Insane take - this is just ensuring that the only people who get to enjoy travel are the rich. Nothing in our society is improved by taking a privilege that's widely enjoyed and restricting it to the wealthy or very wealthy.
I wonder how far we are from being able to custom spec electronics to locally manufacture low volume dedicated hardware devices at the late 90s Sony level of quality. Is this something that's likely to be possible as 3D printers, cnc machines, AI design tools and microelectronics advance. Or is the combination of materials science and expertise impossible to ever replicate? Basically is a solar punk local fabrication future where you can custom build a CD Walkman, or equivalent technical device - in small run quantities, to high tolerances, making small runs of all the requisite components - even possible. Or do we need to 'wait for' nanobots or replicators for that kind of manufacturing?
They're not free to run, Kimi K3 needs to be run on the cloud, and the quantised versions aren't as capable. Unless you happen to have 3 - 5 TB of VRAM and an 8-node cluster of 8× NVIDIA H100s to run the full fat version. Plus the weights are not yet available to download in any case.
The robots linked above wouldn't be capable of vacuuming either. My point stands - the world is made for humans, we might remake an aspect of it for new vehicles that provided some radical advantage (as we did with airports or roads, although that would be a much larger undertaking with the level of complexities cities have today). But we're certainly not going to have twenty different labour saving devices roaming our homes, nor are we redesigning homes to facilitate such robots.
So if we do see domestic robots, they'll have to a) perform multi-domain functions, and b) fit into existing domestic spaces.
Long term, any generally useful domestic robot would have to have a pretty deep capacity for autonomy across a range of tasks - whether it's role specific or not. So it follows that it's much more likely we'll introduce humanoid robots (which already exist, starting at 30K), with the capacity for a wide range of subtle movements, and gradually add skills to them over time.
We already have roombas and dishwashers. I can't see us adding dedicated laundry folders, dedicated chef robots etc. There are social considerations in addition to the level of goofery that having numerous different devices to house and charge would involve.
Seems like your map lists pre-historic ring forts, not castles?
I'm not sure what the 'official' definition of a castle is, but I personally wouldn't consider a crannóg or something like Dún Aonghasa a castle. Nor would I consider a stand alone tower house a castle, although they might (along with gate lodges and great houses), sometimes be colloquially referred to as castles.
I think this perspective is now demonstrably false. It was basically the defacto position of most roboticists until a few months back. But we've already seen the cost of humanoid robots fall precipitously (even without the kind of mass production that genuinely useful home and real world intelligence would bring).
Which seems more likely, that cheap humanoids will continue to improve in dexterity, battery life, strength etc. Leveraging the vast investment in research into real world task training. Or - that we'll redesign millions of everyday objects to fit the limitations of current task specific robots?
If you answer the latter, I've got a whole bunch of mid century quirky labour saving inventions in the back room I'd like to sell you.
That makes sense. Viewed as just a store, it isn't the worst.
However - a store is no longer the competition. In terms of promoting independent music and giving the artists both control over distribution and profit, Bandcamp is almost the only game in town. However the complimentary service is streaming and the typical user is on mobile. It's awful for both mobile streaming and browsing. As well as recommendations in general.
If we were still in 2003 and Napster and it's successors were the alternative, bandcamp would be great. But record stores (outside of a few independent marquee stores like Amoeba in hip, high income cities) are now glorified merch stands and music is gatekept on evil services like spotify.
Just loaded up the bandcamp app for the first time in a while and my goodness is it godawful. Worse than I remember. Arcane icons, unclear features, total lack of centring the music I've already bought or the artists I've bought it from. It's a shop and that's not been enough for a very long time.
Lets bear in mind that most folks don't even have an mp3 player client on their phone. The distribution platform must - to stay useful, also be a listening solution. Bandcamp fails at even that.
Just to be clear - I very much want Bandcamp to succeed. Hell if I could roll back all technology to a point in the mid-late 2000s just before the smartphone I would. But in todays climate it has to improve or eventually become irrelevant.
I applaud bandcamp radio's existence, but their player doesn't even have a jog function. It's shocking.
So I've been a bandcamp user since close to the dawn of the service. The issues I commented on above don't relate to their curation emails but the poverty of the interface itself. Bandcamp has been widely and roundly, not to mention accurately criticised for it's technical / UX failures for a long time. It also has no social features whatsoever. Unfortunately a curated email isn't a replacement for proper recommendations based on similar users listening (as lastfm used to to, see above anecdote), content based recommendations, or genuine social recommendations. Not to mention the fact that half the writing staff were fired several years ago, and the quality of their curation fell off a cliff after that point.
The app and site are awful, and even finding stuff you've bought to play or download can be a nightmare if you own a lot of material. To site a specific example - I bought a back catalogue of sound effects records for work reasons. They have many dozens of individual releases - which makes navigating my other purchased records much more difficult.
Bandcamp also only allow you to 'uncover' the download links for tracks or albums one at a time, presumably to save bandwidth costs. I could go on and on.
It's a hypothetically great service that's absolutely crippled by not having been improved for a decade.
Agreed. Last FM is one of the great lost opportunities of web 2.0 (up there with the early location based social networks). The website still exists, and I still use it (despite painfully poor integration into iOS, requiring the third party paid client Marvis to synch). They offer unclear value subscription to access all your data, and at this point, most dedicated music geeks have probably moved to OSS / local solutions integrating musicbrainz datasets.
There is a world in which lastfm is the one of the most popular social networks, tiktok before tiktok (which started as music.ly) if you like. There's another in which it developed into a Tidal like successful boutique streaming platform. Instead it's a half forgotten not really working nonsense.
My favourite lastfm story, is that back when it was somewhat popular (at least indie popular), someone commented on my lastfm profile to say they'd been in Tokyo and been approached by the members of a hyper niche Swedish band (Strip Squad) because one of the members had heard their music being played in a park. The guy playing them had found them because of my lastfm. Lastfm at the time actively suggested connecting with other users who had similar psychographic taste.
I'm all in favour of supporting local music scenes. Just personally I don't enjoy gigs, never have really. Sound is bad, always too loud, vibes are too alcohol based (at least here in Ireland), they're pricey etc. I'd actually love it if there was more of a 'listening cafe' Japanese style venue / scene here. There's a popular bar that poses as one, but it has a terrible, wildly over loud sound system in a box room with a loud open bar next door.
To counter this - if you were around in the blog music era, being young had little to do with the network effect. Shitty pop music was in the ascendent culturally at the time, and the huge indie revival of the late 2000s and early 2010s happened primarily online. Hypemachine and the hundreds of mp3 blogs pushed novelty, obscurity, cross genre experiments, lost records etc. I'd finished college by this point, but dove right back into music and broadened my tastes considerably.
Discoverability and usability in general is godawful on bandcamp. Always has been, and shows no signs of improving. Never heard of Qobuz. What made the mp3 blog era so unique was exactly the network effect referenced above. The curators had audiences, they were aggregated from larger platforms and both deeply specific and hyper erudite. There was a whole culture around this online, and waves of excitement around certain artists, which would spill into 'in the know' circles offline.
Googling who's playing at local festivals or using some random app isn't and can't remotely be the same thing. I could see a music based social network taking off in the future. Currently there's nothing with the buy in, and the existing platforms are way too financially invested in pushing major labels, AI etc to become real recommendation and sharing engines.
Moreover we've known for quite a while now that glial cells also participate in cognition and moderate learning (e.g.: [1]). When you take those connections into account the numbers get really staggering. 85 billion glial cells with trillions of protein channels facilitating communication between the glial syncytium [2].
Slashdot went the same way more than a decade ago. It could reflect more the microcosm of the aging, wealthy, silicon valley ycombinator community than a sea change in attitudes among tech people or US intelligencia in general.
You're aware the UK isn't in the EU right, and hasn't been for quite some time?
Also that AfD and National Rally aren't yet, and have never been in control of the German or French parliaments.
So yes, it's in the US that it's shifted. US money and influence (Musk and Theil money and feet on the ground influence through figures like Bannon), as well as US social media companies running US aligned algorithms, are an enormously significant factor in the rise of the right in Europe.
I think US based folks perhaps aren't aware of what Musk has been doing in Europe politically. Specifically promoting - appearing at conferences, applying political pressure as well as public statements etc - actual fascists. Not right wing controversial figures etc, but literal authoritarian, anti-migrant, anti-EU, anti-democracy fascists. Not to be glib but if this was Mussolini-AI, or Pinochet-AI or what have you, the reaction would be the same.
If Musk succeeds in his attempts to bring fascism to Europe and breakup the EU, the humanitarian results (ie.: a land war in Europe), will be far worse even than the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to his dismantlement of USAID.
I'm no expert on haplogroups either, but cursory googling seems to indicate they are far more numerous and nuanced than the late victorian, scientific-racism derived classifications used today - i.e.: black, white, asian etc.
But we don't need to be specialists in population genetics to observe that human cultures interbreed. We can't reliably correlate visible biomarkers with genetic origin, especially in contemporary multicultural societies or any of the places where numerous land invasions over thousands of years have ensured continual group mixing. For example Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, Mongolian steppe etc. My nephew is half 'Irish', half 'Indian'. But what does that mean exactly? His ancestry is likely to contain contributions from hundreds of subgroups and linguistic populations across South East India, as well as Ireland and the UK more broadly. Visibly he looks 'Indian', but what does that mean for a determinant of race?
These concepts were engineered in the colonial era. Only the names have changed. In college my friends and I picked up a cut price set of colonial era British encyclopedia. They had lots to say on racial groups, with detailed descriptions of the personality types, intelligence and appearance of groups like 'negroids' and 'hibernians'. Of course none of this was based on what we'd today term scientific reasoning or measurement - and yet the conclusions and stereotypes persist in our culture. Irrespective of powerful counterexamples demonstrating that culture and economics determine an enormous amount of educational and attainment potential. e.g.: Nigerian American economic success [1], the explosive boom and continual exceptional economic performance of Ireland [2], or the absurd difference in educational outcomes of countries which are ethnically homogenous but politically divided - e.g.: North and South Korea, Haiti and Dominican Republic etc.
Remember interindividual differences radically outpace intergroup differences. Which is not to suggest that highly homogenous ethnic groups (e.g.: askinazi jews, or certain West African populations) can't have significant differences in athletic ability. But such differences are on population levels much smaller than observable 'races' per say.
Physiognomic appearance does not equate with genetically discrete populations, so while we can obviously visually identify that people have broadly asian, african, european, polynesian dissent etc; this doesn't equate with other factors stereotypically associated with those 'races'. Race is a folk taxonomy. Ethnicity and genetics are complex - like most things when you make more than a cursory investigation.
So while you might not be racist for thinking so, you're at best misinformed.
Duello, T. M., Rivedal, S., Wickland, C., & Weller, A. (2021). Race and genetics versus ‘race’ in genetics. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 9(1), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoab018
Herd, P., Mills, M. C., & Dowd, J. B. (2021). Reconstructing Sociogenomics Research: Dismantling Biological Race and Genetic Essentialism Narratives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 62(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465211018682
Hunt, L. M., & Megyesi, M. S. (2008). Genes, race and research ethics: who’s minding the store? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(7), 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.021295
Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2024). Misunderstanding of race as biology has deep negative biological and social consequences. Experimental Physiology, 109(8), 1240–1243.
https://doi.org/10.1113/ep091491