daltotron

daltotron , 9 days ago

So an interesting thing I've noticed people doing is basically claiming that whatever other side is being astroturfed by the "real evil", right. "Fossil fuel is funding renewable FUD of nuclear reactors!" or "Fossil fuels is funding nuclear FUD of renewables!". You can also see this with liberals claiming that anyone who disagrees with the DNC is a Russian bot, and with people who disagree with libs claiming that libs fund radical right-wing candidates as an election strategy and that this is one of the reasons why they are basically just as bad as those right-wingers.

The core thing you need to understand about this, as a claim, is that they can both be true. They can both be backed opposition, controlled opposition, astroturfing. Because it's not so much that they're funding one racehorse that they want to be their opposition, so much as they are going to fund both sides, plant bad faith actors among both sides, bad faith discourse and division, thought terminating cliches, logical fallacies, whatever, and then by fueling the division, they've successfully destroyed their opposition. The biggest help to the fossil fuels lobby isn't the fact that conversations about nuclear or renewables are happening when "we should be pushing, we should be in emergency mode, everyone should agree with me or get busted" right, as part of this "emergency mode" is us having these conversations. No, the biggest help to fossil fuels lobbies is the nature of the discourse, rather than the subjects of the discourse.

Also I find it stupid that people are arguing for all in on one of the other. That's dumb. Really, very incredibly dumb. Mostly as I see this discourse happening in a disconnected top-down vacuum separate from any real world concerns because everyone just wants to be "correct" in the largest sense of the word and then have that be it. Realistically, renewables and nuclear are contextually dependant. Renewables can be better supplemented by energy storage solutions to solve their not matching precisely the power usage curves and trends, but a lot of those proposed storage solutions require large amounts of concrete, careful consideration of environmental effects, and large amounts engineering, i.e. the same shit as nuclear. It can both be true that baseload doesn't matter so much as things like solar can more closely match the power usage curves naturally for desert climates where large amounts of sunlight and heat will create larger needs for A/C, and it can also be true that baseload is a reality in other cases where you can't as easily transition power needs or try to offset them without larger amounts of infrastructural investment or power losses. Can't exactly preheat homes in the day so they stay warm at night, in a cold climate, if the r-values for your homes are ass because everyone has a disconnected suburban shithovel that they're not recouping maintenance costs of when they pay taxes.

These calculations of cost offsets and efficiencies have to be made in context, they have to be based in reality, otherwise we're just arguing about fucking nothing at all. Maybe I will also hold water in the debates for money not being a great indicator of what's possible, probable, or what's the best long term solution for humanity, too, just to put that out there. But God damn this debate infuriates me to no end because people want to have their like, universal one size fits all top down kingly decree take of, well is this good or bad, instead of just understanding a greater, more nuanced take on the subject.

If you wanna have a top-down take on what's the best, you probably want global, big solar satellites, that beam energy down with microwave lasers.

daltotron , 11 days ago

You know I do kinda wonder what effect that would have culturally, especially if that became a kind of trend or mainstay. Like, obviously a big investigation would take place as to the cause of death. Doubt they would come up with anything, but obviously, huge scandal. After that, do the successors keep getting killed since they'd probably be the same or worse, or what happens? What would happen in response to that? Would they rename the party, launch further investigations, would they attempt to dissolve the party? Would they attempt to believe in different ideals out of a kind of fear or natural selection, or what? Would they all just devolve into extremely conspiratorial thought as they desperately tried to ward it off?

I mean, if they figured it out, then they might even just start putting them out under aliases or fake names or something.

daltotron , 10 days ago

I mean the government pretty much already has a death note, of a kind. If you're not Gary Webb, then they could always just slip some shit in your water main or whatever, or otherwise just kinda kill you however they want. So it's not all that useful for them to have, other than being cheaper and maybe making some political assassinations much easier.

daltotron , 12 days ago

I mean idk if it's that funny of a time. Even if they were criticizing 5-6 months ago, and who's to say they weren't, it's a much more engaged in conversation right now, so it's not a fuckin shocker that people are gonna start talking about it.

daltotron , 17 days ago

Nature doesn't have a consciousness, it just is. I think to anthropomorphize it as having one, to conceptualize it as being some kind of actor with goals or morals, is kind of to not understand it fundamentally, or to accept what it is. It's just another extension of the naturalist fallacy.

That's not really to advocate, you know, for climate change, or what have you, but I also don't really believe that this is going to be the thing that takes people out, weirdly? I mean, certainly, the holocene extinction is going to be a thing, and it's going to cause mass human and animal suffering and extinction on a scale that is only precedented by meteors and the like. That's looking pretty inevitable, at this point, to me. The thing is, I don't think the species as a whole, the human species, really needs or relies on nature to survive, at this point. Pollinators, maybe, but aren't we at a point where corn and other crops upon which we rely for a good, like, 50% of our mass produced highly processed food is really reliant on a lot of "natural" things. Or, isn't reliant on like, nature, as a whole. It's all as a result of discrete resources which are highly individualized and pretty isolated. Maybe large amounts of the land becomes non-arable, I dunno.

I think more broadly though, what I find to be slightly more probable than that as a counterargument is frankly that I can kind of imagine the end of the world, without the end of capitalism. Most people say it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, right, but they still imagine the end of the world as being kind of mutually inclusive to the end of capitalism. No, I think capitalism, I think capitalists, our plutocrats, our idiots in charge, would probably rather keep the planet on a tenuous kind of life support, where you don't really have non-globalized, local ecology, environmental variation, the like. I think they would rather prevent the apocalypse by whatever margin is most deemed most profitable. We have schemes for cloud-seeding to block out more UV light, which would probably kill a bunch of plants and mess up a ton of ecosystems from geographically irregular and potentially unpredictable irrigation. We have schemes for dumping huge amounts of iron oxide into the ocean to kickstart massive algae blooms that can sequester carbon dioxide and probably increase ocean acidification. We have schemes for genetically modifying human and food supply-threatening viruses and invasive species to start to self-terminate after the genes propagate to like, the seventh generation. Hell, there's even some level by which people might argue that invasive species are good, because they provide an inherent surplus population sourced from natural ecology that humans could kind of skim the top off. When those things end up going sideways, or otherwise threatening the bottom line, we'll probably start seeing people just implement more short term solutions, that kick the can five years down the road, while mass ecological and human extinctions are constantly ongoing and potential quality of life plummets for the general population. Apocalypse as an ongoing process, rather than as a singular event.

Thinking that an ecological apocalypse would be the end of it, that humans are that easily crushed and nature can/will just go on totally unbothered, I think that's a rather optimistic viewpoint. It also missess the mass amounts of suffering which are currently ongoing by looking to some theoretical future, much like AI tech evangelists do with the singularity, idiot leftists tend to do with "the revolution", evangelicals do with the rapture. We need to, uhh, maybe figure out a better structure and approach, here.

daltotron , 17 days ago

Yeah see, that's what I'm talking about. Like what the fuck would the water wars even be? That shit don't make no sense, it's not like water is a non-renewable resource. Freshwater is maybe a larger concern, right, but climate change means more solar heat which means more water evaporation which means more fresh rainwater and not less. Maybe in combination with increased acidification because of emissions and related things, maybe in combination with a decreased capacity to absorb that rainwater because of desertification and much increased rainwater runoff due to too large a volume of water for a dried out landscape. No part of that really involves a water war, though. That's just some pop culture shit.

daltotron , 18 days ago

https://youtu.be/rTymqnpfPWo

I dunno I'm just gonna leave this here I guess

daltotron , 21 days ago

I mean we technically do have the hot dog car in real life, so that's neat

daltotron , 21 days ago

Fuck that shit, all the gas lawn tools should be backwards converted to run on hydrolysis-produced rocket fuel, feasibility and efficiency and safety be damned.

daltotron , 25 days ago

i’m fairly sure the point (whether calculated, or more likely, mostly not) of having politics moved there is because there is no political topic that could be discussed properly there. it makes for good, distracting noise.

It's more stupid than that. The idea is that 140 characters is a lower barrier of entry for a reader, compared to reading a series of paragraphs that might be able to at least talk about something, or attempt to summarize an issue. It's why accounts like wint can pop off, and become so prolific.

daltotron , 25 days ago

What's the pod?

daltotron , 23 days ago

I mean I just don't think it's so much a calculated effort by the ruling class as kind of a natural evolution of the market taking hold of and exploiting the human mind to the nth possible degree, such as they have always done.

daltotron , 23 days ago

I'm gonna be honest most times when I write a response I'm taking a shit and not paying very much attention to the thread which it belongs beyond my vaguest recollection to what was said

daltotron , 27 days ago

Yeah the self-love schtick does feel a little bit reductive, and kind of along the lines of "oh that person has depression, so that's why they're sad" levels of incuriousness about like, the potential context and origins of "mental illness", beyond just attributing everything to better ideas identification and purely physiological causes that are completely contextually devoid.

I dunno, I really do like. Find it absolutely fascinating, the degree to which your average person can be totally placated by a meaningless platitude.

daltotron , 27 days ago

Incredible violence is just a kind of love, you know? Violence is predicated on a kind of love. You must become intimately familiar with your opponent, with their movements, their mind, in order to do effective violence, to cause effective destruction. Violence is an intimate act, it requires a kind of love, begets a kind of love. Sort of the idea of, the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. Hate and love are just two lenses through which the same core compulsion is viewed, and violence is just another kind of outlet for that compulsion.

daltotron , 26 days ago

I mean you don't think that the people who do the drone strikes have just outsourced that process to a series of bureaucratic apparatuses? The man who pulls the trigger is the last step in that process, before that, they have people dedicated to watching and selecting targets.

daltotron , 26 days ago

I mean I think it's pretty likely that those wedding convoys are just being drone striked because they specifically want to inflict as much pain and displeasure as possible. Terror, one might say. "Strategic bombing". It might very well be accidental, but it might also just be the case that they pull the trigger and then apologize later.

daltotron , 27 days ago

Yeah, I'll moan.

daltotron , 1 month ago

but have you considered: what if I drain you of twelve gorillion dollars, or give you nothing, and that's the negotiation? what then? have you considered that: what if I just like heedlessly extend the metaphor to the current political state of affairs in such a way that it reinforces my own biases and points, what then, what would you do then? surely, the logic doesn't hold up if I tell you that the alternative is horrible, right?

wait, you're telling me the logic does hold up still in that instance? how about no? have you considered what if I just said no, to that? what if I just denied the logic and decided to be obstinate, what then? what if actually, I like eating shit, huh?

daltotron , 1 month ago

I gotta say this is a little bit funny to post this and then also there's another guy posting this in the same reply, it's very botlike. no comment on the politics but I find it amusing as a response

daltotron , 1 month ago

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-korea-ban-skinny-jeans/

The amount of unconfirmed or secondhand propaganda we get out of north korea is pretty astounding, I wouldn't at face believe, say, whatever a guardian article posts about them, for instance, and probably also not anything from radio free asia, or probably defectors with inconsistent stories that are funded by the south korean government, that sort of shit.

daltotron , 1 month ago

They have a content syndication agreement with the guardian, and I think they poorly cite their sources in most stories. I wouldn't really have great confidence with their reporting.

daltotron , 1 month ago

yeah that's too much singular linguistic prescriptivism for me. I've definitely seen a litany of people here called tankies. Lots of people just decrying US imperialism, particularly what's happening in Gaza, lots of people criticizing Biden, that's a classic way to get accused of being a tankie, I think I've also seen people advocating for basic shit like healthcare being called tankies. Prison reform is a big one that'll get you called a tankie, as well as lots of anti-police takes, for whatever reason.

Yeah. It's a term that's like originating out of apologia for the suppression of the Hungarian revolution, it's not used for that anymore. The definition has changed historically and from person to person over time. It doesn't have this clear meaning that you seem to think it does. It can have that clear meaning for you, sure, you've defined your use case, but you can't really guarantee that every other person using that term is going to use it correctly. It would be, you know, theoretically, pretty advantageous for some right wingers to pose as left wing and then just kind of throw around a term commonly used in left wing circles as a derogatory term to shut down discussions, with basically no coherence to use.

daltotron , 1 month ago

Treatment was less bad in Cuba iirc but still included sending people to go work on sugar plantations, which is pretty back-breaking and horrifying labor. I mean, horrifying to the point that the Spanish colonial state were willing to force their slaves to do it, you know?

Luckily this isn't an issue anymore as cuba has somewhat recently liberalized their constitution and legislated free medical care for trans people and decriminalized homosexuality, probably in no small part due to the "thaw" that Obama put in place (probably one of his small wins), opening them up for better tourism and money, that trump then reversed and Biden has maintained.

But shhh, you didn't hear any that from me, Cuba's only allowed to be evil.

daltotron , 1 month ago

You could just tell them that supporting Russia and China is bad, or that those are authoritarian regimes, and cite sources, rather than dismissing them out of hand, based on what the surface level interpretation of their arguments are, you know?

We have more than a one word limit here on Lemmy, people can respond with thought out rebuttals, rather than one word dismissals. It's just that the one word dismissals are easier to write and understand, so they're more likely to get thrown at an argument early and then up votes after someone skims a long ass set of paragraphs.

There's not like an either-or option there, I also really question your "well if we don't discard tankies then we're gonna have to discard all communists, and how would you like that!". That doesn't make any sense to me. Your "Pick one" is a false dichotomy. People are capable of more nuanced conversations, just labelling people and throwing around out of hand dismissals isn't going to be helpful in actually working out anything, convincing those people, or convincing bystanders. Even if you were to convince bystanders with such a tactic, you'd be convincing them in a bad faith way where they don't fully understand the usage of the term, so they'd be just as likely to throw it around as an out of hand dismissal without understanding what it means.

But then I suppose, you know, it's probably gonna be easier for most people to just call me a tankie and move on, right, on the basis that my argument advocating for nuanced responses and more well-reasoned argumentation is actually carrying water and "providing a smokescreen for tankies", so I might as well be one, right? Term gets stretched even further.

I have always been of the belief that if you are to respond, it better be with a well-reasoned and dignified comment, rather than just a kind of lazy dismissal. If people are doing shit that's actually against the rules, then report them. If they're engaging in bad faith behavior, you are more likely to reveal that by responding to them with good faith behavior than also responding with bad faith behavior. If you aren't going to say something nice, don't bother to say anything at all, or, put another way, don't feed the trolls.

Dunno why internet rules 101 is becoming such an uncommon thing now.

daltotron , 1 month ago

Or or, if you wanna defend Tankies, I literally dont have time for you. Do I give Nazi’s time to explain the nuances of their views? No, same goes for Tankies

That's what I said people should do though? Just ignore comments and move on if they're not actually willing to engage with what's being said

daltotron , 1 month ago

I dunno I'm just gonna drop a 50 minute video link on this one and bounce, 'cause if I chronically post my dogshit opinions every time one of these boomer ass articles gets posted here and gets upvoted a million times by the masturbatory elder millennial ex-redditor linux userbase, then I'm gonna be here for a fuckin eternity

daltotron , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

I mean they're literally just the guys who read about like, say, 4chan being bad, right, but then never actually use the site itself to see. I mean, yeah, if you go on /pol/ or /r9k/, and then scroll around for like 5 minutes, you can find some content that's going to reinforce your bias that the site is kind of an ontologically evil fascist hellscape, but if you go on /mu/ it's gonna be no more toxic than basically any other forum you could go on. It's just people thoughtlessly parroting the narratives that they've heard from other people.

I don't like tiktok, I don't like lemmy, I kind of hate social media even though it's like infested my life because I have no self control, but I'm not gonna be like. This is such an epic pog moment! I'm so pegged outta my gourd! when it gets banned. Because I've used it, thoroughly, not just first glance, and I actually understand the pros and cons of the platform. These guys don't have that, they only have like, the white stale wonderbread and wood chips of social media usage, they only have reddit, and even more libbed up privacy reddit, i.e. the most obvious and in your face social media platforms of all time that give you (ostensibly, in practice, it's the opposite) a very high amount of control over what they're seeing. Of course they hate tiktok. On top of the brainrot privacy concerns they all probably have, they're gonna discard it on the basis that they don't have the self-control to use its platform, and project that onto everyone else. It's like a puritan hating coffee, or cocaine, without understanding that it's a great morning drink, or without understanding that it makes pro wrestling promos wayyyyy fucking better.

daltotron , 1 month ago

Really? I went on it like I wanna say two or three months ago and it wasn't that bad. You had a couple troll threads, obviously, because (you)s and getting your thread bumped are what the platform incentivizes over anything else, but it didn't seem that bad.

daltotron , 1 month ago

I haven't gotten shoveled this shit for the entire course of my install, which has been since win 10 came out

daltotron , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

The nice part of that is that the fire conducts along the electricity

Edit: this was like two weeks ago but it was the other way around I am dumb

daltotron , 1 month ago

Mostly I just hate when very obviously sponsored videos don't declare their sponsorships. The entire first half of this like, 15 minute video is an ad, and then the rest of the content is made by like 3 other people. The thing he did was a big dart launcher. Now sure, that's probably just for fun, it's a scaled up version of the science kit he's selling, it's probably laudable that he didn't want to show up his co-stars or whatever, but this is a video that has no content and basically no educational value. It's trash, basically, it just has science education skin on.

Veritasium has done a similar thing a couple times, like his video on the autonomous cars. Very clearly a sponsorship, I think he only says so at the very end of the video, he totally glosses over any problems or downsides the technology has and speaks glowingly of it the whole time, paycheck please, next video, credibility is basically totally shot. I dunno, when I was a kid, magazines like popular science sold me on shit like the hyperloop. I wish they had been as forward thinking and hyped about normal trains, instead. Especially considering how many people have probably fallen for similar garbage like this due to that kind of stuff.

daltotron , 1 month ago

These other people are pulling ya, the answer is yes, you can shoot them down, we have a full sport for it called skeet shooting. A drone can't pivot out of the way in the 0.1 seconds it takes for you to pull the trigger and for the bird shot to travel and take it out. The biggest problem is the range of the gun (which isn't that bad) and spotting the drone beforehand. The noise a drone of that size makes is not that much consider it could be like 40 or 50 feet up in the dead of night with no lights, buzz past you, drop a grenade down, kablooie. If the drone backs off or otherwise pivots to try to avoid getting shot, it probably couldn't do what it was there to do anyways.

Obviously, a big array of military industrial camera technology running in a big fence is going to be able to spot the drone pretty quick, but the video doesn't focus on the tech there because presumably that'd be too interesting and probably the company would not like that.

daltotron , 1 month ago

The optimal sweet spot is probably like 40 meters or something, within 20 or 10 meters and the drone is probably in range to drop a grenade or explode, and becomes much harder to hit because it's capable of making much quicker direction changes relative to where you're standing even as it presents a larger target to you as a consequence of being closer, and a whole lot farther out, and birdshot can't really cut it.

Edit: Oh I was also gonna say, for indoor spaces, it'd maybe be not a good idea even just for hearing protection, but barring that, you could just opt for something lower velocity which you'd probably pack for this occasion if you're defending a set location, and then just load what you need in like 2 seconds. I imagine most drones are going to be flying around above head height anyways, so the main worry would be debris and falloff. You can't prevent debris from the drone really unless you have a net drone or something, and the falloff on the backend of a lower velocity or frangible birdshot with less mass is probably not super consequential except maybe in the case of eye protection. Some sort of ceramic bullet or maybe even steel bbs would probably work without doing too much damage. More than a drone, anyways. It's not as though a drone that rams into another drone is a particularly safe thing, in any case.

daltotron , 1 month ago

I’d say I expected better but it’s becoming more obvious every day that lemmy is where the old and out of touch people migrated to.

No yeah this whole deal is like. Just a bunch of mildly liberal gen X Linux users, basically, that think they're hot shit because they were right about like half of their opinions like a decade ago and haven't changed since. The amount of people hating on even basic shit like discord here is nuts.

Get with the times, grandpa, we all use pirated windows LTSC with Microsoft activation scripts and various privacy and installation scripts! C'mon! We all use YouTube revanced grandpa! Libtube? What the fuck are you talking about?

daltotron , 1 month ago

The peasants don’t have the luxury of taking prisoners.

I mean, why not? POWs have their own self-evident advantages, as we've seen taking place in palestine right now. Hostages are a pretty good thing to have if you want to create a long term negotiating strategy with other people.

But also, if you get rid of the billioinaire's billions, then you get rid of the billionaire. Now you just have a 'naire. Maybe a thousandaire, or something. Like, all the rich people that fled from cuba to florida didn't really end up doing a whole lot with their lives except being mad and super bitter about the fact that they weren't able to keep participating in a fascist government that oppressed the people. Most of them were petite bourgeois anyways. It's the ones that refused to leave that you end up murdering by way of this being the only thing that can force them to leave.

None of that is really similar to this situation at all, even, this is just an independent government killing someone that realistically could have no recourse if they were just completely stripped of their money and sent off to go fuck around in some other country. It's also, to me, kind of an illustration of the divide that you conceive of prison as a "way to keep the most destructive humans locked away and well fed until they die of natural causes". There's, ideally, a greater purpose to prison beyond that. You're justifying this by conceiving of this as like, a "war", an extreme war, a life or death war, oooh it's a war, wartime wartime wartime, but then, the police do the same thing when they justify shooting some guy on the street.

I dunno, this strikes me as a lot of nice sounding guilt-assuaging talk, as good rhetoric, but you haven't really given me any logical argumentation to chew on here, as to why this would be good or why this had to be done, really.

daltotron , 1 month ago

People are extremely bitter that rich people exist, and openly would call for their deaths, regardless of however much their lives would actually improve, were they to die, or however much their oppression might continue under a more conventional arrangement, or a less, sort of, offensive level of wealth inequality. People do find it offensive, basically, they find it ostentatious, and what's more commonly called for, to be put to death, than ostentatiousness? Than the offense of sensibilities?

I dunno. You get a lot of hard talk from supposed leftists who understand nothing of the kind of core principles at play, but none of them will realistically do anything, they're just floating by and passively regurgitating whatever they consume in the spectacle. They lack the empathy to commit real violence or change, I think.

daltotron , 1 month ago

good intel, probably woulda been better included in the meme, though.

daltotron , 1 month ago

I think that's just bane

daltotron , 1 month ago

I can probably do that too if I dislocate my hip bones

daltotron , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Okay somebody probably knows better than me, but what is the advantage of humanoid robots? Why are people kinda, on this, now? It feels very 20th century, as an idea. It's pretty cool, but I don't understand why this would be necessary compared to just like, specialized normal robots that do specialized normal tasks. It seems more efficient, if you wanted a robot to, say, do the dishes, to make a robot that just does the dishes, instead of making a robot in the shape of a person that does the dishes. The one that's in the shape of a person is maybe more broadly applicable to human contexts, software notwithstanding (which does seem like a major hiccup). But it's not as though there's like, an upper limit on the amount of robots which we can have, in total. You could just make more robots, and make them specialized for certain tasks, like stocking shelves or whatever, and that would probably be easier, I would think, than making one robot to rule them all. Like, one robot, with ostensibly an on-board computer and on-board batteries so it's as universal as possible.

It gives me self-driving car vibes, where we could've had them in the 50's if everyone was willing to install metal spikes in the ground every however many feet ahead, but then that maybe doesn't make any sense, because it's just kind of a shitty train or tram. Basically, that nobody's willing to front the cost of infrastructure for anything anymore, so we have to make like, a universal device, and end up quintupling the total cost while making a solution that is either less efficient or doesn't exist.

Also, what's the point of the legs? Is it supposed to go outside, or go up stairs better? We already have pretty efficient wheeled vehicles capable of doing that in most public spaces, or, we're supposed to, anyways, they're called wheelchairs. What do we need this guy to walk around for?

Edit: So far, what I've gotten is ladders, and the scalability of a humanoid design vs other kinds of designs.

For ladders, I think you could probably tackle that with a similar set of constraints what you might need for a stair climbing robot, maybe just with a couple heavyweight anchors inside of it and some gearing or something. Use the robot's big arms, the manipulators, to climb like normal, and then use the bottom wheels to sort of ratchet the robot up. Probably that could work on most ladders with some clever engineering. Could maybe also run a cable from the top of the ladder to the bottom and then have a system where the robot rappels up and down for lots of ladders, but yeah.

I don't think you end up spending all that much on a robot that has wheels vs legs, and I think probably the increased efficiency would be worth it if you want like a generalized robot here. Might be wrong, maybe a roboticist can tell me no, but I dunno. As far as engineering goes it doesn't seem any more complicated than legs. Legs seem better for, offroading, basically. Which are why lots of animals use them, cause animals don't have roads.

For the versatility and scalability thing, I dunno whether or not it's more or less efficient still. While a steam cleaning room does require some amount of consideration to build, I would think that you could really get the price down from the tens of thousands of dollars required for this kind of robot to perform a similar job. Especially if you built it that way up front, retrofits might be much more expensive considering how many bathrooms aren't built correctly. Or you could go with a kind of hybrid approach, which I totally forgot about, but would seem to make some amount of sense, especially for a larger building.

Maybe those savings build up over time, and you could just have a McDonald's staffed by like three of these at once and only spend like 500,000 on it, which does seem like quite a bit to add on top of a McDonald's opening costs. I'm assuming you gotta buy multiple to staff it as a whole and also that you have to buy multiple to have more battery capacity, but maybe one of these will come out with the clever innovation of a swappable battery if/when they come to market. I would definitely hope that'd be the case.

I'm not sure it works out economically. I'm not sure of anything here. These are just suggestions because I haven't seen a lot of FUD on these human robots, except of the Terminator variety, which seems dumb.

I suppose my biggest difference here is just one of philosophy, mostly because I've seen it reflected in self-driving cars. You can make something that's capable in any context. Wind, snow, rain, shine, heavy traffic, pedestrian traffic, intermodal traffic, different kinds of roads not created to a set standard by the state's DOT. You can make a Swiss army knife, right. Maybe there are some economic and QoL savings there if you can do rideshares or do like, johnnycabs, right, if you can eliminate the desire for car ownership and status from the American mind. Maybe you can get all those cars out of parking lots as much as possible, and onto the road, doubling, maybe even tripling the amount of traffic as cars now move from one person going from one place to another place. Maybe you can also solve traffic, if you can get all the human driven cars off the road and totally automate everything so none of the cars ever hit each other or anyone, maybe you could try to do this piecemeal with autonomous vehicle only zones and surmount the nimbys with venture capital to buy a whole local municipality. Maybe you can balance the speed with the safety so we don't have heavy traffic and we get places on time, but when a disaster strikes from ice buildup on the road in a random place, or leaves flying around your car, it doesn't kill everyone. Maybe, you can get all this to not computationally require an energy cost collectively that rivals a medium sized European country. Maybe you can also solve the wireless communication issues that would plague this system, and maybe that allows you to simplify it instead of having every car be self-driving and predictable even though probably a bunch of different companies will be trying to get in on this and will be mingling in traffic, with different softwares.

Maybe you could also make a tram, though. Maybe you could have an electric folding bike you take on the tram. That's also an option. That's just infrastructural cost, and we could do that right now.

Neither of these solutions is necessarily better, right. I mean, in this case specifically it's pretty apparent to anyone with half a brain that the trams are better quite obviously but like, as an analogue about humanoid robots, especially with the point taken about a variety of contexts as opposed to a single high friction context like cars, neither of these solutions are necessarily better. They entail different philosophies. One created a world around the thing, one creates the thing. One changes the world to suit the people, one changes the people to suit the world.

Is what I'm saying making sense, did I get my point across?

daltotron , 1 month ago

I mean I guess my main point is just that I find these robotic humans to be kind of interesting and cool, but also totally unambitious and cynical, precisely because they don't require things to be redesigned in any way. You could have floors and bathrooms designed so that they rinse themselves out and are steam sanitized with the press of a button, and not that much of a change in infrastructure compared to the norm, it's just a different way to doing things that requires more thought out design for more discrete applications. Most fast food bathrooms already have a floor drain. Same with food delivery. There's conveyor belt restaurants, we already have drive thrus with windows, restaurants already need to be navigable by foot in order for people to be able to sit down. These seem like maybe more efficient solutions long term than replacing people with humanoid robots.

Are the numbers working out that these are actually more efficient, economically, or something? Is it just that the tech sector is what has all the money lately, so they're prescribing these as kind of a blanket solution to every other use-case? Is it just that human shaped robots are kind of cool? I dunno, but I do wonder about the versatility being more efficient. It works if the versatility itself, in a human environment, is kind of the end-goal here, but as a good in itself, I dunno.

daltotron , 1 month ago

What does it mean when a middle aged man stars at you in public? Or, is starring at you? That sounds like some kind of situation in which you could probably call the cops.

daltotron , 1 month ago

I’d be curious about the stats of how many non-influencers actually upgrade annually.

Ahh, but that's the trick, because by saying "non-influncers", you'd be cutting out the peoples who fancy themselves influencers, or act like influencers, which is apparently everyone now.

daltotron , 1 month ago

could also be that they are marketing over 3 year old flagship owners because that's a likely demographic to upgrade phones, that isn't as locked-in foolproof as their serial buyers, which require no marketing, nor as hopeless as people with mid-ranges or low-end phones. basically, that their marketing buck goes further with this demo.

daltotron , 1 month ago

While I think we can do better in some spaces, the reality is that a lot of modern tech is fundamentally un-repairable. Not because of evil conspiracies but just because it is a lot easier to print a PCB and slot in some components than it is to connect vacuum tube diodes. And when so many of those components are fairly complex chips and the damage is less “oh, the metal prong on this chip broke” and more “oh, the via shorted out”?

Is this a fundamental piece of tech as it exist now, or is this just kind of the way that tech has manifested after 50 years of development inside of a profit driven system which incentivizes unrepairable and disposable products over things which can be sustained for a long time?

I'd also like to posit that we've experienced a relatively rapid growth in the last 50 years, and that possibly has also affected design. In a rapidly changing market, you'd be a fool not to design everything as disposable, since next year's thing is going to be so different and so much better that it's kind of ridiculous to expect as much backwards compatibility or to expect repairability since people won't be sticking with stuff for as long. Now, whether or not that growth is actually slowing down intrinsically, or if that growth is just slowing down as a result of the current structure of the market, who can really say.

But largely I would posit that, don't mistake the fundamental nature of a thing as being the same as said thing in relation to a much larger and broader system. We could frame infotainment systems and the increasing digitization of cars as an inevitability, but in a radically different context, like southeasy asia or africa, we might see cars that are prized for their ease of maintenance and utility value, fuel efficiency being a lower concern, and luxuries like infotainment being much, much lower.

daltotron , 1 month ago

Mostly just because it's kind of seen as a higher profile example of mobile phone manufacturers colluding and creating totally unnecessary changes in the market because they're incapable of actual innovation. The reason people are mad, basically, is because there was no reason to remove the headphone jack. I haven't seen a reasonable argument for it's removal, really, or the removal of most of the other used-to-be-standard features on smartphones.

daltotron , 2 months ago

I have this thought a lot too when people discuss things like teaching "media literacy". I dunno. I've seen enough people completely abuse logical fallacies that I really wonder whether or not we're all logically consistent conscious beings, or if we're all just kind of flying by the emotionally charged pants seats, and making shit up later to retroactively justify it. People cry strawman, red herring, goalpost moving, when realistically people are just changing the subject to something that they think they know more on, because things aren't formalized into a rigorous debate where everything is organized and structured and we all actually know what the definitions of things are supposed to be. It's hard enough to get people to even agree on a definition, because people are so insulated to their little bubbles. Getting past that semantic difference and into the actual debate seems more to me like a structural problem, where people are arguing with the wrong people, than like, a problem you could solve with just raw education. Seems like a structural problem related to the death of the monoculture, and the rapid propagation of regional cultures, even regional cultures online.