Ugh. That will teach me to use the mobile site. Useless because of Unicode bugs.

If itâ(TM)s #1, thatâ(TM)s a design problem. The controls for the two engines and the temperature readings should be in sufficiently different places to make such a mistake impossible.

We will soon find out which is stronger: the CCP's censorship or the Streisand Effect.

Wikifunctions isn't even part of Wikipedia. It's an entirely separate Wiki that just happens to be run by the same organization. It's like saying you don't watch NBC News because Universal Pictures made Howard the Duck.

Could have. Didn't want to. They were more interested in low-end CPUs with specialized hardware to accelerate gaming, targeting game console manufacturers and set-top box manufacturers as their primary customers..

Pretty much, yes. Apple left AIM because nobody could build an efficient laptop chip. Apple left Intel because they did, but only briefly, and then sat on their laurels while the iPhone CPU basically caught up.

2017? Three years to build M1? Seems optimistic. I'm pretty sure Apple was building Mac OS X on Intel internally even back before it was called Mac OS X as a hedge against PowerPC not keeping up, and it remained as a skunkworks project until they needed it, at which point they polished it and shipped it. It seems almost certain that Apple also had builds of macOS running on ARM (likely iPads) long before 2017. There were rumors that Apple was testing ARM-based Mac hardware back in 2014 (though this *might* have been confusion because of the Touch Bar using an ARM CPU), and rumors that ARM-based Macs would happen go as far back as 2011.

It was never really a question of whether Apple would switch the Mac to ARM. Once Apple started designing chips, the writing was on the wall for their future with Intel. The only question was the timing. Did Skylake increase the pressure to build a desktop-grade chip sooner? Maybe. Was it the reason Apple switched? No. That was always going to happen, for the same reason Apple switched from VxWorks on the Airport Base Stations to Darwin, and switched from Pixo OS to Darwin on the iPod. They like to be in control over their destiny.

There is a school of thought which holds that past a certain scale, effective moderation becomes impossible. I've done moderation work and it took tons of judgement.

Monolith?

Ask "Do we know all the consequences of eliminating mosquitoes world-wide?". If the answer is "No." then you DO NOT WANT to eliminate mosquitoes world-wide, for the same reason you don't push the Big Red Button before you know what pushing it will do.

Thatâ(TM)s why the OS has protections to limit each appâ(TM)s access to data from other apps. Allow side-loading, but require multiple warnings to install any app that doesnâ(TM)t participate in sandboxing. Make it scary enough that nobody installs non-sandboxed apps unless they are backup apps, and even then, only after carefully vetting the source.

Insects tend not to stay exclusively in natural preserves, unless you have a different definition of what a preserve is that I'm not aware of.

Insects migrate. They move around to feed on food sources outside the immediate area. Some, like the monarch butterfly or the dragonfly, migrate thousands of miles, even across entire oceans. The notion that a preserve would protect insects from pesticides is based on an assumption of localized effect that doesn't always line up with the real world.

When a large percentage of insects that leave the preserve don't come back because they fed on crops sprayed with pesticides, that diminishes the population of the preserve, both directly by their loss and indirectly by the loss of offspring that would have come back in a future generation.

And if we reach a point when the only place where the insects are surviving is in the preserve, the loss of insects that leave the preserve would also reduce the genetic diversity of the preserve and accelerate the collapse of the species.

5,000 Indians controlling 100,000 robots, though, would represent a huge cost savings in this case.

First, you wouldn't have to hire in the local market, so the labor would be cheaper. The median salary in India is about $350 per month. California's minimum wage (assuming four 40-hour workweeks) is $2,640 per month. So that's almost an order-of-magnitude reduction in cost by itself.

Second, at least half of a delivery person's time is spent in a vehicle going from place to place, and in low-density areas, that increases to maybe more like 80%. Assuming the vehicles are autonomous, the workers controlling the bots won't have to do anything with a bot while it is in transit (and presumably the autonomous vehicles themselves will require only occasional human intervention), so one person will be able to control a large number of bots, taking control of a bot only when one arrives at a destination.

Third, if the bot is autonomous except in exceptional circumstances, the percentage of time that a human will be in charge will be reduced even further.

So if you assume that the cost per hour is lower by a factor of 7.5, that 75% of time is spent driving (no interaction), and that 90% of deliveries are done fully autonomously without human intervention, and that intervention takes only a quarter of the time that it would take to deliver a package entirely by hand, that would mean that a remote delivery driver would cost 0.75% as much per delivery, and that would only improve over time as the reliability of automation improves and the number of interventions decreases.

The end of for-pay non-artistic manual labor is near.

They're now a multiply convicted monopolist, which means everything they do from now on is going to be under much more careful scrutiny, by the courts, by other companies' lawyers, and by the DOJ. As a result, they're likely to get a lot more cases and *lose* a lot more cases. And at the rate things are going, fines are the least of their worries. They should be worrying that the DOJ might demand them to spin off the entire App Store ecosystem into a separate company and completely lose control. A little bit of short term profit doesn't really balance that out.

Sick of politicians who use their power for their own benefit instead of the general welfare... which to some extent is almost all politicians, but not remotely equally.

Even if the court hasn't ordered it, once you're sued you have an obligation to retain anything which would be relevant to the lawsuit. It's called a litigation hold, and I work in a field where they're common. That obligation supersedes company data retention policies and requests from other parties (including the plaintiff, if the plaintiff eg. uses Outlook's "recall message" feature to try and remove a message they sent us we're required to ignore it and retain that message and the "recall message" request). It isn't supposed to require the plaintiff to prove anything, it's purpose is to preserve evidence that the defendant possesses so it's available to be found through discovery. And it applies the other way as well, the plaintiff is obligated to preserve evidence too because the defendant's entitled to discovery too.