Just about everybody I know uses both. The pattern I see is that groups associated with some entity like a company or a club are on signal, because at some point (before Musk took over as chief billionaire villain) it became a thing to not have your brand associated with Meta, while many groups on the more the friends&family end of the spectrum remained on Whatsapp. And 1:1 conversations are simply on whatever messenger they started on. Which is super convenient, because of the way the Android multitasking model works (and I suspect it's similar on the other side?). Far more convenient to switch between a Signal, a Whatsapp and the occasional Facebook Messenger than between two WhatsApp groups, worse if those are Whatsapp groups with a channel hierarchy.
(Telegram: even just having it installed would be seen as a political statement, it's where the weirdos congregate to antivaxx and flatearth and reinstate monarchy or whatever they do)
You don't even need AI for the death of shared media culture. Just look at the end of broadcast and the rise of subscription services: movies like Star Wars or Back To The Future could only reach their status as cultural icons through the low and wide end of the licensing ramp. A successful cinema release might make a movie the talk of the month, but long lasting cultural relevance only came from broadcast repeats. Stuff that stays on a subscription will only ever reach permanents and hoppers.
But winamp theming rested not only on the code allowing arbitrary bitmaps, it also rested on a user interface requiring zero discoverability. At some point people just knew where to click. In hindsight it appears almost surprising that there wasn't a fashion of black on black winamp skins (or maybe I just missed it)
My only surprise is that they haven't already converted. It's not just about military aspects of an invasion, it's also about ease of deportation and ethnic substitution that would have to be expected afterwards in case of a Russian victory. That pattern is all too clearly established.
> The cost of bike lanes isn't too bad. Unlike a car road it doesn't require a lot of maintenance.
Tell that to cyclists used to navigating mandatory bike infrastructure full of terribly broken up surface. If car lanes were that quality, people would put the authorities under permanent siege with torches and pitchforks, for refusing to maintain roads.
"Oh, but that road is fine, few spots where you have to step out of the car to push it". For some reason, people responsible for bike infrastructure (outside .nl or Copenhagen) tend to think that it's ok to slow down to walking speed or dismount, on main routes. Imagine similar things required from drivers.
> The wear and tear on tarmac is directly related to the weight of the vehicles that use it.
From empirical studies, damage to the road is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. A bike with rider may weigh 200 pounds, where a passenger car weighs around 4000 pounds. That 20x difference in weight results in a 80,000x difference in damage to the road.
(That’s not even getting into semi trucks, which are around 40 tons fully loaded. Split along 5 axles rather than 2, that’s 9x the axle load of a passenger car, leading to 6,500x the damage to the road relative to a passenger car, or 520 million times that of a bike.)
Yeah, and that model is just wrong unless wear from axle weight is the dominant lifetime limiter. There are many other lifetime limiters (like tree roots pushing up from below), and when road engineers plug in bicycle axle weight into their usual formulas you get designs that barley last a season - even when they aren't used at all.
> It seems like when the cars are going slower -- and there are fewer of them -- there are fewer crashes
Yes, because the throughput of that fast, high density road is so much bigger. Subjectively it feels like it has something like 2x the amount of cars, and when we look at accident density we may very well correct by that factor, but in reality the difference in throughput is much bigger. Number of cars present at a given point in time x speed. That quiet road, it's close to having no car throughput at all compared to the big one, but it still sees the occasional accident.
Indeed, on the main road through my locale, I'd be passed by 100+ cars per minute. On my 30 minute commute to work, via side streets, I encounter maybe 10 to 20 cars total.
I consider car avoidance to be the #1 cycling safety measure.
On the videos the ship is drifting backwards, from wind and/or currents (are currents the East River dominated by tides?). I don't think that they ever intended to clear the bridge. The fundamental they missed was keeping their maneuvering engine up and running (or calling in some tugs).
If you watch the video you can see tugs moving the boat. Current speculation is that the tugs/harbor captain messed up and the ship got away from them in the tide and drifted backwards into the bridge.
Yes, the East river and the Hudson are both tidal estuaries. The tide has a big effect on water flow direction. I'm an in-experienced sailor but I was surprised they left with the water flowing against them.
My bad for getting the full details .. I came to this story via a chain of bridge clearance fail stories and jumped to the assumption this was another intended passage clearance mistake.
There are some knuckle chewing engineering videos of planned water transits of "big loads" timed happen for a still water king low tide .. fast work with tiny clearances and major downsides on failure.
It's not about throughput per unit, it's about throughput per unit of cost.
If five cheap robots outperform a single skilled worker, robots win. But depending on jurisdiction, those five robots might still lose to a dozen or so slaves kept near starvation. For the skilled worker it's bad news one way or the other.
Skilled. Not pedigree-filtered and trained and certified into a scarcity that may or may not actually be natural. Chances are most doctors or lawyers or software engineers would perform rather sub-par picking and putting in a warehouse.
Day one yes. put us in the warehouse for a few months and we would be as good as everyone. I'm guessing the woule only give a few days of training before setting us loose.
Several months of me as a doctor and I'd still be incompetent.
"The fastest humans at this task are like Olympic athletes. They’re far faster than the robots, and they’re able to store items in pods at much higher densities."
They're not paying for the fastest. If they get some by accident that's great, but otherwise they just want someone reasonably mobile that will be good enough after a week or two of practice.
Of course the robots don't trip and fall breaking their back and sue the company, nor do they want vacations or raises. In fact the robot performance is probably rather consistent versus human performance.
Compare to a doctor who needs nearly a decade of special training. Or an engineer who needs a complex university training program.
Yes some are better than others. However there is still a vast gulf in skill between those people than engineers (much less doctors), while the gap between them and someone off the street is much less. (the article doesn't say how long it takes someone to get to that high skilled state or even if it is possible to train to that level - if someone can show me data on this I might change my mind on skill)
Well the obvious answer is training. Medicine requires 4 years undergrad plus 4 years grad plus 3+ years residency. You might argue medicine can be replaced by AI similarly, but the issue is risk. That 11 years is to reach the point you can be trusted to make the really high-risk and high-value decisions, not to do the easy stuff analogous to entry-level software.
Software has been an outlier in terms of its high salaries requiring only minimal training. That implies automating it will disproportionately be both easier and more valuable than many other skilled tasks.
Organized volleys would give the advancing infantry convenient time slots to hunker down behind their shields and reduce the effectiveness of arrows even further. A less dense but continuous stochastical distribution would be objectively more deadly, except perhaps against a force going for arrow evasion.
(Telegram: even just having it installed would be seen as a political statement, it's where the weirdos congregate to antivaxx and flatearth and reinstate monarchy or whatever they do)
reply