ngangaga

5 ms·

1.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I had no idea that piece of shit was associated with Ford at all.
2.
by ngangaga 1y ago
https://www.mining.com/web/factbox-greenlands-rich-but-large...
3.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Nah, I've broken like three of those things and I just resent having another thing to carry around. I've just given up on using wired headphones for the most part with my phone. I just don't know why they thought it was desir
4.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Interesting. I don't think I've ever tried to use this.
5.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Do you think that audio (or bluetooth) doesn't work reliably on ios? Why?
6.
by ngangaga 1y ago
> For everyday use, wireless headphones offer a superior experience simply due to the lack of a cable Surely this is offset by a) having to charge it and b) not being able to replace the battery when it dies Not to mention a cable can be
7.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I would characterize "hard" sci fi as "consistent" or "coherent", not necessarily "plausible".
8.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Reality is always more nuanced. That's kind of reality's deal.
9.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Well sure, if you're looking to be angry you can tie anything into your interests. But actual criticism of the moon landing is soberly connected to reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 I'm just say
10.
by ngangaga 1y ago
If point 2 is something so subjective as "deal plainly", point 0 should probably be "be honest with yourself". More to the point—why would anyone want to do otherwise? The hard part is satisfying your own evaluation. &
11.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I don't disagree that the engineering can be justified. But you don't need custom hardware to achieve radiation hardening, much less hiring fucking IBM. And to be clear, I love power chips. I remain very bullish about the architec
12.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I disagree—opinions on the moon landing don't matter because for the most part our lives are divorced from whether or not it happened. It's much easier to get people to believe stuff that they already want to believe. In conspira
13.
by ngangaga 1y ago
> "Innovative new products would get much rarer without super cheap and scalable compute, of course". Interesting conclusion—I'd argue we haven't seen much innovation since the smartphone (18 years ago now), and it&#x
14.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I think it'd be pretty funny if to book travel in 2035 you need to use a travel agent that's objectively dumber than a human. We'd be stuck in the eighties again, but this time without each other to rely on. Of course, that w
15.
by ngangaga 1y ago
We aren't talking numbers, though. Who cares about embedded? I mean that literally. This is computation invisible by design. If that were sufficient we wouldn't have smartphones.
16.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I'm not sure what artemis or orion are, but you can blame defense contractors for this. Nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM or Lockheed, even if they deliver unimpressive results at massive cost.
17.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Sure, if you think the world consists of cash transactions and whatever a car needs to think about.
18.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I don't think it's that deep. We are just stuck with browsers now, for better and worse. Everything else trails.
19.
by ngangaga 1y ago
This doesn't distract that you built a business around chatbots. Who gives a damn about the writing style you use to pimp them on us
20.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Do people not have the work ethic to commit a small amount of fraud anymore? Smh, kids these days.
21.
by ngangaga 1y ago
> "Degrowth" is not an option. This is not helpful. There are many reasons degrowth won't generally help humanity, but the benefits are particularly aplicable to western nations and their diplomatic relations. Certainly ma
22.
by ngangaga 1y ago
> the difference means getting funded or not. This speaks more to the incompetence of VC than anything. How can you justify deploying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on the basis of "stars"? I have a very hard time
23.
by ngangaga 1y ago
I wish we would use terms like "verifiable" or "reproducible" rather than "secure", which is quite difficult to evaluate out of context of usage.
24.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Well yes, nationalism will be the dagger in the heart of humanity. But AI won't do anything to address this; in fact, leaning into the concept of competing rather than cooperating economies will accelerate pushing the dagger in.
25.
by ngangaga 1y ago
> they still shape hiring decisions, VC term sheets, and dependency choices This is nuts to me. A star is a "like". It has carries no signal of quality and even its popularity proxy is quite weak. I can't remember the last
26.
by ngangaga 1y ago
> but a huge part of why Trump was able to rise to power was because there was by far not enough protest against him. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of this claim. For one thing, it's not clear that trump voters respect
27.
by ngangaga 1y ago
It's worth noting that companies that are too big to fail (as I assume credit bureaus are considered) are great places to park money.
28.
by ngangaga 1y ago
100% fair; I was referring to Spain and Portugal FYI, but I've heard very good things about Italy as well in this regard.
29.
by ngangaga 1y ago
TBH, Uber wouldn't be so much of a problem with decent competition. But the critical mass required for a transit app is quite difficult to establish, and Lyft offers essentially the same deal with a slightly better margin for drivers.
30.
by ngangaga 1y ago
Hm, fair enough. Oddly Dulles is my local airport and I wasn't able to find any taxis the last time I flew in. Clearly I'm looking in the wrong place.

More ›