Absolutely. But if we can flip Texas from right and alt right to centrist then we may actually get progressive candidates in other areas (and frankly, if we flip Texas blue we will see a shift in policies from republicans to the left). And, perhaps by some miracle, we can get star or ranked choice voting, but that absolutely won’t happen while republicans are in control here.

Here’s to a better Texas (lifts shiner [but prefers one of the many smaller microbrews here])

That wasn’t my immediate assumption. That was a conclusion drawn after you repeatedly stated that democrats were moving right and basically did nothing good. Which is fine, and I probably shouldn’t have assumed how you would vote, though given the environment these days it wasn’t too audacious of an assumption.

By all means critique. But also please vote for the furthest left candidate that can win in every election you can vote in. Especially in Texas. This place needs so much damn help, and the Republican leadership definitely isn’t going to help (unless you’re ridiculously wealthy or own a large company). And get others to vote as well, because the only thing that will change Texas is to change the elected officials in charge.

I can post articles as well.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-public-lands-conservation-leases-40b5f47203bbe92a1186a1a4e9e0ea5d

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration#:~:text=The administration repealed the Clean,and proposed reversals of environmental

Note that repeals of policies means someone had to have passed it originally. Guess who passed net neutrality originally? Guess who passed the clean water rule? Guess who passed affordable care act? Oh, it seems democrats actually do move us left.

I also live in Texas, a state controlled by Republican interests for the past 20 years. Let’s look instead at locations where a state flipped blue. Just by one example, Michigan then passed a statewide constitutional amendment protecting abortion. You may be upset that we have to get statewide protections passed, but we only have to do that because Republican judges went against some 50 odd years of precedent to force it. So democrats are actually enshrining the very thing that Republicans took away.

Look, you can troll all day and pretend that Democrats are just as bad as republicans, but that’s absolutely wrong on so many issues, and frankly I’m going to exercise my right to vote for the party that will protect the things I want protected and move us further left.

Like logically, you should vote for the furthest left candidate that can actually win the election at every level. Anything less than that and you’re contributing to moving the country to the right. Reap what you sow and what not…

That’s not true at all. Biden specifically has protected more public spaces and land, while Trump specifically attempted to lease / sell / make available more of it to corporate interests. Net neutrality is being restored after it was rolled back under Ajit Pai. We can be frustrated democrats don’t do enough, or aren’t further left, but to say they keep the status quo at the regressive place republicans want to take us is demonstrably wrong. So while maybe they won’t expand affordable care beyond where it currently is, they’ll at least keep it where it is and restore it if possible. If they won’t add new parks, they at least protect the ones we have and cancel corporate interest on existing ones. If they won’t raise the taxes heavily on the rich (which is where I think they’re most guilty of “status quo”), they at least won’t give them trillions in tax breaks like Trump did.

It doesn’t lead us to the same place but slower, at least not everywhere. One party has rolled back abortion protections, equal rights protections, bans books, and a host of other regressive policies. Democrats didn’t do that. Democrats might keep status quo, but the Republican agenda is literally to move us backwards to a worse place (though if they wanna move us back to when the highest marginal tax rate was 90% I could be onboard with that part at least).

Reading the article I’m not sure why I should t use ZFS on a boot drive. The author does, and was able to set up a nice incremental (encrypted) backup solution that was able to get them back up and running relatively quickly.

Only thing I can think is the manual nature of it maybe? I don’t see how btrfs would be better here based on the article unless I missed something perhaps?

Wikipedia link for Easton (and Parkinson) credit for GPS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#:~:text=Bradford Parkinson%2C professor of aeronautics,with the rank of colonel.

Ee times article referencing FHSS and Nikola Tesla:

https://www.eetimes.com/a-short-history-of-spread-spectrum/

Sure, and I think that these may even be useful and it warrants the cost. But it is to just say that this still isn’t simply running a couple light bulbs or something. This is a major draw on the grid (but likely still pales in comparison to crypto farms).

Note that most people would be better off using a model that’s trained for a specific task. For example, training image recognition uses vastly less energy because the models are vastly smaller, but they’re exceedingly excellent at image recognition.

It’s also the required energy to train the model. Inference is usually more efficient (sometimes not but almost always significantly more so), because you have no error back propagation or other training specific calculations.

Models probably take 1000 megawatts of energy to train (GPT3 took 284MW by OpenAI’s calculation). That’s not including the web scraping and data cleaning and other associated costs (such as cooling the server farms which is non trivial).

A coal plant takes roughly 364kg - 500kg of coal to generate 1 MWh. So for GPT3 you’d be looking at 103,376 kg (~230 thousand pounds, or 115 US tons) at minimum to train it. Nobody has used it and we’re not looking at the other associated energy costs at this point. For comparison, a typical home may use 6MWh per year. So just training GPT3 could’ve powered 47 homes for an entire year.

Edit: also, it’s not nearly as bad as crypto mining. And as another person says it’s totally moot if we have clean sources of energy to fill the need and the grid can handle it. Unfortunately we have neither right now.

We need to start poisoning this data. I don’t think the solution is to cut the wires, I think it’s to send bogus data. Just make it so that no matter how I drive, the data is always overwritten that I traveled 5 miles at 30mph average with no hard stops and no hard accelerations. I only ever make that trip. Wanna base my insurance off that? Go for it.

Anyways I like the technical ability to do this, but wonder if some enterprising person could hack the obd to constantly overwrite the data here.

Again I want to poison this data. It should be illegal, but it’s not. Companies will charge me more if I block it. So the solution is data poisoning imo.

Incidentally we need to be poisoning ALL data brokers and collectors for these types of things.

This is interesting, and kind of wild that these non profits get to hide their donors. I think any group advocating for public policy changes needs to have public donor lists. For that matter I actually think all charities need to keep track of where their money comes from, and where it goes, especially for those clearing over a million dollars.

Charities are non profit because they are supposed to serve a public good. If they’re serving a public good, they should be auditable to the public for that good.

Sure just like Hawaiian people could go back to the upper 48. You know just abandon their home, their livelihoods, their communities. No big deal surely to just give an aggressor nation whatever they want at the cost of all your worldly possessions.

Edit:

From before the paywalled section:

‘’’ “Suddenly, there is all this talk about underground shelters, about fleeing, and this makes this crisis feel more real. But if we leave, can we come back? Or will Yonaguni be wiped out?” asks Mr Otake, wondering if he will be able to hand down the business to his 14-year-old son. ‘’’

Later it mentions there are 1.4 million people in the potential war theatre zone. And yes the plan is to move them back to the mainland if they can, but that’s a monumental task to move that many people across disparate, disconnected islands, to say nothing of the potential impact of trying to integrate 1.4 million people into local communities.

I think their ultimate goal is to basically sell repairs as a service. That is, as the other commenter replied, we’ll let you repair your stuff as long as you use our parts and our tools and procedures, which change every year and are super marked up.

In other words, the catch is they see that right to repair is gaining steam, and they want to perform some regulatory capture by making it seem like they support it, but it’s really just a smokescreen for them to co-write the laws to support their bottom line.

Edit: and of course, they don’t want every state to do what California did, because one state may sneak a really pro consumer right to repair bill through, and then Apple is stuck having to support that state specifically, which basically means that everyone would have that level of access. So, preempt everything by pushing for a federal law so states don’t make their own, which ultimately saves a lot of lobbying dollars.

No is the short answer. Without the typical hydrodynamics for these regions, these storms will just create a tremendous amount of damage and flooding. There is an interesting phenomena that dry land is often not as absorptive as otherwise damp land due to hydrophobic properties from dried out surface level organic matter. So water ends up running off this dry land to drainage points faster, which increases flooding.

So it’s really just a double whammy. Too dry to have good vegetation, or even absorptive land, such that when these stronger storms roll through, old growth trees will be more likely to fall, and the water will cause worse flooding.

Exactly, I strongly prefer UPS as a delivery service (I can’t tell you the last time I intentionally used fedex). I actually trust USPS more than fedex, frankly.

If Ford fires workers, that’s a no from me on purchasing any vehicles from them in the future.

I’d rather pay a 2 thousand dollar premium on a new vehicle that’s union made than pay 2 thousand dollars less for a shoddy piece of crap made by inexperienced and overworked / underpaid workers.

Certainly a possibility, but I almost think US quietly supporting Ukraine will make it easier, since it won’t be in the far right zeitgeist as much. Ukraine needs financial and military support. Passing bills individually for Ukraine is getting harder. Tacking another line item on to a “Support Israel” bill that provides military and financial assistance to Ukraine may be easier than new bills aimed at just supporting Ukraine would be.

Edit: to be clear, I’m hoping Ukraine gets more support from this, as my personal view is strongly in support of Ukraine. I don’t know that this will pan out that way, but I see a potential angle for it if democrats have the savvy to do it.

I think Russia probably encouraged this, but I think it’s another miscalculation. America is set up at this point to fight proxy wars. Now all that happens is Israel weapons gets added as a line item alongside Ukraine on a defense budget bill that’s now easier to pass. So they may have been involved or just encouraged, but I think it’s gonna backfire.

I think if they were involved it will backfire on them. The reality is it is now going to be a lot easier, and the military-industrial complex is extremely eager, to put aid for Israel as a joint package in aid with Ukraine. Net result may be that aid is enhanced for both nations.

Saying “this is almost as bad” establishes a comparison, and in the context establishes justification for this event because of the comparator. So your response to the barbarism here is a tacit justification by comparison, or taken in another view, a counter accusation. Which is definitive whataboutism: responding to an accusation with a counter accusation.