The main problem is that most countries don't have their economic system set up for it. The retirement system also in many cases is not sustainable with a shrinking population. This is going to cause a lot of pain and probably countries will start out with policies aiming to increase birth rates to attempt to maintain the status quo.
You're going to face a lot of resistance trying to actually adapt economic policies to a shrinking population. Especially from older people.
I agree but also disagree. It's true that machines are capable of fine motor control much more quickly and accurately than humans. But this by itself is often not enough.
This achievement should be somewhat surprising because of Moravec's paradox: the observation that, opposite to what early AI researchers expected, intelligence and reasoning skills are comparatively easy for a computer to simulate, while sensorimotor skills are in fact incredibly hard. Notice how, for example, chess engines started beating human players in the 90s or so, but we still don't have a robot that can do something as simple as pick raspberries (because surprise, for a machine picking a raspberry is actually hard as shit).
Ctrl-a and Ctrl-e are much faster to type than home/end and do the same thing (assuming a standard readline-enabled command line).
All the keys in the cluster above the arrow keys are really too hard to reach to be of real practical use, IMO. Actually that includes arrow keys as well. Just too far from home row.
I don't get this article, it's clearly got a bone to pick with self-checkout and seems to be contradicting itself in the process:
Consumers want this technology to work, and welcomed it with open arms. [...] In a 2021 survey of 1,000 American shoppers, 60% of consumers said they prefer to use self-checkout over a staffed checkout aisle when given the choice
Okay, so even given the myriad of poor implementations out there, a majority of people prefer it. But then at the end:
Simply, "customers hate it".
Oh really? Because your quoted survey seems to say the opposite. And then there's stuff like this:
In addition to shrink concerns, experts say another failure of self-checkout technology is that, in many cases, it simply doesn't lead to the cost savings businesses hoped for. Just as Dollar General appears poised to add more employees to its check-out areas, presumably increasing staffing costs, other companies have done the same.
This is too light on data. Even a luxurious 1 cashier per 2 self-checkout stations will result in large cost savings for a business where employee costs are a significant fraction of total expenses. Especially in low margin businesses like grocery stores, removing even small amounts of overhead makes a big difference. Just because stores are adding a few employees back, doesn't mean cost-savings are completely negated.
Despite self-checkout kiosks becoming ubiquitous throughout the past decade or so, the US still has more than 3.3 million cashiers working around the nation, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Surprise, a large nation did not completely get rid of cashiers! The number is meaningless without more context: did the number of cashiers go down? What about average cashiers per store? Where is the data?
My point is, maybe companies just went too hard on the cost-cutting and are trying to find the right balance. What is the best ratio of self-checkout to classic cashier checkout? What is the right amount of self-checkout assistants? How do we make checking out yourself a good user experience? All of these things are still being experimented with. What does seem to be clear is that self-checkout has become near ubiquitous, and therefore it is most certainly not a "spectacular failure" by any definition.
LFP batteries are both nickel and cobalt free, and are being used in production cars right now (e.g. Tesla model 3/Y standard range options). That technology has long arrived.
No, there are no updated keys that need to be downloaded. It's kind of like, they just stop including the key matching the revoked device on future Blu-ray releases. All other devices are completely unaffected by this, because their key is still on the discs. So they don't need to change or update anything.
Hydrogen is actually technically very light. Just 1kg (about 2lbs) is about the equivalent of the battery in a lot of EVs. However the equipment to convert that energy into motion at the wheels tends to be quite heavy and expensive.
More than that, the storage tanks required to store an effective amount of hydrogen are insanely heavy and inefficient. A full tank might be only 6% hydrogen by weight, the rest being the weight of the tank itself.
The tanks are kept under extremely high pressures to achieve acceptable storage density, so safety is a concern as well. Unless this problem is solved I don't see fuel cells replacing batteries in transportation.
the Japanese manufacturers (Toyota/etc) seem to think it's the right way to go.
A big factor in this is that Japan's overall energy transition strategy is heavily focused on hydrogen, and has been since the 1970s. Back then hydrogen was considered one of the promising alternatives alongside biofuel and battery electric vehicles. Today battery electric has taken a clear lead and fuel cells are nowhere close, but Japanese industry is already heavily invested in hydrogen tech (and receives substantial government subsidy).
There is some potential for hydrogen still. It's probably the only feasible means of decarbonising heavy industries such as steel production. It's a potential option for grid-scale energy storage, given that it's fairly easily produced using surplus renewable energy.
They do not require any online connection. AACS has some ability to revoke media player keys, but it does so by encrypting future releases in such a way that the revoked player can not decrypt them (how this works technically is a bit complicated).
So if they decide to revoke your player, it can still play every Blu-ray disc manufactured before the revokation went into effect.
He paid around $20 billion cash (by selling Tesla stock) and loaned another 6.25 billion personally (loan secured by more Tesla stock). The rest was funded by various bank loans that are now owed by Twitter itself.
One of the neat tricks you can do when you're wealthy is loan billions of dollars to buy a company, then you put those loans in the name of the company you just bought, so you don't have any personal risk. The reason he still needed to pony up $26 billion in cash is because banks thought it was too risky to loan the full amount. They might now regret loaning even this much, Twitter has a substantial debt burden and I understand ad revenues aren't doing great.
Obviously, since the company is private now we don't get as much insight into financials.
Mac users, and actually most laptop users, don't give a shit about the things you mention. They buy it, use it for some 2-5 years, then sell it and get a new model. Upgrading hardware is way too complicated for most people. They don't know or care what a BIOS is. It comes with the OS installed and that's the only thing they would ever want. Turn it on, use Safari, outlook, and office 365, maybe some tool like Photoshop/Ableton/etc, that's it.
I mean iPhones are the same right? They lock down everything so it's idiot proof and they control the environment exactly so they can maximise the smoothness of the experience.
Uhh that's not true? Firefox for Android is Gecko based and doesn't use chromium.
Maybe you're confused with iPhones? Firefox for IOS is WebKit based, because that's what apple mandates. That's why it doesn't support extensions. But on android there's no such restrictions.
I like how you are certain enough about the state of Russia's nuclear armament to bet the lives of everyone on the continent on it. People said the same things about all of the tanks Russia had in storage, but they're bringing them online and putting them in action in the Ukrainian theater just fine.
Even if 90% of the nuclear arsenal is inoperative, more than enough remains to reduce the world to cinders. Even if we assume high levels of corruption throughout the Russian army, a 90% failure rate would be outrageously high. Sure, Russia is never as strong as they claim to be. Their capacity is almost certainly exaggerated. But the idea that not a single of Russia's nuclear weapons would successfully detonate on target is hopium to the highest degree.