It’s ready for prerelease it seems, and very playable. Sounds like they already have what they need. They’re just taking a little headstart :p

““This doesn’t sound plausible. Are they really going to ruin their investment and effectively kill the company to supposedly save a quarter of a billion”

You should see the documentary about the making of Lego Island: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG55COe_f8I

A wildly succesful game, so what did the publisher do after having released a wildly succesful game and having the team that made it under their wings? Fire them all and try to weasel out of the promised bonuses.

It was standard practice 30 years ago, and it still is…

Isn’t it likely the police is kind of right?

I mean, how many people in that community used grapheneos phones before the drug dealers figured out how good they were for their purposes? So in that community, it’s indeed very likely that a grapheneos user is in a drug gang.

Does that mean that grapheneos is an issue, or bad? Not at all. But i see a lot of digs at the police here at how dumb they are. But if literally most grapheneos users there are drug dealers, is it dumb? It’s just a plain observation that’s pretty correct.

And it’s kind of logical that proper open source tools that are not full of spyware are better for also such purposes. Doesn’t make these tools a problem. If a politician would now start a crusade against such operating systems, that i would agree is dumb.

But i don’t see an issue with police somewhere realizing that drugdealers use a specific tool, and focusing on that. Of course sucks for the couple of regular users there that just do it to have control over their device…

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Acknowledging that something isn’t illegal/impeachable is completely different from normalizing.

Reality is what it is, whether we agree with it or not. Should it be different? For sure. Is it different? No, and acknowledging that is NOT normalizing it, it’s just saying that the truth is the truth. What is wrong with that?

This is a great initiative, and Ross did an incredible effort, and i hope this second wind gets the petitions the signatures they need.

Infinite respect for Ross, he can truly say he did everything he could do.

Indeed, Russia still calls it a “special operation” if i’m not mistaken. The rest of the world obviously deems it a war.

If we don’t agree with this, we should push for the law to be changed, but so far it seems he’s within his rights to call such a strike, and democrats not willing to waste their time on this is then reasonable.

That’s all this is about. Not justifying his actions, not saying it isn’t war, not saying it shouldn’t be different. Just stating the facts, what they mean, and thus why the actions of these democrats sadly does seem to make sense…

Why don’t you google it?

Declaration of war seems to have a specific meaning, and doing a bombing doesn’t seem to be part of it.

and all the rest of your post just doesn’t make any sense. It’s not because you didn’t officially declare war, that the other party can’t retaliate, can’t declare war on you can’t… It’s just… an attack can cause a war, but isn’t a declaration of war, those are two separate things.

It can indeed be taken as a declaration of war by the other party, but if it isn’t officially one according to the American law, then that’s it… This appears to be within the powers of the president, and that’s all this post is about…

Does it completely suck that he can do this? obviously. But this impeachment seems silly, so why make a fool of yourself and go through with it when it just has 0 chance of succeeding?

are you now on purpose misrepresenting this???

He said impeachment doesn’t make sense because he didn’t do what they’re accusing him of, and what he actually did is something pretty much every president has done in the past century, and is apparently allowed.

Doesn’t mean him doing it is morally right, or that he should do it or… Just that this impeachment is just a silly show that will achieve nothing except making everyone taking it seriously look like an idiot…

I always see it coming back “evil is required for free choice”.

Doesn’t make any sense to me. Does gravity limit my free choice because i can’t just fly into the sky? Or does death limit my free choice because i might just want to continue to exist on this plane? Does my body limit my free choice because i might just want to be non corporeal (but not divine at the same time), not bound by hunger, disease, …

All of the above are not an issue for “free choice”, but allowing me to “choose for evil” somehow is?

If a world where crime and pain and disease and … doesn’t exist. I don’t see how there would be no free choice in that world. We would be bound by the restrictions of that world, just as we are currently bound by the restrictions of the current world.

It imo just sounds like a really lame excuse for the problem of evil. It does seem to work for those who believe in a god apparently, but i find that hard to understand. Our choices are incredibly limited, and we still regard it as “free will”. But that one choice, o boy, that one choice that if god could prevent us from making it, and thus would disprove him being good if that was an option. That one specific choice, yeah, that’s obviously not possible. He’s all powerful, but that’s just how it is you know?

I really don’t get how this is supposed to make any sense. Any god worth being called a god could have made a world without suffering, while still allowing for free choice. Choice is always limited, and evil & suffering aren’t special in any way. Take them away and i can still choose to enjoy a billion different things, while not having to suffer at all.

Is it worthless to say “(the current iteration of) AI won’t be a huge revolution”. For sure, it might be, the next decade will determine that.

Is it worhtless to say that many companies are throwing massive amounts of money at it, and taking huge risks on it, while it clearly won’t deliver for them? I would say no, that is useful.

And in the end, that’s what this complaint seems like for me. The issue isn’t “AI might be the next big thing”, but “We need to do everything with AI right now”, and then in a couple of years when they see how bad the results are, and how it negatively impacted them, noone will have seen it coming…

This topic was about the larger power market, so big industrial things. But even for people putting solar panels at home. Make it more expensive than getting regular power and see how that progresses… There are of course always some fanatics who will want it for the cause, but most people do it because it’s also economically advantageous for them.

I’ve been trying to find how much % of (renewable) power generated these days is from home solar installations, but it seems hard to find…

But try to follow the topic a bit, we were talking about the big players on the grid, not small home solar installations that don’t take part in the system discussed here.

I love how the title is basically also the problem.

Who the fuck has some obscure library that is the basis of many other tools as their “favourite project”, even though it might be a fundamental part of many other things that are actually the favourites of people.

My premise of how things currently work, so what the current incentives are for more renewable energy is completely flawed?

Sure, make renewable energy not profitable and see what happens…

I get what you WANT the world to be like, but it ISN’T like that right now, and it’s good to have aspirations on how it should be. But can we just accept what it is, and what implications that has for how things work?

If you can get your dream up & running overnight, go for it. Until then making sure green energy is profitable is the way forward for it, whether we like it or not.

It may not be the answer, but it is the current reality. If we want more renewable power right now, it needs to be profitable.

You can wish it’s different, we all do. But reality is what it is, so that’s why you should care :).

Because that’s what makes companies invest in renewables. If it’s not profitable, no new investments, and our world goes to shit (even more).

That’s also a pretty naive take on it.

First of all, you can indeed shut of the renewables easily. But that means that adding renewables to the grid is even less profitable, making renewables less desired to be built.

Hence in for example Germany a law was passed that prevented renewables being shut down in favor of worse energy sources, but that then leads to the issue we mention here.

It’s a tricky situation with renewables. But on the other hand, society is slowly adapting to using them & improving the infrastructure to handle such issues, so we’ll get there eventually :).

Wow, what’s with all the hostility against him.

It’s maybe because i also know a bit about lidars that his comment was clear to me (“ha, try putting a vacuum lidar in a car and see if it can do anything useful outside at the speeds & range a car needs”).

Is it that much of an issue if someone is a bit snarky when pointing out the false equivalence of “my 500$ vacuum has a lidar, but a tesla doesn’t? harharhar”.