I saw that demonstrated at the Toyota Museum of Industry and Technology in Nagoya. One of the tradeoffs with that is that you can't use cotton because it won't interact cleanly with the water, so it only works for synthetic fibers.
If you ever find yourself in that part of the world, I highly recommend visiting the textile pavilion there. They basically show you 1000x throughput improvement developed over the course of a century, demonstrated in about an hour.
The cadence and format of this video actually makes it look AI-generated. The content is padded and repeats itself quite a lot, the video is pretty much all stock footage, and the audio lacks any kind of variation in style like you'd expect even if someone were reading off a script. It sounds exactly like what you'd hear if you fed a script into a modern TTS.
Unfortunately that’s how many YouTubers make videos. I was watching a video about Chinese manufacturing the other day by Bloomberg, and 15 minutes worth of content was thinly stretched to 45 in a similar manner.
Came across many YT videos where you can almost smell the lifted content and structure from Wikipedia (or another video), often by people who aren't experts on the topic they're covering. History channels that are unable to tell the difference between England and Great Britain being a personal peeve.
Google is quite good at detecting duplicate text content, apparently duplicate video content isn't so much a thing.
My guess is that startup costs represent the bulk of the cost of a show. Just filming one episode probably costs somewhere on the same order of magnitude as an entire season.
I think this is a straw man. I don't think any politician would ever suggest such a thing at face value unless couched in some other argument. For example, after 9/11 a politician would have said, "I respect your need for privacy, but we live in extraordinary times, and we need to temporarily lift the restrictions on our agencies to effectively combat an imminent threat."
The real argument being made isn't that we should give all our secrets to the government, but that we should trust that the government will comply with our 4th Amendment protections and avoid gathering this data without a valid warrant issued by an impartial judge. If you're reading this, I'm guessing that like me, you don't believe a word of that. But that's the argument that's being made, and that's what needs to be debunked loudly and publicly.
> If this is really their argument they've already lost.
This would only be true if government were in fact answerable to people. It isn't, and hasn't been for a long time, if it ever was. Legislators decide what they want to vote for, and then decide how to brush off people who tell them anything they don't want to hear.
Lost in which arena? Do you trust politicians to not expand the scope of governance? If they are called out, they can simply rebrand their efforts under a new bill until 3 letter agencies get all the goodies they desire. How much patience does a low information public have? Is it as much as the political and security state classes?
It's hard to say without actually knowing the internal workings of the police departments, but one thing that's happened in Seattle is that although the police budget did go up, the SPD is having a really hard time hiring, and a lot of that money has gone to headcount that has remained vacant.
I've certainly read theories that it's a malicious strategy of the police union to make the city council look bad, and the SPOG president has made some pretty shocking political statements, so it honestly wouldn't be that surprising.
I'm guessing it's a mix of both, but I can't really prove anything.
I thought the issue was that "broken windows" was used as a metaphor for all low-level infractions, and not literally interpreted as "fix the windows and clean up the graffiti" as the studies recommended. This then got implemented as quotas on police departments, leading to opportunistic, biased policing and the de facto criminalization of poverty.
As a result, the term "broken windows" now carries a ton of baggage, and is sometimes used as a racist dog whistle.
Pretty much every phrase carries a ton of baggage to someone, it’s impossible to speak without offending at least one person.
What some, or even a majority, go on to redefine it as does not change its original meaning. If a place looks like a dump people will treat it like a dump. You and wherever you read this from is conflating the issue with racism.
We will quickly end up with no words if we continue this language hijacking path. English is a very contextual language. If a phrase or word is racist then the entire sentence is racist. I can recall an instance where I used the phrase "you people" on the internet. Clearly impossible for me to know the peoples race I was speaking to, yet they claimed it racist because some racist people somewhere also speak English.
How about we listen to what people are actually saying instead of twisting meaning to fit a narrative to further control speech? For those that are offended by speech and are demanding, essentially, the removal of the first amendment, it is a learning opportunity that words don't actually harm, only actions.
I think that's a bit reductive. Part of what's missing here is personality, or what I would call unique mediocrity. People who have no idea what they're doing just deciding to paint a wall yellow because they feel like it. The issue isn't just that some apartments have craftsmanship and others don't: it's that the high-skill and low-skill efforts look superficially the same.
Think about it with Marvel or Star Wars movies. There are some really good ones, and some really boring ones, and although you can definitely say "Thor Ragnarok" was better than "Iron Man: Age of Ultron", that doesn't change the fact that when you zoom out, it seems all we're getting is superhero and Star Wars movies, and maybe it would be nice to watch something else now and again.
We want more than just good craftsmanship. We need people of mediocre skill to be making things that are weird and interesting.
Weird and interesting are a part of individual behavior, and unfortunately our economy is trending towards more consolidation.
The urban streetscapes of older cities are dominated by very similar buildings, but often the differentiation is not just a result of the architecture but of the tenants. You have multiple buildings, multiple landlords, and multiple tenants, and the combinatoric permutations of all of them produce interesting variation on just a single city block.
These days, the modern five over one probably takes an entire block or at least half of one, and the relevant landlords or HOAs basically all but forbid tenant individuality. For example, I have a balcony, but I’m not allowed to hang clothes, or flags, or art, or anything, and so the only thing that is actually out there is some basic outdoor furniture. Businesses with storefronts in these buildings also have similar restrictions, because today’s corporate landlords are used to sterile, manicured environments like malls.
No, the five over one section mostly talks about architectural choices, which is important to a degree.
This is more of an elaboration; people don’t see architectural renders when they walk down the street, they see the combination of building and tenant.
The most obvious manifestation of this is storefront areas; in old shopping districts in New York you’ll see a variety of awning shapes and colors, whereas in newer developments if you are even allowed to have one they must match every other one on the building.
The bigger issue is that because of the market power of these digital storefronts, it doesn't matter what your mental model of the transaction is, you don't have a choice in the matter. Yes, online stores with better terms exist, but they don't tend to have the games that you'd want to buy.
I always get a warm feeling when a game I'm interested in has an itch.io link, but I'm not gonna delude myself into thinking it'll ever replace Steam, even if Steam had to stop calling itself a store. Steam is just far too established, and the network effect is just way too strong.
I take any equity language guides with a grain of salt, but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are. Obviously there are problems with it. It's largely performative, it can distract from bigger advocacy work, and it's often a lazy attempt by a large organization or corporation to avoid having to make meaningful changes. The thing is, when you add terms like "victimhood culture" to your response, it makes it extremely clear that you're not taking issue with awkward terminology, but with the entire concept of equity itself.
A lot of people do take issue with the concept of equity itself. Because it's unattainable, a fantasy to keep the "movement" going. No amount of language puritanism will ever be enough for the kinds of people that write these guides, because no human society will ever exist - or has ever existed - where everyone is some sterile, "equitable" copy of each other.
It’s an exercise of power by a wealthy ($30k/yr is rich in most world), western, educated, native English speaking elite over the unprivileged. Someone who studied English in high school in rural India does not have access to the latest equity terminology nor the western cultural context to understand it.
Changing language is a great tool to privilege the non working academic class with access and time to study the latest fad over the global working class who build the consumer products these elites type their screeds on.
Hell, most of it originates in the US, where we practice our cultural imperialism and force everyone else to bow to our ever evolving norms and sensibilities based upon our own country's fucked up history.
> but how people respond to them speaks volumes about who they are
Does that mean they are bad, immoral people? I think equity is faulty concept. Seems like an attempt to create equality of outcome by policing language. But I'll defer to arguments made by the likes of Sam Harris, Julia Galef and Coleman Hughes. Or the Atlantic author of this article.
As an end user, I would prefer to live in a world where I don't have to wait for software to respond. If forced to, I would also continue to use software where I do have to wait. Your argument that economics will dictate the best solution and lead to a happy balance doesn't work. It will tend towards a borderline tolerable world, where your product only has to be better than the other guy's.
This is separate from the discussion about tradeoffs between flexible design patterns and low-level performance.
He never said "happy", he said its fine. Meaning its fine that you have to live in a world where you have to wait for some software to respond, even if you would prefer not to. If you are happy in such a (horrible || ok) world is up to you.
If you ever find yourself in that part of the world, I highly recommend visiting the textile pavilion there. They basically show you 1000x throughput improvement developed over the course of a century, demonstrated in about an hour.