I have a Mazda that uses the knob implementation of Android Auto... It's just okay. The first problem is that the screen cracks under heat, which is cheap to fix diy, expensive otherwise. Second is the firmware is difficult to update. Again, it's free diy, but you'll brick your infotainment if you screw up. The old firmware is bad: frequent disconnects and screen blackouts. Dealers don't seem to care much about patching it though. I know a mechanic that refused to touch the infotainment as well. You kind of need to flex your nerd abilities or go aftermarket if you want to keep a decent android auto experience.
I've been at a lot of companies where code is held hostage by the reviewers, specifically leads or wannabe leads. Interfaces matter. Maintainability matters. Memory allocation certainly matters. Code reviews frequently go down the rabbit hole of how the reviewer would prefer to design it and a long back and forth until the developer has, "explained himself", like it's a Breaking Bad confrontation. I think it devolves into a status battle.
without knowing the people involved, or any further nuance/context -- i had a PhD supervisor like this. he was always looking for holes. always disliked the way i was proposing something. always looking to find the thing that's wrong. the way to deal with him was to have thorough answers to as many questions he might ask before he asks them. learning to predict his questions was the real training for my PhD.
it taught me to show my working, as if i were in math class. which meant fully writing things up before meeting with him.
> how the reviewer would prefer to design it
sounds like they're trying to find holes. dunno if you do this already, but if not, try to fill the holes beforehand with conclusive and extensive write up (show the working). maybe ask them before coding how they would design X and then dedicate a section of the write up to why X cannot or was not designed that way.
answer their questions before they have a chance to ask the questions.
I'm realizing how frequently people don't have to agree with me. I need to be valued at my company to stay employed certainly, and of course I need to be valued by my family. There's a far narrower set of opinions where I need to be agreed with, such as if everyone is making plans that I'm certain are going to turn out poorly. Usually though you can just let bad ideas slide away, especially when I know I can't change an opinion about them. It's more important that I back up someone's feelings at that point.
As I get older I appreciate more how much nineteenth and twentieth century literature has in common with the modern era. Notes From the Underground was a great example of this where the narrator feels that he's destined for great things but self-sabotages along the way, becoming more and more isolated. He isn't that much different from the many educated, underemployed and frustrated, or even insufferable, people on the Internet. We haven't changed that much at all.
Not really an ai response but I remember the path following and aggro is really smart in Elden Ring and earlier Dark Souls. That is you try to run away after pulling aggro and when you think you're safe you'll run into some other strong enemies, after which, oops, the original enemy followed you down a ladder and stabbed you in the back. Of course they have a bunch of occasions where enemies are in places you don't expect them as well. It isn't really about the mob ai as much as level design and the balance of difficult-to-kill enemies at inconvenient times.
I'm going to admit that I tend to hit a brick wall when these books tell me I need to fill out a worksheet if I really want to make a difference. You're telling me I have to do homework now? But ai can give me feedback on my thoughts anyway, directly what I'm interested in, and provide sources, even though it's probably patronizing me? Not a difficult decision.
Craig Ferguson is magnetic isn't he? Great monologue.
I think with ai, when you get feedback, you are putting in a form of work though. You're practicing recall of previous concepts and having them reinforced while you can get on a narrower and narrower path of what worked and what didn't.
Granted, I have no clue whether this is better than other forms of doing the work like going to a support group or filling out worksheets and journaling, but I do think it is beneficial.
I believe that the party with the most clout is the one that controls the frame. So yes, some parents may keep Slaughterhouse Five out of libraries. Meanwhile those same parents become strawmanned villains in mainstream movies like Footloose. So I don't think pulling a book is that effective when it winds up on a "you can't read this" list.
On my news feed today I saw a Newsweek story about how someone found a dvd of Birth of a Nation at Goodwill, not knowing what the plot was.
As far as I can tell the standard for a book being "banned" is just that the librarian or the bookseller is sympathetic to the book's message and thinks it should be more widely read while politicians or parents might think it's inappropriate or they disagree with the message.
If you put the shoe on the other foot and name a book that's out of print because publishers dislike the material or it's problematic in the eyes of librarians, I don't think it fits the standard. Birth of a Nation for example is not a "banned movie" and neither is Song of the South. So the standard is entirely set by teachers, librarians and booksellers.
I think of stuff like Luty who was challenged in the UK under the terrorism act for sharing books on improvised firearms, Ashley Dugan who was charged with "distributing explosives training to terrorists" and some of his youtube videos pulled for sharing the well known public domain synthesis of RDX explosives.
These are non-sexually-obscene informational speech yet the librarians and teachers don't actually want you looking at these banned media because they could actually be used to challenge the established order and system rather than just shuffling who is in power to possibly the guy the librarian likes.
I doubt there are many people at the Atlantic who voted for Trump and the author has worked for the Economist before. So I'm not sure what you're asking for, unless you're saying he should move back to London if he's to write about the UK.
Ahh well if he worked for the Economist that explains it. Sorry, I didn't realise.
I didn't suggest that Trump voting was the problem. Americans of literally all political persuasions have simply no idea how this country actually works. There is a level of ignorance that is often comical.
The reverse is not true in quite the same way. If you were to ask an American to name UK political figures, most cannot. Whereas our coverage of your political system is such that anyone with a passing interest in politics can _really_ get into it on US politics; it's a very asymmmetric experience that is hard to explain.
>Whereas our coverage of your political system is such that anyone with a passing interest in politics can _really_ get into it on US politics; it's a very asymmmetric experience that is hard to explain.
I don't share your enthusiasm in this being a good thing. In fact, this is a common problem I've noticed over the last decade in that Europeans feel like they know the US and are qualified to comment on issues by virtue of consuming movies and political media of a certain spin (like all media). You are simply consuming someone's opinion with little to no opportunity to validate it against day to day life.
But this time round in particular, it is absolutely a thing. People in Denmark, for example, have no choice but to understand at some level the internal cabinet politics of the USA. Because they need to know, when JD Vance turns up, who is he actually talking for? What does it mean if he refuses to rule something out? What real power is there in his confidence?
It's the same as needing to know, if Biden offered something, what was the likelihood of it simply being torn up by a returning Trump.
The asymmetry comes from scale: the UK and individual EU countries needed to know a lot more about the internal directions of a country six times our size, because those internal directions will very much affect us.
It is changing, because the EU is finding its collective voice this time round, whereas in Trump 1 they still had to worry that individual countries might not wish to follow a party line. Now everyone understands the stakes of not having an aligned voice, and the UK is in a position to at least sing the harmony.
I mean to some extent we want to understand America because it is where — at least until recently — we all assumed we were culturally headed. When I was a kid there was a strong feeling (incorrect, in retrospect) that the USA was sort of five, ten years ahead on everything good and bad — shopping malls, carphones, hip hop, fashion, cinema, sci-fi. That everything was less expensive and more vibrant and fun. And I think Gen X in particular has grown up feeling that understanding the USA is valuable and enjoyable in that way (because it was). Gen X here in the UK and Europe loved the USA as kids, as the boomers had.
There was a blip during the Bush Jr era where I think our view of the USA fell into a sort of mixture of pity and anger, and we began to understand that there were, from our perspective, two Americas that fall either side of us; one more brash and progressive than us and one that loathed us that we saw as regressive and cruel (overly religious etc.).
Now it has gone from adoration/fascination to horror/fascination, frankly. And the urgency to understand what is happening to the USA is only accelerating, because of the cultural merger of UK/EU and US far right extremism.
During Trump 1 we would say, not all Americans are like that; we'd still be partitioning the USA into the ones we have some recognition for and those who make us feel queasy. We coped with Trump 1 the way we coped with GWB.
Nowadays, I believe you will find that people understand that it doesn't really matter if there are these two Americas; functionally we can no longer treat you as anything other than homogenous.
We cannot trust the USA to share our values or come to our aid even as we host military bases; a USA that can do nothing to stop Elon Musk agitating for violence on our streets is one we do not have positive feelings for, and a USA whose vice president actively denigrates our culture is just so out of the ordinary.
(And as a narrative quirk I think a lot of this has roots in the most simple of stories that illuminated it — that of Harry Dunn, Anne Sacoolas and diplomatic immunity. Trump and Mnuchin handled that so insultingly that it left a lasting impact; Biden had his work cut out to fix it.)
The last time the USA appeared to not be on our side in consequential issues to this extent is when Joseph Kennedy was ambassador. We are back there, now. Back in the late 1930s relationship with the USA that was profoundly distrustful.
It doesn't help that this is actually blended, fully, with growing distrust for the tech industry, which is the biggest cultural challenge of the next decade. We (only partially incorrectly) perceive tech culture's impositions on and disregard for British culture as being American impositions.
I think we accept now that this has happened and it will not be reset; we won't suddenly forget it all in 2029. But we still have to understand you.
I think a lot of us Yanks are having similar realizations too!
The (US) Civil War seemed like distant history in school. But I’ve come to realize there are a lot of people that still seem to live with the prejudice from those times.
The war ended but the problems never went away. Can’t help but wonder if Reconciliation was such a good idea. One half the country might be quite happy not dealing with the other.
I also used to not understand how Protestants and Catholics could fight (Ireland). Almost seems odd both being Christian. Of course, I was extremely blind to the religious divides long existing here too.
Sectarian divides are always complex if you’re the outsider, I think. Like the Troubles in Ireland, or Hutus vs Tutsis in Rwanda, or Pol Pot’s purges: from the outside it is like, how can they be so immediately sure who is who? Whereas on the inside, your membership of one or other group is always obvious: it’s a socially indelible distinction used to doom people to one or the other, and the smallness of the distinction is often the point. (MAGA vs America First could end up like this)
I used to think that people on the mainland like me could never fully and instinctively understand who was who (and why) in the Troubles. But this week, the problems in Belfast, it is somehow instinctively obvious which side of the old sectarian divide the energy behind that violence is coming from, even though arguably the so-called “justification” (immigration) affects both sides of the Troubles divide more or less equally and the supposed provocation (actually more or less a pretext) happened in an area associated with the other one.
I think most people here in the UK just knew, immediately, from the tone of it.
The article never said poverty is only a function of gdp, so I'm not sure who your comment is directed to. The article discusses gdp per capita, the devaluation of the pound, declining wages and the decline of health care all in the free paragraphs. If those things go in the wrong direction you can indeed be as poor as Mississippi.
