The article mentions felony charges - it could also or instead be that it was too high a bar (pun intended) to indict when it should have been a misdemeanor vandalism charge.
My internal conspiracy theory is that McDonald's deliberately chose the boring, gray and block redesign for nearly every location now BECAUSE it's less inviting.
They don't want people to eat in, or even stop by to go to the drive thru. What they want is to push the fast food market towards delivery, because the profit margins are so much better. They can't just close dining rooms and drive thrus entirely, because that would scare consumers and drive down stock prices. So instead they're using boring shades of gray and hostile design to make people not WANT to go to McDonald's, and instead just order it through DD.
He had a decent part in Oppenheimer, which was 3 years ago. Then he was in Trap 2 years ago, which had a lot of hype but was evidently bad (I haven't seen it).
And to expand on that, even the nominal temperature is more of a "middle" temperature. Depending on the size, the temperature of most standard size home ovens will vary by as much as 50° F between top and bottom. Convection ovens help to mitigate this, but the recipe needs to account for that.
You're clearly not willing to engage in rational discussion, but instead you're deliberately grouping everyone who disagrees with you into a single group, as if I was conspiring with other commenters just to fuck with you, and throwing personal attacks. You've made many unfounded assumptions about me, and are obviously going to continue doing so. You aren't really arguing so much as just insulting people. You've made 0 factual assertions and you've failed to respond to every one of my questions. Good luck.
Liar everyone in this thread made that argument including you it was the first thing you said.
OK, quote me. Quote any of my comments in this thread where I argued that putting data centers in space is a bad idea because there is no air in space. Now who's lying?
Apply that same logic to putting telescopes in space they aren’t exactly the most efficient cost effective forms of science shit is difficult.
Putting telescopes in space solves a particularly difficult problem. Space telescopes have the advantage of missing that thing you keep hallucinating everyone here is arguing about - air. Because there's no atmospheric distortion, space telescopes are able to get images with orders of magnitude greater clarity. The heat dissipation problem is a tiny fraction compared to a data center, because there are (much) fewer components on a telescope that generate heat. The two things are not the same.
When putting telescopes on earth, there is no way of dodging the fact that there is miles of atmosphere above it that cause distortion. There is no engineering around that. There are of course mitigations, but those are hurdles that are entirely skipped by putting them in space.
Data centers have no such need. So what problem is solved by putting them in space? Why would you even want to? There are millions of square miles of earth to put them - where it would be much, much easier and cheaper to cool them, access them, power them, and maintain them.
If you weren’t being a tribalistic asshole you wouldn’t care but because the AI is against your tribe and AI also happens to need datacenters you do care. I cared long before AI fuck you.
Can you quote where I said anything about AI? What leads you to believe I am against AI, or data centers? The only thing I've argued against is putting data centers in space. You're the only one bringing up AI.
It sure seems like you very desperately need to be a martyr, and that you need to see yourself as a champion for science when everyone around you is anti-science. That is not scientific, rational thinking. Taking the argument that "putting a data center in space is hard for many reasons" and reducing it to "we can't put data centers in space because there's no air" is dishonest. It's a straw man.
This is now clearly a psychological issue with you, perhaps a psychiatric issue. You're angry, and you need to be angry and don't actually care what people are saying - you're going to argue against them because they must be anti-AI and anti-science.
But nobody in this thread is making that argument. You're being a total asshole and making personal attacks against other commenters, despite the fact that they don't bear any responsibility for that argument.
Do all the reasons for not putting a datacenter in space also apply to not putting a big ass telescope in space?
If you can justify putting up an expensive telescope into space than you can also justify sending some high performance computing up there to process the sensor data on site.
What? No, they serve two totally different purposes and have significantly different requirements.
I am just not letting your draconian tribalistic bullshit peer pressure into agreeing with dumbass shit spill over onto science without some pushback.
Mine? Or "your" as in all of us on lemmy, which includes you? Again, nobody in this thread made that argument, nor defended it, nor defended any other commenters who did - and you're still acting like a complete dick about it.
Don't worry about it, they'll turn when you slam the dishwasher door hard enough.
Yes, they would have been like philosophers, scientists, or academics.
Also, trivia: the Bible never says there were 3. It just says wise men came (unspecified number) and brought 3 gifts.
The article mentions felony charges - it could also or instead be that it was too high a bar (pun intended) to indict when it should have been a misdemeanor vandalism charge.
Bruce Willis was absolutely not unknown when Die Hard was made. He'd been the costar of a hit TV show for 3 years already.
Sorry, nothing else to contribute as of this comment, just wanted to point that out.
Don't feed the trolls. Just downvote and move on.
My internal conspiracy theory is that McDonald's deliberately chose the boring, gray and block redesign for nearly every location now BECAUSE it's less inviting.
They don't want people to eat in, or even stop by to go to the drive thru. What they want is to push the fast food market towards delivery, because the profit margins are so much better. They can't just close dining rooms and drive thrus entirely, because that would scare consumers and drive down stock prices. So instead they're using boring shades of gray and hostile design to make people not WANT to go to McDonald's, and instead just order it through DD.
Me: that's not what racist means...
looks at username
Oh right.
*vexatious litigant
I have kde, so I disabled it in xorg config
Also...
designation*
bizarrely*
hypothesis*
soldier*
continuously*
reconstituted*
Sorry, OP. No downvote because the comic is otherwise fine, but damn that's distracting. Seven misspelled words in seven panels is something.
How do you know this wasn't done?
I'm sure it will be gold plated, like the Sacagawea dollar.
The Pew Pews Of Navaronne
He had a decent part in Oppenheimer, which was 3 years ago. Then he was in Trap 2 years ago, which had a lot of hype but was evidently bad (I haven't seen it).
Clearly didn't have enough faith. He should keep trying.
And to expand on that, even the nominal temperature is more of a "middle" temperature. Depending on the size, the temperature of most standard size home ovens will vary by as much as 50° F between top and bottom. Convection ovens help to mitigate this, but the recipe needs to account for that.
Ok. I hope you get the help you need.
You're clearly not willing to engage in rational discussion, but instead you're deliberately grouping everyone who disagrees with you into a single group, as if I was conspiring with other commenters just to fuck with you, and throwing personal attacks. You've made many unfounded assumptions about me, and are obviously going to continue doing so. You aren't really arguing so much as just insulting people. You've made 0 factual assertions and you've failed to respond to every one of my questions. Good luck.
OK, quote me. Quote any of my comments in this thread where I argued that putting data centers in space is a bad idea because there is no air in space. Now who's lying?
Putting telescopes in space solves a particularly difficult problem. Space telescopes have the advantage of missing that thing you keep hallucinating everyone here is arguing about - air. Because there's no atmospheric distortion, space telescopes are able to get images with orders of magnitude greater clarity. The heat dissipation problem is a tiny fraction compared to a data center, because there are (much) fewer components on a telescope that generate heat. The two things are not the same.
When putting telescopes on earth, there is no way of dodging the fact that there is miles of atmosphere above it that cause distortion. There is no engineering around that. There are of course mitigations, but those are hurdles that are entirely skipped by putting them in space.
Data centers have no such need. So what problem is solved by putting them in space? Why would you even want to? There are millions of square miles of earth to put them - where it would be much, much easier and cheaper to cool them, access them, power them, and maintain them.
Can you quote where I said anything about AI? What leads you to believe I am against AI, or data centers? The only thing I've argued against is putting data centers in space. You're the only one bringing up AI.
It sure seems like you very desperately need to be a martyr, and that you need to see yourself as a champion for science when everyone around you is anti-science. That is not scientific, rational thinking. Taking the argument that "putting a data center in space is hard for many reasons" and reducing it to "we can't put data centers in space because there's no air" is dishonest. It's a straw man.
This is now clearly a psychological issue with you, perhaps a psychiatric issue. You're angry, and you need to be angry and don't actually care what people are saying - you're going to argue against them because they must be anti-AI and anti-science.
Ah, OK, I think I'm starting to understand the problem here.
What exactly do you believe I'm lying about? What evidence do you have that I'm lying?
In what way am I assaulting science, or engaging in tribalism?
But nobody in this thread is making that argument. You're being a total asshole and making personal attacks against other commenters, despite the fact that they don't bear any responsibility for that argument.
What? No, they serve two totally different purposes and have significantly different requirements.
Mine? Or "your" as in all of us on lemmy, which includes you? Again, nobody in this thread made that argument, nor defended it, nor defended any other commenters who did - and you're still acting like a complete dick about it.