I think a more apt comparison might be that it's like saying an actor who has played roles which involve them pretending to snort cocaine isn't addicted so acting in roles that involve the portrayal of drug use isn't addictive.
see what i find puzzling is that warehouses have flat floors right? so what benefit does the upfront cost of building something with a bunch of extra actuators for all the joints in 2 legs, and the ongoing running costs of far less mechanically efficient bipedal locomotion have over wheeled movement like their other robot, the Handle, offers? i should mention i know nothing about robots so i'm sure there must be a good reason for it, but this thought has been on my mind ever since I saw george hotz bring it up in the Comma Body reveal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhvt0ZmqmGQ
as a layperson, i feel like biomimicry only makes sense for hands and arms, at least for the vast majority of commercial use cases
For UK banks on my Graphened Pixel 6a I can use the apps for HSBC, First Direct, Barclays, NatWest, RBS, Co-Operative Bank and Metro Bank with no issues, and have only had trouble with the Lloyds Bank app as of an update from maybe 2-3 months ago which throws an error saying they've detected I'm using a jailbroken/rooted device
yeah i'm hoping it was just an auth server outage and browser sessions werent invalidated because this basically described my situation, but i wont have access to the only device i own that still (hopefully) has a an active login session until the weekend to find out
As a hypothetical owner of both a Tesla and an autonomous mower, i would not want my Tesla to swerve (at least in any way that might endanger me or other humans) for a squirrel, whereas I would probably want my autonomous mower to "swerve" to avoid a hedgehog, if not because i like little animals then just because i wouldn't want to clear up entrails off of my lawn
I don't think it is, but you havent really given me anything to present a counter argument against... i just dont think there is any abuse for me to minimize, if it wasnt clear from the sarcasm oozing off my previous comment
yet as technological innovation gets faster over time, you would've thought the optimal patent term length to balance the innovation-incentivizing and innovation-chilling effects would decrease
It gets worse, it seems even his great grandfather was participating in the abuse from beyond the grave. From the article: "When I was younger, I looked at my great grandad's prisoner-of-war diaries and I just love everything about the period."
Even his teachers were getting in on the sickening brainwashing operation: ""Callum went away on a school trip when he was about 12 and came back with an old-fashioned hat on," she says.
"I thought it was funny, and I just asked him, 'Where did you find this?'.
"He said 'that's the way I want to dress, that's going to be me'.
"Ever since then, that's just been Callum," his mum says."
technically they tossed it onto the earth's core, which is estimated to be around 5000°C. though even if it had been a (completely uncovered, unrugged, and un-folded-up-sweatered) tile floor, i would absolutely expect most manufacturers' phones to hold up just fine at that height...
to get serious for a moment though, id like to go against the anti-glass grain by pointing out that supposedly, successive generations of Corning Gorilla Glass get stronger by some multiple each time, yet we see phone screens smashing with the same regularity because manufacturers are just using thinner panes each time (probably chasing thinner phones more so than some kind of planned obsolescence conspiracy, although both explanations are credible). so we end up with a tradeoff between thickness, durability and glass backs, but that beats having to rule out durable phones with glass backs entirely from being able to exist
I see a lot of San Franciscans online complain about homeless people leaving their feces and used needles in the streets and harassing people going about their lives, I don't see so many complaints about them eating food. Surely an approach that maximises the freedom for all would be one that criminalizes the actually harmful behaviour, rather than going after the segment of society whose existence correlates strongly with that behaviour. It just seems like going after Tony Soprano by putting italians into internment camps, rather than devoting police activity to capturing mafia criminals
The trouble with using the word "theft" while making an argument about unauthorized copying is that it never holds water - does the popular singer lose their ability to sing? If not then the closest you can really get and still come across as genuine is to say they "stole" the uniqueness of their talent, rather than their unique talent itself
What's legitimate about that? That it saves the inefficiency of leaving an empty slot? I'd have thought a system that offers both the same legitimacy and more fairness too would have test bookings arranged in a stack, where cancelled slots get offered to whoever is booked into the proceeding one should they wish to move it forward, or if they don't, then whoever had the next slot booked after that, and so on. So any holes that come up in the schedule get closed pretty quickly, and nobody gets preferential treatment simply because their driving school happened to own the other slots
sounds like you might be referring to this paper published by the st louis fed https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-03... - i'll be honest and admit i haven't read through it but i do see it mentioned on here a lot so it's been sitting in my bookmarks untouched for a while, just thought i'd link it for anyone curious
I think this is a very appropriate argument when it comes to offensive physical weapons, like if cops with tasers are in a shootout with a gang strapped up with (illegal) AKs it's easy to see an undesirable outcome from that situation for just about everyone except the gang members - but does this same logic really hold when it comes to spy tech? Is the only way to stop a bad guy with remote access to your machine a good guy with the same?
But isn't your example demonstrating a tradeoff between freedom and quick painless death, whereas an octopus that lives its life in captivity only to also be eaten alive has to suffer the worst of both worlds?
Were they as able bodied as they were aged 20-25 though? If 80 years is the cutoff at which we get bored with staying alive, would you rather spend those 80 years in a "biologically" 20-year-old body then make the conscious choice for "something new" or gradually deteriorate for about half of those 80 years then die without the choice not to?