I don’t entirely disagree, but it’s worth noting that to some extent learning is inherently boring, like, making it more interesting makes it less effective. Reiterating the same thing to the point of boredom and beyond had been shown to be effective if I remember correctly. It’s why things like Duolingo take so much longer to teach you a language, because they’re trying so hard to be somewhat fun they actually compromise the effectiveness of the teaching.

So I do think schools need to remove distractions, especially ones engineered to be distracting like Facebook.

But your point is valid too, just because some boredom is necessary doesn’t mean they can’t do better, a lot better.

Better solutions have always and will always exist, but they cost more to implement.

Piping grey water to a data center either means placing it somewhere with an appropriate pipe with appropriate filtration performed, or building a new pipe/filtration. Drinking water in comparison is easily accessible anywhere. They don’t care about the impact or even the per unit cost, they just want to build on the cheap and take advantage of local infrastructure, and they figure in this ai boom the actual running costs are irrelevant because ai companies will pay for anything that works, efficiency be damned

You can imagine they presumably must have made some changes, almost certainly for the better or at least not much worse

Yes, it varies a lot. But by and large cases where robots wildly outperform humans were automated decades ago, because the obvious benefits justified the cost and complexity of either building a bespoke robot or programming one to do the job well (all those robot arms you imagine swinging doors into place at the car factory)

The cases left over (and discussed here) are either requiring a level of flexibility that older designs of robot couldn’t handle, or where humans were pretty efficient at anyway, so the complex process of prepping a robot wasn’t justified.

But a robot that can be taught without programming (by any worker or their supervisor), and slots straight into an existing human-shaped hole? That could massively reduce the upfront cost, especially if economies of scale make the robot itself cheaper. possibly to the point that the robot could be worse at the job than a human and still be cheaper in the long run.

I’d certainly prefer if they didn’t have to find out the hard way that so many obviously bad ideas are bad, you’d think they could predict the results with just a little thinking ahead.

On the other hand, a u turn is better than blindly pushing through every bad take they have, so on that basis, I propose more u turns.

Chinese chips for sale in China. So hardly a security concern for US customers… guess they are still hoping to starve China’s chip building efforts, but the chance of that working feels close to zero at this point.

The user would be unable to use E2EE as soon as the key is swapped, so the only real issue here is impersonation.

If an admin mitms all the messages then they can re-encrypt using the users original/real public key, leaving the user unaware that they have been hacked and able to use encryption as normal, or am I missing something?

An important difference, but doesn’t invalidate the point the previous poster made

Changed his name by deed poll I believe

I suspect a big goal of this refund policy is to make steam self moderating. Valve don’t want to have to police individual games more than absolutely necessary.

If devs can game it by giving players the completion achievement the moment they launch the game, suddenly valve has to step in to solve the problem, and they are far too busy enjoying their enormous profits to actually do work

The function of a market is not the movement of goods, but the movement of prices.

This particular market is not functioning, or at the very least, it’s not functioning like a market for a commodity that has no particular resource limitations.

Makes me think of the classic yes minister national service scene, https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks