• 0 Posts
  • 67 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle







  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Cool. You wrote an opinion that perfectly matched the opinion of a particular demographic that’s common on the site, and are now very offended that no one knew you were someone less common.
    Which also entirely draws the conversation away from you saying it’s good that the government pulled funding from an organization that’s doing something good because government messes everything up.

    They’re already a non-profit. Why are you upset that they got money from the government? Wouldn’t the ideal to you be an NGO that got money without being under government control, and was therefore free from business influence as well?

    Linux is a great example. It’s backed by a non-profit foundation, under the direction of mostly corporate advocates. That’s what people talk about when they talk about a non-profit being beholden to corporate money.
    The shape of Linux has steadily been pushed towards being more and more focused on server and data center operations, since that’s what the people in charge of funding allocation care about, and that’s what they’ll direct their parent organizations to contribute developers to working on.

    Your government sucks. I get that. It doesn’t mean I don’t expect more from mine, and it doesn’t mean that I reject the notion that I should have say in the management of the things around me.
    The NGO that you envision will do a better job managing the drainage where I live doesn’t answer to me, and I have no recourse if they mess up and flood my house.

    I’d like something like the NGO you envision, but with public accountability. This is often called a “government”.


  • Yeah, the lobbying question is a complicated one.

    In an ideal world it would be much closer to how the standards committees work. The issue isn’t people sharing their opinions and desires for how the system should work, it’s when they use inequitable means to bias the decision. My industry, security, has lobbied for official guidelines on security requirements for different situations. Makes it easier to tell hospitals they can’t have nurses sharing login credentials: government says that’s bad, and now your insurance says it’s a liability.

    The problem is that lobbying too often comes with stuff like a “we’re always hiring like minded people at our lobbying firm, if you happen to find yourself in the position to do so, give us a call.”.
    It’s too easy for people with a lot of money to make their voices more heard.

    It’s not that the wealthy and business interests should be barred from sharing opinions with legislators, it’s that “volume” shouldn’t be proportional to money. My voice as a person who lives near a river should be comparable to that of the guy who owns the car wash upstream when it comes to questions of how much we care about runoff going into the river.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    So you want it to be run like it is today, but with less money? Do you think they’re going to spread whatever incompetence you see them having via funding?

    Usually when people celebrate the removal of government from a public service it’s because they think it should be arranged to turn a profit.

    You didn’t list your stance on every issue in your comment so I can only assume that you have the rest of the beliefs that I’ve always seen go with that opinion.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    people will always mess stuff up. Government is just the group of people you have a say in.

    When the public good gets messed up, I’d rather it be by the people I can vote out than by the people who only answer to shareholders.

    I just don’t understand the persistent belief that a profit motive will magically make something more aligned with the public good.



  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Even corporations understand the value of having a seat at the table. A significant reason for corporate sponsorship of standards groups and such is so that if it comes up, they have a person there who can argue for their interests.
    Not even in an interesting or corrupt way.
    “Our engineers think it would be better to do it this way, any objections?” And then everyone talks about it.

    Leaving means you only get to use what others put together. If your needs don’t fit you just have to cope.

    Corporations love getting stuff for free, but if all it takes to solve a technical problem is cash, that’s great too. Cash is a better way to solve a technical problem than time and engineers.


  • It’s worth noting that one of those organizations is IBM. Mostly relevant because they’re the ones that originally built a lot of that cobol, the mainframes it runs on, and even the compilers that compiled it.
    They’re basically the people you would expect to be able to do it, and they pretty quickly determined that the cost of a rewrite and handling all the downstream bugs and quirks would exceed the ongoing maintenance cost of just training new cobol developers.

    My dad was a cobol developer (rather, a pascal developer using a compiler that transpiled to cobol which was then linked with the cobol libraries and recompiled for the mainframe), and before he retired they decided to try to replace everything with c#. Evidently a year later their system still took a week to run the nightly reports and they had rehired his former coworkers at exorbitant contractor rates.




  • Thank you for being uncertain. :) I mean that sincerely. Some people are too quick to dismiss doctors expertise, and some people are too eager to try to use medication to solve “boredom”. Trying to make sure you’re actually doing the right thing is great.

    Just remember: one of the effected things is executive function , or the ability to act deliberately and stay on task. You unfortunately see a trend of people who think “they don’t need medication, we just need to teach the better study skills/to focus/etc”, which is the one bit you can’t teach.
    And get them a bowl to put whatever that thing they keep misplacing in. They might not be able to remember where they put it, but they can learn to always put it in the bowl.


  • I got medicated as an adult, so I can’t directly share my experiences relating to your question.

    I wish I had been medicated at a younger age, since I can see so many problems I had in my life that were ultimately related to entirely unmanaged ADHD.
    I also turned out fine without it, things were just more difficult.

    Make sure you trust your pediatrician and that you’re on the same page as them. That’ll make it easier to feel confident that their advice is in line with your goals. They all have your kids best interest at heart, but there are different emphasis they can focus on which might not mesh with yours.

    Talk with your kid and see how they feel. They might not be old enough to fully articulate things, but you can try to get a feel for if they’re feeling volatile, struggling or things like that. Look at how they play alone and with others, and at how they engage with homework.

    Start slow, and work your way up.


  • It’s most likely gasoline. It’s very difficult to engineer upholstery and rubber to be resistant to prolonged exposure to an open gas fire. Usually the best you can do is get to a minimum safe time for certain temperatures.

    The highest standards you’ll run into day to day are baby clothing, bedding, and residential wall insulation.
    The reasons for those being specifically regulated should be relatively obvious, and are respectively heartbreaking, scary, and sensible.

    Cars tend to be going fast when they encounter issues, and there’s a lot less ability to make a lot of assurances. As a result, cars tend to be designed for controlled failure rather than resilience. This allows to car to fail around the passengers, hopefully resulting in the car, which is totaled anyway, absorbing the damage the passengers would have otherwise gotten.
    We can make a car that can take a 45mph collision with an oak tree. We just don’t know upfront that that’s how it’s going to crash, and the squishy people inside can’t be made to tolerate a 45mph collision with the dashboard. So instead of making a perfect fuel tank, we just make sure that if it breaks it tries to rupture the fuel away from the passenger compartment. Instead of making the upholstery incapable of burning (which comes with downsides like “expensive”, “uncomfortable”, “ugly”, “smelly”, or “even more toxic than current flame retardants”) we make it able to resist burning for as long as it would take for the air inside the vehicle to become deadly hot. It doesn’t matter if the seat fabric is unscathed if the fire is hot enough to warp the metal.

    Beyond all that, Tesla’s are notoriously poorly engineered, and in that category the cyber truck is best in class. I do not know, but would not be surprised, if accelerant was simply able to seep into the more flammable parts of the car from the outside.

    As for surveillance catching the people, covering your face, obscuring identifying marks, and simply being far away by the time anyone notices the fire is a good bet. The police might try a bit harder because it’s an expensive property crime, but it’s ultimately a property crime where no one is going to be building their career on it, so there won’t be real incentive to go above and beyond.


  • … What?

    Your screenshot has the founder saying it’s reparable. It also has him telling someone with unreasonable expectations that they would be disappointed.

    If you literally take his comment out of context you can construe it as him saying they didn’t consider repairability or lifetime. But why wouldn’t you look at the context that’s right there?