Thomas Edison was the Elon musk of his era
daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 528Joined 2 yr. ago
daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
528
Joined
2 yr. ago
Show me how we collectively invest in R&D without IP and build a car company without profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_power
Oh look! Government investment!
I mean it's just not generally energy efficient compared to batteries, and the majority of hydrogen tends to come about as a byproduct of, I think it's propane and natural gas extraction and production. Electrolysis is pretty far off from being an effective competitor to batteries. I do still think that theoretically the specific energy is high enough that it doesn't really matter, since that seems to be like the major limiting factor keeping electric from going mainstream, and me personally, I would probably also use the oxygen made by electrolysis for some cool rocket fuel cars, also cutting down on the lack of , but everyone's against that because "The cars would explode you psycho/moron!" and other stupid idiot considerations that I don't care about. But yeah, generally we don't have enough of an energy excess to be able to run cars off of it in a reasonable way. Energy density still sucks also, but then, it's not like modern cars tend to really use a lot of their space anyways, so I don't think that matters too much.
Yeah, I dunno if it realistically takes that long. We pivoted from a world where cars didn't broadly exist and public transit in the form of trams and trains was extremely common, to one where cars were hyper-dominant, in like, less than a quarter century, with nothing but publicly targeted corporate propaganda, huge amounts of government lobbying, and a post-war economy. The thing we lack isn't really the ability to rapidly construct a large level of infrastructure, the thing we lack is the political will to make it happen. Most infrastructure needs to be rebuilt to be maintained like every 25 years anyways. I dunno, 25 years seems like a pretty fast turnaround time to me, in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider how gradually it can be done just by changing zoning laws or engineering standards and practices. I mean, centuries? That seems extremely hyperbolic.
If you want a pretty close experience without the real risk of suicide, you could always go with lower caliber airguns. The lack of muzzle energy means it's not a ripe candidate for killing anything but small game at most, it requires you to be pretty on top of your shit as far as consistent follow through, holdover, windage. Shot per shot cost can be pretty low, especially if you get a swaging die and make the pellets or slugs yourself. The only downside is that the guns can get pretty pricey, up in the realm of very expensive normie guns, especially for something very high quality and with all the cool stuff, but overall it's a pretty cheap and less dangerous hobby if you like shooting. Most people have this conception that they're only for kids or whatever, based on what they see at the sportsman's warehouse, but with a bit of googling you can find some guns that are pretty performative for not a lot.
All of em, really. I don't see much of a reason why the vast majority of platforms wouldn't benefit from it, except for maybe an argument around it allowing the creation of larger and larger echo chambers, but that's probably fine as long as it's managed to only be to a certain degree.
I mean, those neighbors sound awesome, for one. For two, they also keep rent low, which is pretty good.
But in any case, if you want them to move out, probably I would [redacted]. As a bonus, you won't have new neighbors for maybe a year, unless they just throw in a manufactured home or a prebuilt or something. On the downside, you might have to deal with construction noises next door.
I don’t know if that’s true
I'm like 90% sure it's not, it's just one of those things that people do as a kind of "common sense" solution, because dogs are generally seen as a pretty disposable object. Like how they used to kill, and maybe still do kill idk, any animal that kills or attacks a person, just kind of on the basis that "that there animal is a man killer. ain't no goin' back from that, it's got a taste for it now.". Just dumb shit.
You know generally I'm against the death penalty and I'm all up and down threads like these advocating for that not to be the case, because, you know, people get raised in certain environments, we can't really know whether or not someone's really committed a crime sometimes, blanket death penalty is bad, yadda yadda ya. You know, consistency in principles.
but fuck me man this lady needs to be crushed by a big rock or something
The problem to me isn't so much that their hardware has been underpowered, that's been a thing for like 20 years at this point, since the release of the gamecube or therabouts. The problem to me is that they've been incredibly unambitious this generation in terms of making their console something that has an appealing form factor compared to it's potential competitors, not just in the ps5 and whatever the new xbox is, but with the mobile gaming handhelds like the steam deck, which can apparently pretty easily emulate most of the switch's library and also serve a bunch of other functions.
I know that the hardcore gaming audience really disliked the motion controls as a central gimmick of the wii, but I really thought it was fun, pretty decent, and that now, with the switch, the technology has actually become good and not a flickery unstable half-mess. The only motion control stuff I can think of is mario party, 1-2 switch, which is old and nobody played, and some aiming mechanics in other games like splatoon or the new zeldas. For a console that is as easily positioned for casual multiplayer as it is, they've been consistently very iffy with their output on that front. Combine this with a a resurgence of shitty management practices like their litigiousness, charging more for subscription based access to their older games library, charging for online play, and it's kind of made me reticent to engage with the switch that I have and reluctant to engage with any new console they might put out.
I'm also going to keep banging the drum that the switch is the most optimally positioned console for playing all of nintendo's library. If they had wireless connectivity to the dock, probably the hardware wouldn't be good enough to run it, but you could theoretically run both DS games and Wii U games. Obviously, the console's already suited well for Wii games, and the rest of their backcatalogue before that. With only their recent library they could provide a pretty good alternative to actual emulation alternatives, but instead it seems they'd rather take a much less effective route.
Also they could probably make it a pretty easy VR experience as they've shown with the cardboard shit they had, but fuck that I guess, easier just to do absolutely nothing.
The same people that likely would oppose a storage like that in their own neighbourhood.
fuck that shit man I'll drink the stuff, gimme the static shock superpowers
If we can successfully get cold fusion working
the viability of all your opinions are now immediately called into question
Do we consider the text to be the words on the screen or the ideas within the text itself? As a kind of reaction to a current state of affairs, I wouldn't be surprised if the core idea of this text is thought up by someone every couple days at least, if only in passing. As long as the conditions which brought this meme about in the first place are sustained, it basically can't die. I'd say, in that sense, this meme could only be considered successful if it doesn't get replicated forever, it could only be successful if it dies.
Really? I was gonna look that up anyways, guess I can make time for some UAV research
Sucks for the locals. I dunno, do they just need to decrease the people going in, in total, or do they just need to set up a bunch of better public picture spots so everyone can take their little picture of the mona lisa?
The article said that a lot of their problems came from people snapping photos and getting up on buildings and stuff. I dunno how an 8 meter high net would prevent that course of behavior either, to be honest.
Me, laughing as the idiot americans will be banned from the app, and only the pure VPN users will remain:
No but seriously this is pretty dogshit stupid. The only people happy about this are the omega boomers and pick mes that hated tiktok anyways for what are basically unrelated reasons. Otherwise they'd be equally calling for a larger set of privacy enforcements that encompass all social media sites, which I agree should happen. This seems, to me, to be pretty transparently a protectionist racket. Only we shall control the data of americans, only we shall track them.
And then there's also the people saying that any social media getting banned is kind of a net positive. Fuck you mate what the hell? You're on a pretty explicitly manipulative social media platform right now, it's just one that you're able to tailor to your own biases. Probably it's a net negative to have less propaganda from a variety of sources. Both sides my ass, I guess, fuck your corporate-state disinformation, I got mine.
I dunno. I watched this guy that makes sandwiches, back when I used tiktok. I thought he was pretty cool. I think it would be a shame to see his content get disappeared, which tiktok already has a pretty huge problem with.
The benefit of tiktok and short form content is that you can watch it anywhere, and almost anyone with a phone at this point can produce it. Those of you who hate vertical video content should understand that a phone is the optimal platform on which to consume it, and you should probably be happy for that, because it's not going to outright disappear from the internet otherwise, as we saw before all of this had started. You miss the forest for the trees when you call for heavy-handed outright bans of this stuff. The corporate influence, I can understand getting rid of that, but the platforms themselves, there's legitimately value there. Twitter as a microblogging platform has been used for actual reporting, and even as it exists now, it's being used for that. If you were to get rid of youtube, you would be eliminating a frankly staggering amount of information available out there that, sure, might exist in other places, but that both takes a large risk and relies on google MORE to feed you that correctly when you use a search engine, which as we've seen recently, hasn't been the case. You could do the same with reddit. Delete reddit, and you are deleting a metric fuck ton of information on some valuable stuff, you're deleting a fuck ton of internet culture. These platforms need to be disentangled from their corporate overlords and made more free to own, browse, and use, not outright destroyed.
I hate the short form content trend it started
always has been, with vine.
its algorithm based content delivery systems that every other app copied but worse
always has been, with twitter, facebook, instagram, snapchat, youtube, uhhhhh... vine, yeah, just mentioned that one. discord, tinder. literally everything.
I hate the sexualisation of minors and peddling that content to pedos
Look at what the great adpocalypse of youtube was ostensibly about, then look at what it was really about. In any case, always has been.
I hate the clout chasing in general
Always has been.
I hate tiktok trends and “challenged”
Assuming you mean "challenge", you could check out the harlem shake, the ice bucket challenge, god, there's a lot of them honestly. Gangnam style. I think probably this is just like, meme culture more broadly, which, say it with me now: always has been.
I hate the general brainrot it has caused.
And finally, always has been.
Is Lemmy using a predatory algorithm designed to enrich itself at the expense of the well being of its users and utilize its platform to influence US policy against its own interests?
Straight up yes, I'm gonna explain this hot take right now so buckle up.
Lemmy operates on the same basic set of principles that Reddit does. Upvotes send a post up, downvotes send a post down, moderation abilities and succession is controlled by the select few who create a popular channel, and also administrators. Pretty easy, pretty simple so far.
Algorithms don't refer only to implicit incentive structures, but explicit ones, as well. How many posts have you seen on lemmy that are just really stupid propaganda memes? That's what the platform explicitly incentivizes with it's system of upvotes and downvotes. Low rent, low effort posts that vibe with a large majority of the audience are what's going to get more attention and more engagement, and that's going to push a post up, in a kind of feedback loop that hopefully tries to separate the wheat from the chaff. Really, all it does is separate the low rent dopamine content from everything else. I would say the incentivization of low rent behavior by these explicit mechanisms is somewhat predatory, yes.
As to how lemmy is enriched by this process, lemmy gets more attention. so lemmy gets more power inside of the sphere of internet attention, culture, and propaganda. Lemmy as a whole, obviously, which probably ends up meaning the developers. The whole thing being more open source and federated obviously puts this much more into contention than Reddit, sure, but that doesn't really eliminate the basic problems that come about at the very conception of this platform, these problems of echo chambers. You can even see that forming now in a bunch of different instances. You can see that bias in hexbear, ml, world being plagued by a bunch of brainlet neolibs. It's pretty obvious that the system confines everyone to their bubbles.
This is all to basically equivocate any interaction having been had online as being predatory in some way, and as enriching some party. Any mechanism which you use to organize the slew of information coming at you is going to have an inherent set of biases, pros and cons, and is inherently going to prey on some of those biases compared to others. So if we've equivocated all social media with basically all form of social interaction online, then the internet itself was probably a mistake.
Tl;dr IRC is a form of social media. Real life is a form of social media.
I've been tooting that horn for a while, but it's a pretty hard point to translate into real political discourse with people. I try to weasel out of it, but at some point, people get really fed up and want you to "state your actual opinions", or otherwise will just bully you relentlessly. Basically, I'm just saying that with any change of opinion, there's going to be, probably, some necessary amount of discomfort. I guess my extrapolation from that would probably be that it's a better policy as a whole if people just stop taking the slap so personally or so passionately. Better policy if your face goes numb, easier to work with, rather than handcuffing everyone, ja feel?
I dunno but there's also definitely an amount by which that political polarization is strictly due to social media algorithms keeping people in bubbles where they're constantly drip fed their own personalized optimal ratio of ragebait to wholesome garbage. It's kind of inevitable that anyone starts to lose it, if they've been confined to their schizo microculture for long enough.
That doesn't really describe capitalists, though. The point about the ownership class is that they're not really skilled in doing any of this, which is why the economy is organized in the eclectic and idiotic way that it is. I also don't understand what "envisions products and services" is, as a skill. I think we can all do that, it doesn't really make it a good or valuable service. Owning class dipshits envision services all the time, are awful at it, and they never end up getting made or doing anything useful.