The thing about phones and laptops is that they have the excuse that miniaturization makes this necessary (it's still an excuse but it's better cover). And current systems essentially have the lifetime of the battery.
Cars should be a different story but we'll have to fight for that even.
And ingress protection, which requires excellent seals, which need a bit of know-how (i.e., a shop) to correctly reapply. At least that's what I like to tell myself.
Battery packs are structural components for safety reasons more than anything. Weight and volume savings are secondary to safety in regards to anything with high energy density, be it a battery pack, fuel cell, or gas tank.
But though they _contain_ batteries, a battery pack is not a battery any more than a car is an engine. The battery inside the battery pack remains non-structural and non-load-bearing.
>with the battery cells helping to solidify the platform as one big unit
The individual cylinders are made from steel. The steel is used structurally. Perhaps next you'll tell me the "battery" is actually just the anode, cathode and electrolyte?
As far as I can tell so far no one has used the individual cell cylinders as load bearing components, only the battery box. Tesla's "structural battery" is aiming to do that and have the individual cell cylinders carry loads.
You're right! My brief skim of the article overlooked that very important detail.
Thank you.
> Perhaps next you'll tell me the "battery" is actually just the anode, cathode and electrolyte?
No, next I'll tell you that this isn't Reddit and you don't have to be a dick to "win an argument on the internet". On HN you can simply point out the facts, like you did above.
It depends on 1 ("one") legislation. Its not like theres inherently anything stopping this from happening except the insatiable hunger of some rich dudes. I believe the EU is forcing the iphones to have usb-c?
I've swapped batteries in iphone and macbooks several times. Just because the manufacturer doesn't really want you to do it doesn't mean you can't do it.
Not by a mile. USDC are emitted by a consortium which the HN unicorn Coinbase is a major part of. They have something like 73% of USDC in actual USD and the rest are corporate bonds / money markets and things like that. It's not 100% USD, but they're 100% backed.
Coinbase is a reputable US company ran by US citizens.
USDT is operated by shady people with an history of fraud from shady micro countries on the dark list of fiscal havens.
They are nothing similar.
I do believe there are actual people wiring a lot of real USD / EUR to Coinbase's bank accounts to buy crypto. I'm really not so sure there are people actually wiring lots of money to Tether's bahamas bank accounts. I'm not sure many ever did.
I really don't get this: Coinbase is a HN unicorn. Do you think it's a gigantic fraud / scam and there aren't a shitload of real people putting a shitload of freaking real money to Coinbase's very real bank accounts?
That depends on your definition of sexual. If you have someone in underwear with the sole purpose of arousing people of the opposite sex, that is pretty sexual to me.
The microphone ear licking channels are definitely more sexual than many "NSFW" subreddits.
What actually defines porn? It's hard to say, but you know it when you see it. Spend 5 minutes watching any of the ear lickers on the front page of twitch and make your mind up for yourself. I find it hard to come to the conclusion that it's not porn.
It's sarcasm my dude. Twitch is notorious for giving female streamers a pass when it comes to nudity or inappropriate behavior, all the while banning male members for accidentally clicking on a NSFW link and it being shown on steam for seconds.
A channel I mod got a 1-day suspension because you could see the crack of a drunk guy mooning them (despite instantly stopping the stream and deleting the VOD before starting again). A few weeks before, two girls flashed them. That obviously did not warrant a ban.
Because combined with the abysmal state of education in most places, and a general lack of government action, Facebook is an actual threat to our civilization.
People unfortunately love the upsides of misinformation, or perhaps it's the format that makes it easy to build community around shared (misinformed) values, to rally in battles that rage for hours or days for a cause you deeply believe in and can follow by digesting 30-second soundbites on social midea and 30-minute videos on YouTube.
People will do this wherever they can talk in a group online, not just Facebook properties. It's... pretty bad actually, I think the only tool that exists right now is censorship, because the bullshit gets created, spread, and wholeheartedly received way faster than debunking will.
And censorship is a power that can't be safely entrusted to nobody.
I don't necessarily disagree, but often I hear FB or other tech companies like Twitter singled out re: misinformation. News media contributes to misinformation and contributes to a warped, partisan, permanently-in-catastrophe-mode population just as much as FB, Twitter, and other mediums.
I doubt, if FB goes away, that any of the issues you're implying will go away or even get much better. In fact, the lack of a real look into the negative effects of consumer news product reinforces this idea that only the elite can know the truth, and the masses just have to get in line and shut up.
News media proliferated nonsense from fed sources to justify the Iraq war, they gave Trump 24/7 airtime for a while because it increased ratings. They constantly forgo any real accountability for their actions, and pretend that they aren't just another addictive consumer product that warps peoples' brains.
> It's a parent's job to educate your children. There are much worse things than Facebook out there.
I'm guessing that either you're not a parent, or your kids aren't teens.
But most parents of teens realize that kids, and especially teens, are often much more influenced by things like social media & peers (and peers via social media) vs. influence their parents have on them.
It actively uses its algorithm to radicalize racists and conspiracy theorists, and when it discovered that's what it was doing decided to keep doing it because it was good for the bottom line:
An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
> An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
That's the whole point. Oh they're just trying to make a buck like everyone else is exactly the problem.
They are a running a paperclip maximizer that turns passive consumers of misinformation into "engaged" radicals and the system that is Facebook has no incentive to correct this.
To recap, you seem to be concerned that all social media are allowing posts to become popular, and those posts sometimes promote hatred towards conservatives or liberals.
Two questions:
- What do you think should be done about the legacy media that is doing the same?
- Should social media promote boring posts, or actively censor political content in favour of a certain viewpoint, or anything else? Perhaps a real-life name registration for anyone with over 1000 followers, like in China?
> those posts sometimes promote hatred towards conservatives or liberals.
Incorrect assertion. Those posts promote hatred and/or violence toward humans for traits those humans did not choose. e.g. race, sexual orientation, etc.
Legacy media aren't actively amplifying the voices and recruiting efforts of white supremacists.
Facebook is. They acknowledge that they are. They chose to actively allow and encourage it for profit.
That's the thing, COVID is an "eternal war" as described in dystopian novels. If you describe COVID in war terms, then it justifies all sorts of atrocities.
It's not though. Pandemics have happened before and they end.
Second, what's the atrocity being committed exactly? People temporarily are prevented from publishing extraordinarily brazen lies, clearly scientifically false, which are killing thousands of people? I can't see what the evil is here.
I didn't have to read an article to see that it's pure speculation based on nothing.
Yes, it could surge to $50k, or it could also fall to $50. Technically it is true.