Where I thought this was going: entering the Brand Age of AI. LLMs become commoditized, so the big labs increasingly focus on marketing and rhetoric to maintain market share. See the Anthropic spat with DoD (though I do applaud them for that, whatever their motivations).
Ditto. I kept waiting for the AI comparison. My interpretation was less agentic coding than the commodification of LLMs, forcing Anthropic and OpenAI into a pivot to focus on brand. Anthropic's spat with the DoD could be viewed through that lens: losing money on a deal to better position the brand.
It's only effective if "Children's devices are almost always set up by parents", which is a big assumption. My parents were about as tech savvy as you could reasonably expect but I still got away with buying R-rated video games and such. Kids are persistent and the dangers aren't always obvious.
If kids are being persistent and the parent is indifferent to it, then online age verification won't be effective either. Children will just ask mom and dad to verify their Roblox and Discord accounts.
For sure, I'm not blanket supporting age verification technology. Just saying the alternative proposed by the parent commenter isn't very reliable either.
Both. The same as for other materials we don't want kids to access, like alcohol. We can't expect parents to always be watching their kids. That's not how societies have ever worked.
But what I'm actually questioning in my comment above is effectiveness of the technology solution proposed at the device level.
It's effective insofar as the parents secure the device. If it's a general purpose computer, and the parent forgets to lock the bios, kids will just live boot into Ubuntu or some other OS and do as they please.
Or they may install keyloggers (including hardware loggers) to get the parents' password and then go update their account.
Certainly this may help hinder them, but it won't take long for them to learn the basics of curcumvention, and the cost is regulated speech for OS manufacturers.
Yes it's a common misconception that you can only make wide crumbed hipster crusty loaves. Those are great but if you want plain white bread, buns, croissants, etc etc it's all possible to do.
As others have said it’d wreck the flavour but you can go the other way and use spent grain from the mash in making bread which adds some pretty interesting texture and flavour.
Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid?
Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?
I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
I saw complaints that amounted to “it’s more expensive to build out large industrial facilities in bay area than in Reno”
okay what’s different in Reno hmmm I could be like the website and try to imply it’s only environmental regulations… or I could acknowledge that land price and availability is drastically different and also labor costs…. But then that wouldn’t help my contrived argument that it’s all the pesky regulations.
Again, without apples to apples comparisons to other areas, wha are you actually able to conclude from the website other than stoking confirmation bias?
I like that your vague response to the question is either “this provides no value without context” or “the value it provides without context is a secret that only I know” but phrased in a silly way
Fair point. My actual conclusion: California has made it structurally impossible to manufacture things it consumes, and has exported the environmental burden to places with fewer protections.
You have a good point. California is an area that makes some things but not all things. From this data we can conclude that California is an area on earth where there are people.
This places California somewhere between the north pole (produces no things) and replicators from Star Trek (produces all of the things) in terms of productivity. This is useful information because it makes the reader feel li
“The question is whether the data is accurate, not whether it is complete”
Oh so Lies of omission don’t exist? Deception researchers will be very keen to hear how that works.
So if someone Mormon bubbles a photo of you that also has a kid in it, you’re fine being arrested for indecency and registering as a sex offender? After all, that’s just omitting a few pixels, not a lie or deception in your book.
- collect garbage more frequently in smaller trucks
taiwan has very cute small garbage trucks and they have a ice-cream-truck like song signalling for people to bring whatever trashbags they have out to the truck, so you don't even have piles of garbage outside for days waiting for the weekly truck. quite nice.
Having less garbage is a whole other issue. Small utility vehicles makes a lot of sense but doesn't seem to be the way it's done in NA. Maybe it’s a labour cost thing. But even the long haul trucks are huge here compared to the rest of the world. They haul the same amount but the cab and engine are enormous. Maybe because the roads are wider they can just make everything bigger.
For every scientific discipline that is well represented across modern corporate labs there are a dozen that are not. Most "serious" research is not directly connected to making money.
Pretend China is 20 countries. Each country now has lower emissions than the US. Anyone can play that stupid game. Give up the games, think about solutions. China is working hard. Are we?
Why should should per-capita be most important? If country A keeps their population stable and emissions under control, but country B of the same starting population, keeps doubling their population and doubling their emissions, why should country A have an increasingly declined allowance of emissions when they were more responsible in keeping their total emissions down (by not having as many people)?
Because per capita is the only thing that makes sense.
If China were to split into 10 countries each emitting 10% of what they do now it'd be the exact same emissions, but according to you it would be much better.
Similarly if the EU would become one country, that country would be high up on the list, much higher than member countries now! Oh no!
Looking at per capita emissions is much more fair.
Individuals can of course make choices to reduce their emissions, Americans more than most since they're starting higher. Buy less new stuff, eat less meat, fly less, etc.
But policy is where real change needs to be made, and the effects of policy still scale with population in most cases.
If country B splits into countries C, D, E and F, all of which emit less than country A, has it found an effective way to reduce emissions? Should all countries adopt the Monaco lifestyle to defeat global warming? I guess if you want to find a fair way to measure administration of land you could emmisions per hectare or rainfall.
We're going to need to become a lot more creative about what and how we test if we're ever to reach dark factory levels. Unit tests and integration tests are one thing, but truly testing against everything in a typical project requirements document is another thing.
The team I saw doing this had a fake Slack channel full of fake users, each of which was constantly hammering away trying out different things against a staging environment version of the system.
That was just one of the tricks they were using, and this was a couple of months ago so they've no-doubt come up with a bunch more testing methods since then.
reply