Except once you have your Ford truck, you have to depend on outside parties to fuel it. At least with solar, once they have the equipment, it's not dependant on outside forces (except the sun)
Can you specify what in practice could be an issue with a "forced" password? Are some characters harder to input than others or is it a different problem?
For the non-American aspect, it's extremely common for websites to force ASCII today (either explicitly, or because using anything else breaks in various unexpected ways) anyway, I doubt that any internet user around the globe will have an issue with that. That boat has sailed in the 90s.
in my locale's keyboard, curly brackets and the dollar sign are not obvious to input. they require an additional combo of keys that most people have no idea about.
The Tron analogy is quite a stretch. It's only the dematerializing and rematerializing that fits, and since the character is never duplicated, even that isn't the best.
I have a hard time recommending the book. The main character had no agency for most of it, and the plot was very unclear. It made for a good unveiling at the end, but given the size of the book...it's a lot to read for that payoff.
I won't say don't read it -- it did manage to keep my interest, after all -- I just have a hard time recommending it due to the time-investment:reward ratio.
It's not really an alternative. The appeal is the very organic and human look. The one you liked is certainly more apt for medieval stuff, but it still looks digital
Resources are finite. If college courses were recorded lessons or they just gave you a theory book and an exercises book, then of course we could automate everything. Just sign up, pay your fee and take the exams and once you're done you get the degree, even full remote. Your taxes will go towards professors and a fuck ton of TAs for questions and exercises and to keep the infrastructure running.
You can't easily contribute to Apple Maps or add places. That's why Google Maps has much more content. Many people would love to contribute to Apple Maps, but aren't allowed.
On the other hand, these are the two wealthiest companies in all of human history. Why can't they hire people all over the world to improve their maps?
Apple Maps pulls in OpenStreetMaps data in my area of the country, so submitting information on OSM means an eventual Apple Maps upgrade for me. I edited the 3D shape of some of the houses in my neighborhood and added missing streets on OSM and saw them imported into Apple Maps a few months later.
Here is a map to see where people affiliated with apple are contributing to openstreetmap: https://piebro.github.io/openstreetmap-statistics/#e19b
it seems they use OSM data everywhere but in North America and most of Europe.
> The main provider of map data is TomTom, but data is also supplied by Automotive Navigation Data, Getchee, Hexagon AB, IGN, Increment P, Intermap Technologies, LeadDog, MDA Information Systems, OpenStreetMap, and Waze.
Compare that with Google Maps, where anybody can easily add businesses or other places of interest that are missing from the map. How do you go about doing that in Apple Maps? Without an Apple device?
Businesses should have in their best interest to add themselves to Apple Maps (which they can do). If you see something not showing just pop inside and tell the manager. That's what I did one time at a hairdresser's
Business owners spend their time and effort where it pays off. If they don't have spare time to navigate Apple's user-hostile backend for adding or updating their business, they won't. The network effect means customers will rely on Google Maps.
Business Connect is sadly a total joke. I can't correct the name of a business I manage and just get the error "Thoroughfare or fullThoroughfare must not be empty, Thoroughfare or fullThoroughfare must not be empty"
Google Maps is far better for businesses to manage and get their information out. That's why their maps are dominating.
it's 2023, we have the means to cheaply record and store audio and video evidence for basically any medical experiment. we can record every patient reaction and opinion without relying on the reasearchers' hearsay. we also have the means to store and distribute all the binary/textual raw data gathered throughout the experiments.
maybe as an intermediate step we could make available all the recordings to the peer reviewers and only offer the raw experimental data bundled in the paper publicly? maybe in the future we can have 1TB studies without breaking a sweat? maybe all the money we give to publishers can be spent on servers to archive all the primary data so at least we aren't simply filling the pockets of MBAs?
> maybe as an intermediate step we could make available all the recordings to the peer reviewers
The issue is clearly not the amount of data available to peer reviewers considering it's already easy to detect major flaws in a quarter of published peer reviewed research. The issue is that peer reviewers do a shoddy job which should surprise no one having ever published peer reviewed research.
And to be fair why should they do better? It's generally unpaid, it's poorly paid when it is paid and it's not particularly well considered.
If we discover that we can´t trust researchers then what else are we left with? Doctor-patient privacy works if the doctor is truthful in their reporting
It's generally permitted to share de-identified patient data. As long as you're not sharing patients names, medical record numbers, birthdays, and a couple of other fields, you should be fine.
Maybe we could do a double blind (including scientists) study where everyone waived their rights & are recorded then in another "typical" conditions study do none of that and compare the two and see which one seems to have the best, most accurate results.
>it's 2023, we have the means to cheaply record and store audio and video evidence for basically any medical experiment. we can record every patient reaction and opinion without relying on the reasearchers' hearsay. we also have the means to store and distribute all the binary/textual raw data gathered throughout the experiments
This is a great approach IMO. Additionally skeptics (for example anti-vaxxers), should be physically present at the trials.
What is preventing someone from having 200 participants, but saying they only had 100 participants, and then only providing evidence for 100 participants?
The researchers will have to have gone through some kind of third party agency to get the partecipants. This agency should be queried to see the number they report
How does this agency determine who can meaningfully participate in the study? Are they going to have the expertise to make that determination for _every_ study that could possibly be conducted?
What is the difference (to a layperson) between cherry-picking participants and rejecting participants because they do not meet your study's criteria?
Who funds this agency?
Do the members of the reviewing agency have their own biases, and might those biases tarnish the reputation of a study that is actually well-conducted? (hint: this already happens in journals)
Pfizer had a trial with 21823 people in the Expirement group and 21823 people in the Placebo group. In the results they excluded data for 1790 from the Expirement group and 1585 Placebo group. However, _crucially_ Pfizer never claimed there were only 100 people in the study after starting with 200; you know pfizer excluded 3375 people because _Pfizer told you_.
Every clinical trial paper I've read has a discussion of inclusion and exclusion criteria. I think for the trial to be registered, it has to include this information.
"unrelated reasons" should not be an acceptable excuse though. either state the reason or it goes into the trash. and if they were private reasons you can still contact them to confirm they left on their own volition and/or they didn't finish the trial without getting into specifics.
you only need one lie to suspect the whole thing
At this point Ford trucks are even more justifiable