I think they gave it two wireless adapters for basically that purpose. That way it and the computer can form a dedicated channel where they don’t need an intermediary for better performance.

Walk me through your plan to depose the American government in less than a year. Don’t forget that if you fail or are caught planning they don’t just kill you, they kill you by injecting you with poison that feels like being set on fire from the inside while you suffocate, take everything you or your family possess leaving your survivors homeless and destitute, shoot your dog and probably a couple of family members too.

Like, if you’ve lost all faith we’ll “do what needs to be done”… What needs to be done?

It’s slightly more complicated than that. Still doesn’t make him look good but it’s more nuanced.

He was a Nazi and flagrant racist before Nazi was the unequivocally negative descriptor we think of it as today.
He thought Nazism was right for America the same way he thought square dancing would keep away the blacks and that the Jews would be undercut if he did car financing without banks.

He was awful and a patriot, so when Germany went to war with America he was unequivocally in favor of destroying the Germans.
He still agreed with them on everything else.

I agree that it’s artificial scarcity, but I don’t think the conversation is going to fully be able to move to removing that scarcity until we find a way to handle the people who rearrange the bits actually living in a world of objects and totally authentic scarcity.

It’s the same dilemma we have with authors and musicians. Even if it can be infinitely copied the people who make it still need to eat, and not just be able to find a way to eat, but to reliably and predictably eat which makes donations and crowd funding iffy at best.

As a user and contributer to open source, I’m loath to put up any defense of something that irritates me more often than not. As a person who makes a living working on the closed side I can honestly say I would probably not be in the field if there wasn’t as much ability to make a living in it.

Software patents can fuck off though.

I would recommend it. It can take a minute your first time through to get to some of the intense optimization stuff, but a lot of it’s there really early.
The dominant gameplay loop by far is “you have tools. There’s a new problem to solve with those tools that’s hard/tedious. Solving it means you can make tools that make the problem easier. Goto step one”.

I generally assume intent that’s more shallow if it’s just as explanatory. It’s the same reason home appliances occasionally get a burst of AI labeling. “Artificial intelligence” sounds better in advertising than “interpolated multi variable lookup table”.
It’s a type of simple AI (measure water filth from an initial rinse, dry weight, soaked weight, and post spin weight, then find the average for the settings from preprogrammed values.), but it’s still AI.

Biggest reason I think it’s advertising instead of something more deliberate is because this has happened before. There’s some advance in the field, people think AI has allure again and so everything gets labeled that way. Eventually people realize it’s not the be all end all and decide that it’s not AI, it “just” a pile of math that helps you do something. Then it becomes ubiquitous and people think the notion of calling autocorrect AI is laughable.

That fits. I think games where you need to care for a dumb little creature hit a couple buttons in our psychology. You want to make it do the right thing because you want to succeed at the game and get that reward of “it did good”. It’s struggling, which means you’re paying attention to it, and it’s doing so with enough charm that you’re not just entirely indifferent. Most importantly, it needs to succeed often enough to make sure you know it can, and slowly get better so you have the long term satisfaction of having improved it. Extra bonus points if you can give a bit of wish fulfillment fantasy. “My sim who regularly eats old fish out of the trash is somehow a self employed artist who lives in a great house I got distracted and built to my dream specification. I would totally play pool until I wet myself and fell asleep crying on the floor.”

I think there’s actually a lot of truth to fun being related to frustration. If something is too easy you don’t get the dopamine hit, because why would your brain reward you for learning something trivial? If it’s too hard the path to most joy is giving up. At the sweet spot it’s obviously possible, but you struggle enough that you get a dash of dopamine for succeeding. The trick is keeping the struggle varied or infrequent enough that you’re brain doesn’t declare it a source of diminishing returns.

Shitty mobile games are the king of it, since they have a standard/easy ramp that quickly moves to just above most people’s threshold with the “out” of a loot box that has a chance to give you a bonus labeled as just a small boost. And they’re normally $10/10, but the 50 packs is $15 for the moment, and since you’re new you get $10 off…

Not-those types of games tend to just try for “balanced difficulty scaling”.

The factorio dev blog has some good reads about finding the right balance of tedium as driving mechanism to figure out automation and also needing the game to be enjoyable. Basically the moment an activity becomes stale they want you to be able to automate it

City skylines would be the best place to live, and would have a natural friendship with factorio.

It would be a bit weird making a bowl of cereal and having a freight train blast up to your house at 200mph, a robot flies out of the depot just past the dog park, skims above the pedestrian walkways at just under the speed of sound, unloads the single stack of of cereal boxes that the train is carrying and sticks it in your pantry before they both vanish just as fast. You only had a half a box of raisin bran left and you hit the resupply threshold.

Okay, but trying to guide a braindead little sim automaton through basically playing factorio would be incredible. “Oh my God, why are you running the blue circuit belt through there? Stop it! No! STOP CRYING DIANE, YOU CHOSE TO SKIP EATING AND USE A SUSHI BELT. Stop eating off the floor, there’s coal everywhere”.

I’d even go a step further and say your last point is about generative LLMs, since text classification and sentiment analysis are also pretty benign.

It’s tricky because we’re having a social conversation about something that’s been mislabeled, and the label has been misused dozens of times as well.

It’s like trying to talk about knife safety when you only have the word “pointy”.

Oh, most definitely. And honestly I still think anyone who calls themselves a first amendment auditor is more likely than not a little out of whack with regards to the norms of society and the law.

I believe every example I’ve seen roughly boils down to:
“I’m going to stand here and film this elementary school to see if anyone oppresses me by saying I can’t”
Cop: “everything okay here sir?”.
"This is public property and I can film here if I want. You have no right to tell me not to!”.
Cop: “that’s alright, I only asked if everything was okay. We got some reports about strange behavior and that you were making people uncomfortable so I came to check up on things”.
“Well now you know that everything’s fine, no one has anything to be concerned about because it’s perfectly legal, and you can run along now. Good bye.”.
Cop: “alright, well it might be nice if you considered moving along, since you’re making people uncomfortable. Just a thought. Bye.”.
Title: “1st amendment patriot schools cop on meaning of the law”.

Cops are assholes, but those guys invariably share videos of the least objectionable behavior to illustrate that.

They were the union of two previously existing agencies, immigration and naturalization services and the US customs service.
It may have been unnecessary, but it was part of a larger federal law enforcement and intelligence apparatus reorganization, and not a net new block of enforcement operations.

Excluding deporting people needlessly for racist bullshit reasons, they have other responsibilities regarding human trafficking, and certain classes of international crime.

Other than the ADA compliance mentioned, there’s also weird property ownership and utility access things that can come up.
The laws that give them the ability to put sidewalks on your property usually phrase a limit on where they can put it. They can’t just cut a 45° corner off your lawn because it’s easier. If the property that owns that wall technically exists in a funny shape their sketches of the plan could have happily breezed along making a weird gap.
There could also be a utility junction under that area that they didn’t want to cover.

I don’t think there was a tree because you don’t see the mound or divot that you usually see if there was a tree somewhere, at least one big enough to warrant that much of a sidewalk swerve.

I agree with you. It’s just that the “right to remain silent” is the name for the category of right that the fifth amendment provides, not the actual right.
The reason the interpretation is bullshit is because what the actual amendment says is stronger than a simple right to not speak: it’s very clearly intended to be freedom from being coerced to provide information that could hurt you. They shouldn’t be able to interrogate you at all until you clearly waive the right against self incrimination.
You don’t have the literal right to remain silent. You have the right to tell them to stop coercing you, after which they have to end the interrogation.

It’s not generally uncommon to have to do something to exercise a right. No one is passively invoking the right to petition their representatives or own weapons. The supreme Court has just unfortunately held that you have to tell the cops to stop pressuring you, instead of them not being able to start.

And that’s exactly what I explained. There isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution and what judges had to say about things.
considering the police are legally allowed to lie to you, the Miranda warning using the name for a legal concept instead of a more accurate description of the right is about the least abusive thing they can do.

It’s not particularly weird for rights to need to be explicitly actioned in general, as an aside. You have to actively get the arms to bare them, write a letter to petition the government, ask for a lawyer and ask them to stop interrogation. Invoking a right isn’t weird, but in this case the actual right is freedom from being coerced into self incrimination. They shouldn’t be able to start interrogation until you unambiguously waive your rights.

Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.

The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn’t need to be read exactly because it’s a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

It’s not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
The reason there’s a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they’ve been rolling back the protections for years.
Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn’t need to fully explain your rights?

Those are explicitly derived from the bit of the constitution I was referring to. That’s what defines what they have to tell you and what it means.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. You asked why you would need to invoke a right, and why it would be this way. There’s simply isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution or judges. The authority figure is using words that judges outlined the basic gist of in 1965 and different judges have dialed back the protections of in the 2000s and earlier.

To the best of my knowledge you telling someone you did something and them telling the cop is a good example of hearsay, or at least pretty arguable.

Far easier to just have a standard camera in the room, since a video of a confession is far more compelling and sidesteps any arguments about hearsay.

Fun fact: if you haven’t been mirandized your silence is admissable, but not your answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

The correct answer is to plead the fifth if a cop says hello.
It would be great if our system was set up such that there were people responsible for public safety the way firefighters are and, also like firefighters, don’t have the looming threat of crushing you with the weight of the law, but unlike firefighters don’t need to be ready next to a lot of bulky specialized equipment to be effective.
But it’s not, so…