Please elaborate on less strict rules for Gdpr? There is Record of Processing Activities exemption for <250, but if you have to comply with Gdpr (and you do), you need essentially same info as Ropa and of course it has to be up to date. How else can you ensure you are in compliance?
> automatically sort plastic both by type and color, which is quite impressive
.... I am sorry, but how can that impress you? That would be impressive in 1990. Today, with deep learning and all AI, I would consider having robots open trash bags and sort whatever is inside for more processing (e.g. organic waste, plastic and so on, depending on how dirty it is) only slightly impressive. Unlike Amazon pick up challange, they don't need to be perfect.
> distract from real unsexy solutions like grab the plastic in rivers BEFORE they make it to the ocean.
They pivoted to mostly river cleanup (interceptors) many years ago. And they clearly show that it is just one step back, not a full time solution. Ocean cleanup is last step, river grab is the step before that and having proper garbage collection would be best.
Which is literally written in TFA:
> Now they mostly intercept plastic when it first leaves rivers and enters the ocean instead of trying to scoop it out of the middle of the ocean, though the open ocean work is still mentioned on their website
See, you've just shown how you have fallen for the very trap that is being discussed: you think garbage collection is the solution. Plastic recycling was never a valid solution to the problem of plastic trash in the environment.
Recycling was a non-solution the oil and plastics industries used to deflect criticism of their products. They knew would never be feasible because the polymer is no longer in a state that is suitable for re-use once it's been heated and formed, and that degradation gets even worse as it ages, is exposed to UV, etc. Anything made with it will be inferior. Weaker, not as dense, and so on.
They also knew that it would be impossible for any significant amount of plastic to be recycled, even if it was feasible to re-use it.
It also shifted the onus from the producers of a wildly harmful material to the consumers. "It's those litterbugs!"
The auto industry managed to shift public perception from "cars are insanely dangerous products" to "idiot leeches of society are throwing themselves in front of car drivers who are upstanding people who contribute to society!" Seriously - look at the cartoons from the early auto industry era. The "jaywalker" is portrayed as slovenly, poor, and stupid. The car owner is portrayed as well dressed, intelligent...
The plastics industry has turned things from "our products never, ever go away. They break down into tinier and tinier pieces, and the particles are so prolific that there literally isn't a single place on earth not contaminated by them, not a single creature that hasn't ingested them, and it's now in our brains"...
...to "silly irresponsible people are not responsibly disposing of their plastics so they can be recycled by us responsible plastic producers! Look, we sponsor beach trash cleanup groups! Look at this picture of our smiling employees spending a day in safety vests helping collect plastic from a couple hundred square feet of beach!"
Think about that. Plastic is in your brain. That's how thoroughly contaminated the entire planet and ecosystem is. And it's because the plastic and oil industry deflected "plastics are bad" with non-solutions and claims about recycling and pictures of neonatal babies inside plastic incubators with plastic tubes and plastic IV bags. Do YOU want to have that preemie die because the evil hippies want to take away your plastic, mnau?
For a lot of applications plastic is also simply a really good material. It is cheap, easy to form, strong, can be made either rigid or flexible, and has a low CO2 footprint. When it comes to inherently single-use applications it is incredibly difficult to beat plastic, and even for multi-use applications it often doesn't look great for materials like metal or glass.
And yes, littering is the main downside. I agree that recycling is mainly bullshit, but you can also burn it together with the rest of the trash, and get some free electricity from it!
Microplastics are indeed a serious problem, but it is almost entirely unrelated to day-to-day plastic items. The primary source of microplastics is car tires, with synthetic clothing being a large contributor as well. And there's of course the absolutely insane use of plastic particles in personal hygiene products. If you want to reduce our microplastics exposure, those are probably better places to start.
Quite. And quite the opposite - I hear a lot of messaging encouraging us to consume more. To the point that most Westerners (and no doubt others) have a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to consumption. If you ever bring this sort of thing up with people the entitlement becomes obvious. We feel entitled to be transported thousands of miles in a matter of hours for 'a break'. We feel entitled to some of the most inconsiderate vehicles ever produced because "how else am I going to tow my boat/horse float?" As if a lifestyle that involves moving massive things around is a god-given right. And all of this within a matter of two or three generations. We truly live in the most entitled times.
Our personal morality has been corrupted by convenience and commerce. Too many people think that if something is legal, possible, and affordable, then why not? No room for consideration of others. Quite simply (and please excuse the strong language) we have become a bunch of selfish fucks. But because it's now the norm to be a selfish fuck then that makes it okay, right?
I've always admired the approach of my grandparents. Practical, economical, and able to enjoy doing the simple things that are actually necessary for living a good life. Sadly, that generation is passing. What are our grandchildren going to think of us?
> Quite. And quite the opposite - I hear a lot of messaging encouraging us to consume more. To the point that most Westerners (and no doubt others) have a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to consumption. If you ever bring this sort of thing up with people the entitlement becomes obvious. We feel entitled to be transported thousands of miles in a matter of hours for 'a break'. We feel entitled to some of the most inconsiderate vehicles ever produced because "how else am I going to tow my boat/horse float?" As if a lifestyle that involves moving massive things around is a god-given right. And all of this within a matter of two or three generations. We truly live in the most entitled times.
Where do the people who understand this congregate?
> (and no doubt others)
While the top 30 on this entitlement ranking will contain a lot of Western countries, I can unfortunately confirm that they're far from alone, and in fact none of them will even take the top spot.
The poster said proper garbage collection, not recycling. Recycling may or may not be part of the disposal picture, but properly containing the plastic in a properly managed landfill is also a perfectly acceptable solution.
> Do YOU want to have that preemie die because the evil hippies want to take away your plastic, mnau?
Honestly, you sound like you have problems. Personal attack, tangent from original theme "don't have plastic in the ocean" to multi paragraph rant about RRR. Have a nice day.
HIP was such a self-own and clear demonstration of AMD software capabilities... well, the lack of software capabilities. HIP was hard-coded for one GPU architecture. CUDA did it right, it has a intermediate virtual assembly PTX and driver compiles it to whatever actual instruction set card actually uses.
Imagine a meeting where they signed off on that. So each developer will have to provide a different binary for each of our architectures? Yep. And once we release the new architecture, developer will have to recompile his program for the new architecture? Yep. Sounds good to me.
Yes, that was in part why they've had such a terrible history with GPU support.
They lost me as a customer when they rushed dropping support for the Radeon VII because of the need to ship binaries for every ISA, and didn't deliver proper 5700XT support until it was outdated.
Exactly. You want others to change to fulfill your needs. Their priorities and needs are different. In this case, it was evaluated and found not to be useful (cost > benefits).
That was basically what Ford vs Dodge was about. Ford lost and had to change direction. If C-suite does not operate in that direction, they can sue and will win. There is no point in going in different direction, courts already quite clearly said you will lose.
> My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business.
> A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of men to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
>If C-suite does not operate in that direction, they can sue and will win. There is no point in going in different direction, courts already quite clearly said you will lose.
If this is true, it should be easy to point to some examples from the last hundred years. Because that Wikipedia article you linked makes it very clear that the conclusion you're drawing is highly debated. The disagreement is important enough to be mentioned in the second sentence in that article. The first source on the page is the actual case and the next two are both criticisms of the interpretation that you seem to very confident in.
It faces criticism, but still held true. "sacrificing profit for moral reasons" is not acting in best interest of shareholders. That doesn't mean maximizing value at all times btw, e.g. assessing potential reputational damage and sacrificing some profit by not doing something can be acting in best interest of shareholders (or not, depending on circumstances).
Azure is not the best, but it mostly works. GitHub gets only 98% reliability for git operation component, reading and committing. This is the most basic component. The fact they are not on this 24/7 and it isn't fixed is the result of a culture (=what is prioritized, what quality is accepted).
Compare costs, monetary risk and TTM to renewables with battery backup. Nuclear is dead as a doornail.
Look at the nuclear buildup. Vogtle in US 10 years. Hinckley Point C is estimated to be 13 years. Flamanville 3 took 17 years. All these years you put money in and get nothing out. It's a disaster for balance sheet. Instead, you can build renewables plus batteries and have it connected within a year, generating revenue.
Signal to noise ratio is getting *lower (EDIT: was higher) than ever. I don't see a way out of this other than "human certified" digitally signed authorship (e.g. by using eIDAS in EU). There could be a proxy to at least retain pseudo-anonymity, but trackable to a human. Tragedy of commons strikes again.
"Tragedy of commons" is a false concept that obscures greed and selfishness and often lawlessness. Even its originator (Hardin) accepts that it does not describe actual history.
The use of the word Tragedy in the name I think makes it easier for people to excuse themselves when they monopolize the commons. “Oh it’s a tragedy humans are just selfish we can’t avoid it.” The tragedy is that people are comfortable excusing others selfish, greedy behavior by saying it’s innate.
There’s a lot of debate under your linked comment.
My understanding is that people tend to cooperate in smaller numbers or when reputation is persistent (the larger the group, the more reliable reputation has to be), otherwise the (uncommon) low-trust actors ruin everything.
Most humans are altruistic and trusting by default, but a large enough group will have a few sociopaths and misunderstood interactions; which creates distrust across the entire group, because people hate being taken advantage of.
> Most humans are altruistic and trusting by default ...
... towards an in-group, yes. Not towards out-groups, as far as I can tell.
Though for some reason this tends not to apply to solo travellers in many, many parts of the world.
Lots of debate, yes, but very little about the basic fact that Hardin's formulation of "the tragedy of the commons" doesn't describe actual historical events in pretty any well documented case.
Although, there are other large-scale examples where tragedy of the commons has been (practically) avoided: ozone depletion and Polio eradication. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Non-gov...) also mentions Elinor Ostrom, but her examples involve "smaller numbers".
It could be interesting to have a search engine that only shows results that have human attestation via digital passports. Of course I'd prefer that to work without necessarily revealing the identity of the poster, similarly to how anonymous "sign-up tokens" for accounts would work, to prevent sybil attacks.
Marginalia doesn't actually use whitelists though, but it does give preference to results from known human websites, as well as sites that are linking to and being linked from that set.
