• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • I do agree that condensing an encyclopedia to a limited size and keeping the most significant information was a very difficult art that was performed admirably by the old encyclopaedias.

    I however think it’s an art that would be innappropriate and harmful if applied to Wikipedia.

    Just because you can condense the information doesn’t mean you should. Encyclopaedias are not for reading through, so limited length was an artificial limitation imposed by the printed format not for any good reason.

    I’m sure there’s articles that go on a bit about irrelevant minutia, and they should be trimmed, but that’s an article specific flaw.

    FWIW I think I misremembered the accuracy point, looks like most studies have put it similar or slightly lower accuracy. Citation needed I guess.



  • Parking is an enormous opportunity cost in any sort of built up area. The cost of providing charging is going to be a lot smaller than the cost of not building something remotely useful (ie the cost everyone already has to pay every time they decide to build a parking space instead of a coffee shop).

    Unless you’re somewhere that requires parking via zoning laws, I imagine that would create a lot of unwanted parking that nobody is remotely interested in investing any more in than necessary



  • That’s true regardless, batteries will never power intercontinental wide-bodies (short some major new developments in battery design). This will probably reduce the maximum aircraft size where batteries remain viable, but they are obviously very viable for short hops in small jets, the point where they cannot compete is somewhere but it’s not “never”, even with this limitation.

    That all said, maybe someone will explore just dropping batteries along the way? It sounds ridiculous, but it also sounds like something we have the tech to solve…








  • Yes, it varies a lot. But by and large cases where robots wildly outperform humans were automated decades ago, because the obvious benefits justified the cost and complexity of either building a bespoke robot or programming one to do the job well (all those robot arms you imagine swinging doors into place at the car factory)

    The cases left over (and discussed here) are either requiring a level of flexibility that older designs of robot couldn’t handle, or where humans were pretty efficient at anyway, so the complex process of prepping a robot wasn’t justified.

    But a robot that can be taught without programming (by any worker or their supervisor), and slots straight into an existing human-shaped hole? That could massively reduce the upfront cost, especially if economies of scale make the robot itself cheaper. possibly to the point that the robot could be worse at the job than a human and still be cheaper in the long run.