This isn't even well done. I also opened it in a private browsing window, and the ad I was served was the most obviously AI-generated slop hawking some kind of health drink...that was clearly just a badly generated bottle of apple cider vinegar (text on the bottle was all mangled but it's exactly the kind my grocery store sells), and the "doctor" speaking barely synced up with his voice. Do people falling for these just have no sense of the uncanny valley?
I feel like self-driving cars are, pretty objectively, the single least environmentally friendly mass transit solution (more cars being made and using more rare-earth minerals to produce them, more cars being driven rather than increasing public transit usage). What's the argument that not liking self-driving cars is "anti-environmental"?
I'd say yes. The goal of a self-driving car is to emulate humans. If the car is panicking and reverting to "extreme safety mode" in situations where a normal human is going to be fine, then that's a failure.
> IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things.
This. Employees in the various sub-companies and divisions usually don't even know who most of the executive leadership is outside their little world. There is no cohesive "IBM" anymore, and I don't think there has been for a very long time.
I don't think that would have gotten them much of anywhere. They already spent a decade trying to find markets for Watson to fit and generally failing at it. The problem with Watson wasn't technology, it was that it had no direction.
The lights are too bright and poorly aligned. I walk regularly, and its more than just the tesla's and mini's at fault (Teslas are definitely some of the worst in my experience though, along with Rivian)
> On a recent episode of the Carmudgeon Show podcast, auto journalist Jason Cammisa described a phenomenon occurring with some LED headlights in which there are observable minor spots of dimness among an otherwise bright field of light. “With complex arrays of LEDs and of optics,” he said, “car companies realized they can engineer in a dark spot where it’s being measured, but the rest of the field is vastly over-illuminated. And I’ve had now two car companies’ engineers, when I played stupid and said, ‘What’s the dark spot?’ … And the lighting engineers are all fucking proud of themselves: ‘That’s where they measure the fucking thing!’ And I’m like, ‘You assholes, you’re the reason that every fucking new car is blinding the shit out of everyone.’”
Thanks to automatic high beams, its a problem in residential urban areas too. My neighborhood does not have much in the way of streetlights, and automatic high beams operate by detecting whether there is significant oncoming light. That means that in my neighborhood, cars with AHB always have their high beams up when there isn't oncoming car traffic. They also tend to function really badly around road curves in residential areas, where they'll affect other drivers.
PSA: Turn off your automatic high beams, they aren't worth it the damage they do to the rest of us.
Good headlights are. The modern levels of brightness do not qualify as good headlights. Modern headlights become unsafe as soon as any other person is on the business end of them, due to the fact that they can no longer see properly. It puts other vehicles at the risk of crashing from being blinded, both cars and smaller vehicles like bicycles.
Think about it from the perspective of a possible benefactor. If they're being lured in with these images at all, there's clearly an emotional element to it. If they start realizing the images weren't real at all, there's a very good chance they will stop donating because you have lied to them. The crux of their support was based on falsehoods.
Personally, I'd prefer donating to an organization that isn't trying to use "sad" images to gut-punch me in the first place. There's a reason the "Arms Of An Angel" ASCPA ads are a laughingstock.
As of just a couple years ago, I was able to run the latest Pop on even a late 2011 MBP. It's the only distribution I found that cleanly handled the wifi stack, display, and power management, although it took some tweaking for power management in particular to work right.
I also fear that the centralization of the web to a handful of websites has made a revival impossible. If 80% of your stumbles are just reddit posts or imgur links, whats the point?
If that's the plan, then you should attach an expiration date to it. Tell the consumers how long you plan to keep things running, and commit to it. Don't just shrug and go "I dunno".
I think bankruptcy is clearly its own category here. This is targeted at companies who release something then shutter it because they didn't sell enough copies.
> It needs to also day 1 launch with a self-hostable standalone server distro instead of the crappy spaghetti mess you live coded on an EC2 machine?
If you can't meet these very achievable goals, perhaps the game isn't at a point where it should be sold for money. What are you going to do when that ec2 instance gets randomware and becomes inaccessible, just tell all the people who paid you money to go home and forget about it?
I love indie developers, but if one can't have a modicum of professionalism, then they shouldn't ask people to pay for a product.
The entire justification that has always been given for CEOs deserving astronomical salaries is "because they take responsibility when things go wrong", hence the term "golden parachute". We should be more upset that this isn't the norm anymore, because it's proof that CEOs don't deserve their salaries.
>3. No likes. No scores of any kind. If you show people a number, they will try to make it go up. No one tracks a score with their friends.
I agree with most of these, but I'm iffy on this one. "No one tracks a score with their friends" is not really true, it makes people feel good to see encouragement and feedback from their friends. There's no reason that encouragement has to be restricted to text comments and messages. Without feedback, you're essentially just screaming into the void knowing someone could be listening.
If the things I'm posting could get feedback but don't, that tells me that the things I'm saying aren't really hitting with any of my friends. That's a valuable thing to know, whether or not you choose to act on it.
Facebook in the early years was for the most part exactly like what you are suggesting, but with likes, and I at least remember it being a pretty enjoyable place for a few years there (I joined at the very end of 2006).
I always thought the idea there was that a website needed to grow organically before google would rank it highly, which makes sense to me. Prove yourself first by building a network, they aren't obligated to help out.
The difference here is that the play store is the one and only way to get apps for a regular user. By putting that banner up, they're discouraging anyone from trying it even if they found out about it through other channels.
The analog in 2000 or so would be if Microsoft added a warning banner to any website you visited in Internet Explorer with a low link count.
This isn't even well done. I also opened it in a private browsing window, and the ad I was served was the most obviously AI-generated slop hawking some kind of health drink...that was clearly just a badly generated bottle of apple cider vinegar (text on the bottle was all mangled but it's exactly the kind my grocery store sells), and the "doctor" speaking barely synced up with his voice. Do people falling for these just have no sense of the uncanny valley?