It’s also easy for real life. They don’t have to produce different parts or maintain them, or update them. All of that is just changing software and what it displays, that makes it easier for them to develop.
But as we’re realizing it, it’s harder to use and less safe.
I want to join, but they don’t let me
This is how I want things to work. Big Commercial use needs to pay, everyone else get for free, and open source.
I really love desktop applications. They do their job, you install it and it’s done. And you can work towards next version and such while people can decide to not upgrade.
Now everything is cloud, they only maintain one version, they can change it whenever, you can’t get any say, and have to always agree on their policies. And have Internet connection.
If I could make money making desktop applications, I would love that job. Everything is web and AI now
Hey, at least it works (probably). I live in America, where everyone and their 14 years child and 85 yrs old Grandma is driving a Car.
There are different fields of science. In my field (water resources), any scientist that is reasonable knows the climate change is happening, you can see it in any data that spans for last 50 years. We’re focused on how to deal with it, given it’ll get worse. All the future scenarios (from simulations) are worse than history, there’s less worse and more worse depending on how people will act. But I think even the worst case did not have “world war” into consideration. So we might have wayy worse than our predictions. But again, predicting future is hard, there could be effects that we’re not expecting. Specially the current geopolitical scenario when climate change (and greed) is making life hard leading into authoritative regimes which is making it worse on top of previous policies. Which exceeds the linear growth pattern used in the simulations.
Like, I don’t think a lot of simulation took into account “what if we get rid of all the environmental protection policies?”, maybe a little because they are looking at a lot of different scenarios, but not to this degree, because we didn’t expect this to happen 10 years ago.
This is one of the things I don’t understand about west, Grandparents and family are a big part of raising children in Asia. Anyone with their first baby will be confused, and won’t know what to do if they have never done it before.
How it works in Asia (at least my culture),
This is the knowledge transfer part. There is the whole part where this support means a lot for recovering mothers.
This is actually very the reason this is expensive though. All those children grew up and wanted the things from their childhood that are no longer made, so demand is high, price increase.
Considering they just hold back packages, but do not do additional testing to release them, yeah, they should not do that.
Arch already has testing repo, normal repo packages on arch are already stable enough
Also, AI can talk and listen, so what’s to say radio won’t have the same problem if enough people start using it
Perfectly reasonable for you to ask that.
Even with IUD you can get pregnant. And yes STDs and things, if you were in a long term relationship then it’s probably fine, but if you’re hooking up for the first time and they’re fussy about it, then yeah, they’re not good.
Stop saying 30%, majority vote is majority vote. It’s statistically valid sampling. If within the sample (those that voted), majority voted one way, means the population leans that way.
The invention isn’t yo sell ads, it’s to offer a service to manipulate the mass. Making them buy things is just to extract a bit of money, making them vote a certain way, making them want to look a certain way, donate a certain way, hate a certain people, defend a certain way of life. All that is really what’s making them rich with their innovation.
I’m guessing you do not know the election thing I’m talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it’s not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.
So if something similar happened here, given people believe “both evil”, third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the “more evil” would barely get any votes. The excuse of “we only have less evil to choose from” does not work if majority of the people still voted the “more evil”, why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.
Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.
This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don’t see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say “well he gave us money last time, I’ll vote him”
Yes, but when one side is blatantly bad you should completely vote to other option, then that side will either vanish and new party will appear, or they’ll course correct and put someone better. If they always get half the vote whatever they do, then you don’t get a change.
If you call it unrealistic, look at Nepal’s election results this week (look into what led into the election too if you want more info).
It was in my school.
People that gamble are mostly the students that didn’t pay attention in class anyway.
Smart people only ‘gamble’ when the rules benefits them.
I mean why are people supporting the parties in 50/50 manner.
I witnessed an interaction where a grad school professor used AI detector and threatened to fail a student for submitting “AI generated” paper. It was so stupid, even after showing them how if you just add a few spelling mistakes the detection says human written, or even putting their own email in AI detector to show an example. It’s like the saying “little knowledge is dangerous”