Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.
Oof.
In the defense of engineers, they are usually trying to optimize around a few more variables than ability to stand. Cost is a big one.
If a car has a warranty of 10 years, it will last 11 years.
…If it’s well engineered.
I’ve had lots of led bulbs die. I think it’s because I bought them at the dollar store.
You can’t destroy Nazism with your mind. You have to use your body.
I’m not sure it’s that simple. I think if you offered someone 150k to do the job, they’d do it for long enough to build some savings then quit and live off of that while they found something more fulfilling to do.
I think that really the only way to keep people in that job is for them to have terrible alternatives.
The job was to put a small piece of metal into a machine (brake press), push a button, and take the now slightly bent piece of metal out of the machine.
The metal is part of a hinge for something like a knee brace. The factory makes a bunch of metal components for different things but didn’t make the whole knee brace.
I guess the company could try to get a higher price for the part, or just say they don’t want that contract… but people need knee braces. So yeah, I don’t feel bad about selling them a robot. Some jobs are just better done by machines. The issue is wealth concentration.
Maybe a worker’s council could have found a way to make the job less bad.
So I work in industrial automation, and live in a high cost of living part of Canada.
Back around 2017 or so, companies said we were in a labor shortage. I sold a few robots to factories that couldn’t keep people in a few of their jobs (I’m thinking of two different small factories). These are tasks that are so boring that people lose their minds. The factories would hire someone and they’d quit after a week.
When the cost of continuously hiring new people became apparent, they bought robots.
I just said that evidence can be collected and interpreted to make reliable predictions. Isn’t that what science is?
I’m not the person you’re replying to, nor an expert but wouldn’t they be things like:
There is a reality which behaves according to certain principles within time.
Humans experience reality through flawed faculties, but experiences can be aggregated in ways which reduce or eliminate the impact of those flaws.
The more thoroughly those flaws are eliminated from the aggregate, the more reliably predictions can be made about the principles that govern reality.
I love to be pedantic so I’ll point out that it had to be 3 equal mutually perpendicular golden ratio rectangles
Does anyone have an analysis comparing the Fremen of Frank Herbert’s Dune to the the Aiel of Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time?
(…) and would accomplish . . . what exactly?
It would move China’s adversary further from its shores. Just like how America doesn’t like Cuba being right there, with its rival politico- economic system, China doesn’t like Taiwan being right there with its rival politico- economic system.
China wants TSMC
I agree that they want TSMC, but I think Taiwan’s semi conductor disablement plan has more to do with guaranteeing international support for Taiwan than reducing the incentives for Chinese annexation of Taiwan.
What I mean is that Beijing can’t say to the world “this is an internal disagreement that doesn’t concern you” because if TSMC goes up in smoke the global economy is going to bottom out, it concerns everybody’s economy. The fact that Beijing can’t just seamlessly assume control of Taiwan means that the international community will not support that ambition. It’s like Real Politik, but with semiconductors.
Ironically USA initiatives to protect itself from the vulnerability of Taiwan by (re?)patriating chip production will be bad for Taiwan’s security… if they ever actually manage to rival TSMC’s Taiwanese production. I say this because it will demote the conflict from one of global interest to just regional interest.
But that’s all just my arm chair speculation, I don’t actually have any idea what I’m talking about.
Lol, yeah they’ve just learned to pretend to be too avoid being everyone’s tech support.
It’s why I tell everyone to get a mac: I don’t know anything about them.
I don’t think Google can be blamed too much for presenting an article from a relevant, generally trustworthy site, that has the search query as the article title.
The last time I donated blood (quite recently) I was asked if I had had a new sex partner or more than one sex partner the last 3 months.
I was asked if I had had sex with anyone within the last year that had previously had/ tested positive for hiv/aids.
I was asked if I had taken any hiv/aids preventers.
Is it the follow-up questions to these initial screening questions that are homophobic?
Are they?
Canadian Blood Services (CBS) says it plans to introduce the new behaviour-based questionnaire approach “no later” than Sept. 30. It will apply to both blood and plasma donations, outside of Quebec.
It will mean that when all donors are screened before rolling up their sleeves, they’ll be asked whether they have recently engaged in anal sex in the context of new or multiple sexual partners within the last few months. If they have, they would not be able to donate until they had gone three months without engaging in that activity.
I thought that change (2022) was the end of the discussion.
In Canada we donate blood for free, then they sell it to America.
Using hydrogen doesn’t emit carbon. But the principal way hydrogen is produced is called steam reformation. It’s a process that turns methane (CH4) and water (2* H2O) into hydrogen (4* H2) and CO2 (i think, I’m not an expert). So all the carbon get emitted as co2. So it’s not better, and there are a bunch of inefficiencies too. (The reformation process itself, and transportation challenges, and leakage). But theoretically, it does centralize the emissions which would make them easier to sequester so there’s that.
We don’t have to. If one social group defines it differently then another social group it’s not really a big deal.
I understand your anger and agree that anti-vaxxers are stupid. I believe public health education should be part of the school system.
I also agree that it’s responsible for a society to impose reasonable restrictions on members that endanger it.
I think people do have an ethical obligation to take reasonable precautions avoid potentially exposing others to pathogens. Vaccination is an example of reasonable precaution. People have the right to bodily autonomy, do not vaccinate them against their wishes.
I do not support the firing of workers for refusing vaccinations if they can do their job remotely. People shouldn’t have to decide between their religious beliefs and employment if their employment doesn’t bring them into contact with others. (Imo anti-vaxx is essentially a religion, this may say more about my beliefs regarding religion than about anti-vaxx sentiment).
By all means exclude the unvaccinated from places where they can be reasonably understood to endanger the public, or others that have a similar right to be there.