beau_g

See my response to the parent, but git blame solves the issue of "what did they mean" because the person (if alive) can just be asked. The same way git blame is used all the time to ask why a programmer did something some certain way, there's more to code too than just how exactly does it compile/execute. The higher level idea should be to stop legislation seemingly written by nobody, that nobody wants to answer for, but is used to make important decision about lives and livelihoods. Having courts needed to interpret verbiage that was written by living people is completely preposterous. If it's written by dead people, sure, that's a harder problem.

This brings us to my even more unlikely idea - when whoever wrote that line in the legislation dies or retires, the line enters a short review period where it's either renewed with a new author on the line to speak to it or is deprecated. This way someone would always be there to just answer for the intent. Also would help garbage collect legislation that is no longer useful.

Interesting, I came to the same conclusion, making my dangerous robot look dangerous on purpose to keep people away from it. Are there actually written rules on this policy somewhere?

Tamagotchi but you feed it tokens

The images are not AI generated, they are just renders from CAD composited into photos or pure renders. I have received a lot of reach out from all sorts of backgrounds which is cool, though I am a very long ways from being able to sell anything, has definitely lit even more of a fire for me though to keep making progress.

Bean bag chair seats solve every problem.

You saw someone try to drink a soda upside down and spill it? We are going to need more than a Flock cam to stop that heinous act, perhaps a Flock robot arm that could grab the criminals arm and turn it right side up, or just restrain them while the authorities are on the way.

If you're talking human size bipeds, if they have the required peak torques and speeds on the leg actuators to work at all, they will have the physical ability to sprint. You can think of a Segway to visualize this more easily - the motor on it needs quite a bit of power and speed to overcome a human leaning forward drastically without just falling over, a biped is the same thing with more steps. You need quite a lot of power to even idle stand a biped and a lot of speed to even do tiny corrections. If you want to rely on an ifElse statement or a model policy to not sprint, then you just introduce more likelihood of falling over, which also isn't great around humans. If you truly want to know a robot will not (meaning cannot) sprint, you would need form factors like a worm or centipede.

I read the beginning of the post and immediately tabbed back to start writing a rant about standing up a website being fine, but the real loss of web functionality was Flash, glad I kept reading. I'm quite good with CSS and doing tricks with SVGs, but constantly run into things I want to do in 2D web I find to be complex enough and time consuming enough I don't even bother, while I would have been able to do it in Flash as a 13 year old in a few minutes. The modern web is a prison built out of <div>s, the tricks you see for "amazing" websites with obnoxious scrolljacking/parallax don't hide it.

A comment on HN a few years ago in a thread about car washes brought this to light a little bit for me, the proliferation of subscription car washes everywhere in the US (self storage too) seems like it can't possibly make sense financially, but when you think about developers that also want to speculate on the land, car washes and self storage are about as easy as it gets to develop and maintain some cashflow, then you can sell or redevelop later. Now I am expecting a spinoff to Mister Inference and Quick Flops as these sprawling networks of carwashes turn into data centers in 2030

I disagree and think the software model described works better when done well. I have seen this within a company, where both the hardware side and software side used the same titles (senior, staff, senior staff, principal). The hardware side used largely a combination of industry tenure and especially whether they had PHDs/patents/inventions or not to determine these titles, while the software org was very gung ho on using responsibility and influence to determine promotions. The other thing this led to is in the hardware org, often people would get hired on as senior staff or principal, while this almost never happened on the software side (nobody could get hired on as these roles as they couldn't possibly meet the rubric, as it required some outsized impact in the company with thousands of people using software you near singlehandedly developed and maintained).

As other people pointed out in this post in a roundabout way, titles only matter at all internally to a given company. And considering that, compare these two systems; yes the software org in this system does end up in a position where a 25 year old that's been at the company for 3 years could be senior staff, but that's very telling, to do that, they absolutely had to ship something novel, useful to many, and keep it running and good. Knowing that someone is a very well educated graybeard that invented something at Sun in 1989 is also some good information, but from the context of communicating with people in other orgs within a company I don't know so well, it's more valuable to me personally to understand whether they are responsible for a large running process and to what degree, moreso than how long they have been around and what they did elsewhere.