a nag beep. Thus you have yet another regulation, yet another little specification box that has to be checked building a new car, and yet another bundle of sensors and wires and harnesses and programming for every single vehicle (which isn't free, those costs will be passed on to the person who buys the car) all for a change that will probably have zero practical benefit whatsoever but will cause a ton of annoyance when drivers throw their groceries in the back seat. And it may even make the problem worse- The driver who puts groceries in the back will probably buy one of those defeat devices that's like a seat belt buckle but with no seatbelt and you put it in the slut so the car thinks you are buckled in. And that might actually reduce the number of people who wear the seatbelt in the back.