There's an interview with Dan schmachtenberger where he talks about the worst book ever written (his opinion is that it's 'the 48 laws of power'). He made the point that being consistently wrong is actually pretty impressive, and there are worthwhile lessons from watching someone getting taken seriously despite being wrong. Maybe you could revisit them with that approach.
Dead Internet Theory seems the new iteration... not finite in extent but in novelty maybe, a small mirror maze with infinite reflections on a very small set of themes.
Card's idea that everyone could publish and excellent voices would be amplified was correct in premise, though it's conclusion was completely off. Classic XKCD parodied it brilliantly IMHO: https://xkcd.com/635/
I really don't agree with this argument because copying and learning are so distinct. If I write in a famous author's style style and try to pass my work off as theirs, everyone agrees that's unethical. But if I just read a lot of their work and get a sense of what works and doesn't in fiction, then use that learning to write fiction in the same genre, everyone agrees that my learning from a better author is fair game. Pretty sure that's the case even if my work cuts into their sales despite being inferior.
The argument seems to be that it's different when the learner is a machine rather than a human, and I can sort of see the 'if everyone did it' argument for making that distinction. But even if we take for granted that a human should be allowed to learn from prior art and a machine shouldn't, this just guarantees an arms race for machines better impersonating humans, and that also ends in a terrible place if everyone does it.
If there's an aspect I haven't considered here I'd certainly welcome some food for thought. I am getting seriously exasperated at the ratio of pathos to logos and ethos on this subject and would really welcome seeing some appeals to logic or ethics, even if they disagree with my position.
I saw (and rode in) a lot of them in Alberta (Canada's Texas). Typical day for a work truck:
-owner starts you up from the hotel parking lot
-3-5 guys get in, you get your morning coffee via a drive through
-You pick up a 'slip tank' of diesel (think a metal box with its own fuel pump that sits in the bed and holds about a ton of liquid when full). You might fill up your own tank at the same time, typically on the employer's dime.
-you drive 1-3 hours over dirt roads and ice to get to the work site
-you fill up the heavy equipment from your slip tank, then stand for about 10 hours - you might be idling for part of that depending on temperature
- you drive another 1-3 hours back to the hotel parking lot. the owner plugs in your block heater so your fuel doesn't solidify overnight and you get ready to do it again the next day.
Trucks look impractical when they're getting groceries in the city, but everything about them - the height, the large cabs, all of it - is highly optimized for a particular kind of job. It might not be as common a job as it was when this design rose to prominence, I have no insight as to that, but there is a reason for everything about them being the way it is.
I wonder whether it's a nostalgia thing. People rode in these trucks and saw senior guys they admired owning them when they were young and on the make, and now they think that's the kind of truck successful people own even if it's not necessary for their own workday.
I'd generally rather see a crew cab pickup on the road than an oversized SUV with a single, tiny person driving solo. There is a lot more utility to a pickup, and the SUV doesn't particularly do much better on fuel economy.
That said, my SO has a large SUV, mostly in that I have trouble getting in and out of a low car now, and I'm no longer able to drive myself. My daughter has a smaller SUV/Truck (Hyundai Santa Cruz) with a smaller bed, that suits her needs nicely.
For that matter, there are plenty of people here that would do well if they could import the Japanese sized smaller trucks, which have a lot of import restrictions.
That said, I wouldn't want to drive such a thing offroad, up and over hills etc. regularly. I know a lot of Jeep/Pickup drivers that tow heavier things than you can with a car and go offroad to places you can't get to in a light vehicle regularly. Being functional for workloads as well is another benefit even if it isn't your job. That doesn't cover tradesmen who need the utility regularly and includes those who live in an apartment and can't otherwise just keep a large trailer parked at a random spot.
And yeah, it might be a status symbol... so is a typical super car, large suv or things like a Range Rover. There's nothing wrong with it, if someone wants to have it and anyone who has a problem with that can fuck right off.
> I'd generally rather see a crew cab pickup on the road than an oversized SUV with a single, tiny person driving solo.
If it's the same person doing the same activities, why would you prefer if it's a large truck instead of an SUV? Shouldn't we prefer people realistically right-size their vehicle choices? If it's just a small person driving around running small errands shouldn't they probably be in something other than a large SUV or a large truck?
Also, you mention the SUV has less utility than the truck. That's all about perspective and needs. I used to drive a large Durango back in the early 2000s. We regularly rented and towed camper trailers a few times a year, so we needed the towing capacity. But we regularly also needed to seat six or seven. A truck would have had less utility for us and been a worse fit for our needs.
IRT small trucks, while import restrictions limit bringing those exact cars there's nothing legally stopping them from making similar-ish small trucks in the US. Examples are like the Santa Cruz and Maverick, but I understand many Kei trucks can be significantly smaller than that. But in the end there's tax incentives for vehicles that have a GWVR > 6,000lbs, so as a company truck fleet machine buying a tiny truck is a non-starter. There's also the image of "not a real truck" of these smaller trucks that make them unpopular with a lot of traditional US truck culture. Between safety regulations, emissions regulations, tax incentives, and the market demands such a truck would probably be hard to sell at any kind of big profit compared to the giant trucks they sell today.
> I know a lot of Jeep/Pickup drivers that tow heavier things than you can with a car and go offroad to places you can't get to in a light vehicle regularly
Sure, I get it. I too know people who actually do take their vehicles off-road, or who actually do regularly haul things or tow their boat to the lake every other weekend or whatever. I'm not against someone buying a machine and actually using it, that's cool. Have fun. As mentioned above, I did the same when I had camper trailers often. But for everyone I know buying a Wrangler or FJ to go do off-roading, I know several who would never do so. For every truck owner I know who actually use it as a truck I know several who just use it to commute to their office job and pick up the kids from school. I know several who bought a big truck specifically because they could expense it better with their small businesses, even when their business was insurance sales or real estate sales or marketing or whatever.
> And yeah, it might be a status symbol... so is a typical super car, large suv or things like a Range Rover. There's nothing wrong with it
There is a lot of things wrong with people massively oversizing their vehicles to their actual needs. It makes our parking lots bigger as they restripe for ever larger vehicles. It makes our roads wider and harder to cross as a pedestrian. It means you're more likely to die as a pedestrian in a collision. It means you're more likely to die in a car accident when a larger vehicle hits you. It means we're releasing more emissions and making the air less healthy to breathe. It means we're worse off just because someone wants to feel big in their big pick up truck.
Its totally my business when their choices make my family and friends less safe and less healthy and makes our communities worse off.
Imagine if someone had a machine that they could press a button and it would just give them a bit of happiness, but gave your kids asthma and lung cancer, poisoned the water, killed crops, and could potentially kill a random innocent person in a gruesome way. Should they press that button? Are you good with them pressing that button all the time for practically any reason? Do you feel you should have a say on if they should press that button, or how often they could press that button? Do you think you'd probably go around talking to people about these machines and the issues of pressing that button, to try and convince others to only buy the machine and press the button if they actually need to, or maybe buy the machine that poisons us less per press?
Should you have a say when a company excessively releases cancer-causing particulates into the air? Should we have a say when a company releases machines into our communities that have an excessively higher risk to maim and kill the people around those machines? If we should have a say when a company does these things, why shouldn't we when its private individuals doing the same?
I've said in my previous comment, if you actually do drive around in places where you need the ground clearance, when you actually do tow things, when you actually do use the bed in ways that are needed, fine by me. I see lots of trucks doing actual truck things as well. But the vast majority of these vehicles aren't used in these ways. This is the problem I'm talking about. I've had someone say to me they needed their pickup truck, no other vehicle could possibly be used because sometimes they have to carry their kids bicycles around and the only way that could be done effectively was in the bed of their truck. There was someone in the comment section here suggesting a truck was necessary to take a canoe someplace, as if that's something only a truck could do. The craziest thing about that canoe story, I've heard it from several other people as well, incredible this is a common idea it seems.
I can't think what the issue would be aside from range. One thing that stood out to me about the cybertruck is that they made huge tradeoffs to make it more aerodynamic. The only reason to do that is to increase maximum driving distance. Put a big blocky trailer behind it and suddenly the battery's maximum distance is competing with a gas tank on a much more even playing field. Regenerative braking would make up for some of that in very hilly terrain, but on level ground it just can't get out to as many of the remote areas people take their trucks to.
I really think the first obvious use case (aside from bugout vehicles) would be something like the early road rangers - driving all over a farm and bringing back crates of produce from muddy fields without getting stuck or needing a lot of maintenance.
If you don't have a place to charge at home, yes. But if you are charging at home then the only time you need to charge away from home is on long road trips. And you need to stop for lunch or whatever. And if you are taking only a couple road trips a year the time spent charging on road trips will be exceeded by all the time spent on gas fill ups throughout the year for a gas vehicle.
Present day EVs don't take that long to charge (basically the time to go to the bathroom and check email), but they don't have enough parallelism so at a busy location you can end up waiting for an open charger. There are orders of magnitude more gas pumps than public chargers.
when you need a charger there is rarely any choice of location. Charging at home doesn't help when you are not home. Those rare public chargers is what you need and they can be hard to find.
This varies a lot based on where you are. For the trips I usually take around in Texas where I need public chargers, I actually usually do have a choice of chargers. I understand this isn't universally true in other parts of the US though.
I'm working on a collection of mnemonic images for learning written Chinese. Each has a solarpunk-style image referencing both the character's meaning and pictographic etymology, with the character overlaid and color-coded to indicate the tonality in Mandarin.
While I'm talking about it, do the folks here have any suggestions where I should make it available? I want it to be a free educational resource for whoever might want it.
Maybe it's just the similarity in appearance and cause of death to Carradign and Epstein making me see patterns that aren't there, but I cannot watch a Bourdain clip without getting the sense something is deeply wrong.
reply