everdrive

I've been transitioning off of reddit for a while. It has been a long time since it's been a "community." It's still a useful repository of information, but even that is becoming quite dilute; astroturfing, insane group think, AI training posts, etc. Reddit both requiring logins and moving away from old.reddit.com will be the final nails on the coffin.

But, you should have already been moving away from reddit. It will be like Digg in in 1-2 unless it can really turn itself around.

>And like any responsible parents, they presumably also don't just defer to what their elementary aged children "want to do with their life" nor feed into the exaggeration that "everybody else" does anything at all, let alone play tackle football.

This is the only wise position. Despite the commonly and misleading film tropes, children do not know themselves perfectly. Often the adults "holding them back" are doing those children a great favor.

This may shock you, but living rooms with TVs existed before people had enormous TVs. My understanding is when guests came to visit your home, the polite thing to do would be to hand out one of those old-timey monocles so people could watch the TV. I believe those old-timey monocles only went out of fashion around 2012 and later when TV sizes approached modern standards.

>It's much easier to make a story of relatable bumbleheads, especially if you yourself are somewhat uninteresting and never got much life experience.

I don't even think this is true, people just started claiming it. People love excellence. Characters don't need to be mediocre to be relatable. A character like Picard motivates us to be better than ourselves. We can still relate to him because he faces similar moral challenges, but shows us how we can rise above.

The "relatable" characters crowd are the same ones trying to make Superman less of a beacon of hope.

Just get a computer monitor and speakers. Here's something the enthusiasts won't tell you: a smaller screen looks fine if you're just not so far away from the TV. Huge screens are necessary for movie theaters since they seat so many, but the huge 70+ inch screens people are buying these days are totally unnecessary.

Just let the LLM do your thinking for you, but but don't worry if some thoughts are not allowed.

Are you a CEO? Those invites might work a bit differently.

Except for the flock cameras, we opted into this system with open arms. If you're coming of age right now it must suck, but there has been a steady march towards a demolition of privacy for more than 20 years.

Don't you get it?! What if a restaurant had a QR code and I had to ask the waiter what to eat? Or what if I had to pay more for a TV? Or WORSE -- not watch TV? I have to be comfortable and and everything must be convenient ALL THE TIME. I love the 4th amendment, but the MOMENT I suffer even the most minor inconvenience I MUST throw the 4th amendment out the window. Don't you see I have no choice?

More meaningless symbolic gestures rather than any sort of actual policy.

Why wouldn't they? We already know that militaries and governments use StarLink. I'll bet dissidents and terrorists use them as well.

I'm not offering my support of this, but it's just not a surprising state of affairs.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense too. I didn't have a sense for how much power would fluctuate, but it makes sense that it would almost _need_ to fluctuate well below capacity. If it didn't, it would mean that in full sun you'd have built your solar array well _over_ capacity, which would be inefficient in a different direction.

The panel is incredibly thin, but the base is a few inches, and the amount of space it will take up due to tilting the display is also a couple of inches. After a certain point, thinness is a meaningless aesthetic choice that serves no function whatsoever.

No technology helps you work less. It changes the amount of work one person can output. Once a person can do more, an employer will require more.

Better not prosecute people who cut down the cameras then, since that's part of the non-real backlash.

Thanks, that's a really useful explanation. It sounds like if you forgo using a battery, then you have to be comfortable scurrying around and unplugging some of your devices. (and as silly as that is, you might aggressively power-cycle a device into oblivion before you manage to get everything unplugged. (most people would probably just not settle that sort of plugging / unplugging.)

Do people commonly do this for regularly residential setups? I wonder if I've just been talking to the wrong people.

Does anyone understand why you can't generally use solar when the power goes out? Is it just risk to line workers? (Couldn't you just auto-disconnect from the mains?) Is it just too variable to be useful enough on its own? Is my premise just wrong?

[edit]

According to HN you can totally do this and I'm just wrong.

Is it? I keep hearing something like $30k. That might pay for itself over time, but it's hardly cheap.

Because genetics influence things such as impulse control.

>0-3 yrs old

Seems extremely strict.

>3-6

Makes sense to me.

>6-9 yrs old

Seems naive. There's no "internet safe zone" where a cess pit is not a query away. (in the case of algorithmic feeds, the cess pit comes to you automatically!)

>9-12 yrs old

A gateway drug to a lifelong addiction, encouraged by all of society to include teachers at school.

>12

Probably still too lax given that 12 is when boys discover pornography.

We're in an age of populism. A lot of people don't seem to realize this is broadly terrible, and are only worried about [other side]-leaning populists. Some are even saying things like "well maybe we need some populists on our side!"

It's the road to ruin.

Also try not to think about contact lenses, piercings, jewelry, pacemakers, etc.

I got my last two dumb-flat panels from either Craigslist or yard sales. They're out there. Not too many Yard Sales have CRTs any longer. Or at least, the flat-panels are more common by now.

So the problem is mostly just outside meddling?

Maybe it's overstated? It cannot possibly be a myth.

>Or do you want to redistribute the ownership of capital?

I think that's unfair. Do you disagree that companies who go public become myopic and attempt to extract more value until they've hollowed themselves out?

Is there any way out of this "shareholder value" hell? The moment a company goes public they're legally required to make stupid, short-term decisions that are worse for everyone, even the shareholders? (unless those shareholders know _when_ to sell their shares)

The phone was never yours. You have a nice, granular set of permissions which (attempt to) control what apps can do ... but you don't really have any permissions that prevent you from _Google_ spying on you and selling your data or giving it up to law enforcement. It's like the propaganda radio you can turn down, but never off. You're given just enough control to feel like you have a choice.

Maybe people will eventually catch on? All services will eventually be modified to make things worse for you. Always, 100% of the time.