So an interesting thing I’ve noticed people doing is basically claiming that whatever other side is being astroturfed by the “real evil”, right. “Fossil fuel is funding renewable FUD of nuclear reactors!” or “Fossil fuels is funding nuclear FUD of renewables!”. You can also see this with liberals claiming that anyone who disagrees with the DNC is a Russian bot, and with people who disagree with libs claiming that libs fund radical right-wing candidates as an election strategy and that this is one of the reasons why they are basically just as bad as those right-wingers.

The core thing you need to understand about this, as a claim, is that they can both be true. They can both be backed opposition, controlled opposition, astroturfing. Because it’s not so much that they’re funding one racehorse that they want to be their opposition, so much as they are going to fund both sides, plant bad faith actors among both sides, bad faith discourse and division, thought terminating cliches, logical fallacies, whatever, and then by fueling the division, they’ve successfully destroyed their opposition. The biggest help to the fossil fuels lobby isn’t the fact that conversations about nuclear or renewables are happening when “we should be pushing, we should be in emergency mode, everyone should agree with me or get busted” right, as part of this “emergency mode” is us having these conversations. No, the biggest help to fossil fuels lobbies is the nature of the discourse, rather than the subjects of the discourse.

Also I find it stupid that people are arguing for all in on one of the other. That’s dumb. Really, very incredibly dumb. Mostly as I see this discourse happening in a disconnected top-down vacuum separate from any real world concerns because everyone just wants to be “correct” in the largest sense of the word and then have that be it. Realistically, renewables and nuclear are contextually dependant. Renewables can be better supplemented by energy storage solutions to solve their not matching precisely the power usage curves and trends, but a lot of those proposed storage solutions require large amounts of concrete, careful consideration of environmental effects, and large amounts engineering, i.e. the same shit as nuclear. It can both be true that baseload doesn’t matter so much as things like solar can more closely match the power usage curves naturally for desert climates where large amounts of sunlight and heat will create larger needs for A/C, and it can also be true that baseload is a reality in other cases where you can’t as easily transition power needs or try to offset them without larger amounts of infrastructural investment or power losses. Can’t exactly preheat homes in the day so they stay warm at night, in a cold climate, if the r-values for your homes are ass because everyone has a disconnected suburban shithovel that they’re not recouping maintenance costs of when they pay taxes.

These calculations of cost offsets and efficiencies have to be made in context, they have to be based in reality, otherwise we’re just arguing about fucking nothing at all. Maybe I will also hold water in the debates for money not being a great indicator of what’s possible, probable, or what’s the best long term solution for humanity, too, just to put that out there. But God damn this debate infuriates me to no end because people want to have their like, universal one size fits all top down kingly decree take of, well is this good or bad, instead of just understanding a greater, more nuanced take on the subject.

If you wanna have a top-down take on what’s the best, you probably want global, big solar satellites, that beam energy down with microwave lasers.

Fuck that shit, all the gas lawn tools should be backwards converted to run on hydrolysis-produced rocket fuel, feasibility and efficiency and safety be damned.

I dunno I’m just gonna drop a 50 minute video link on this one and bounce, 'cause if I chronically post my dogshit opinions every time one of these boomer ass articles gets posted here and gets upvoted a million times by the masturbatory elder millennial ex-redditor linux userbase, then I’m gonna be here for a fuckin eternity

Really? I went on it like I wanna say two or three months ago and it wasn’t that bad. You had a couple troll threads, obviously, because (you)s and getting your thread bumped are what the platform incentivizes over anything else, but it didn’t seem that bad.

I mean they’re literally just the guys who read about like, say, 4chan being bad, right, but then never actually use the site itself to see. I mean, yeah, if you go on /pol/ or /r9k/, and then scroll around for like 5 minutes, you can find some content that’s going to reinforce your bias that the site is kind of an ontologically evil fascist hellscape, but if you go on /mu/ it’s gonna be no more toxic than basically any other forum you could go on. It’s just people thoughtlessly parroting the narratives that they’ve heard from other people.

I don’t like tiktok, I don’t like lemmy, I kind of hate social media even though it’s like infested my life because I have no self control, but I’m not gonna be like. This is such an epic pog moment! I’m so pegged outta my gourd! when it gets banned. Because I’ve used it, thoroughly, not just first glance, and I actually understand the pros and cons of the platform. These guys don’t have that, they only have like, the white stale wonderbread and wood chips of social media usage, they only have reddit, and even more libbed up privacy reddit, i.e. the most obvious and in your face social media platforms of all time that give you (ostensibly, in practice, it’s the opposite) a very high amount of control over what they’re seeing. Of course they hate tiktok. On top of the brainrot privacy concerns they all probably have, they’re gonna discard it on the basis that they don’t have the self-control to use its platform, and project that onto everyone else. It’s like a puritan hating coffee, or cocaine, without understanding that it’s a great morning drink, or without understanding that it makes pro wrestling promos wayyyyy fucking better.

The nice part of that is that the fire conducts along the electricity

Edit: this was like two weeks ago but it was the other way around I am dumb

I haven’t gotten shoveled this shit for the entire course of my install, which has been since win 10 came out

I’d say I expected better but it’s becoming more obvious every day that lemmy is where the old and out of touch people migrated to.

No yeah this whole deal is like. Just a bunch of mildly liberal gen X Linux users, basically, that think they’re hot shit because they were right about like half of their opinions like a decade ago and haven’t changed since. The amount of people hating on even basic shit like discord here is nuts.

Get with the times, grandpa, we all use pirated windows LTSC with Microsoft activation scripts and various privacy and installation scripts! C’mon! We all use YouTube revanced grandpa! Libtube? What the fuck are you talking about?

The optimal sweet spot is probably like 40 meters or something, within 20 or 10 meters and the drone is probably in range to drop a grenade or explode, and becomes much harder to hit because it’s capable of making much quicker direction changes relative to where you’re standing even as it presents a larger target to you as a consequence of being closer, and a whole lot farther out, and birdshot can’t really cut it.

Edit: Oh I was also gonna say, for indoor spaces, it’d maybe be not a good idea even just for hearing protection, but barring that, you could just opt for something lower velocity which you’d probably pack for this occasion if you’re defending a set location, and then just load what you need in like 2 seconds. I imagine most drones are going to be flying around above head height anyways, so the main worry would be debris and falloff. You can’t prevent debris from the drone really unless you have a net drone or something, and the falloff on the backend of a lower velocity or frangible birdshot with less mass is probably not super consequential except maybe in the case of eye protection. Some sort of ceramic bullet or maybe even steel bbs would probably work without doing too much damage. More than a drone, anyways. It’s not as though a drone that rams into another drone is a particularly safe thing, in any case.

These other people are pulling ya, the answer is yes, you can shoot them down, we have a full sport for it called skeet shooting. A drone can’t pivot out of the way in the 0.1 seconds it takes for you to pull the trigger and for the bird shot to travel and take it out. The biggest problem is the range of the gun (which isn’t that bad) and spotting the drone beforehand. The noise a drone of that size makes is not that much consider it could be like 40 or 50 feet up in the dead of night with no lights, buzz past you, drop a grenade down, kablooie. If the drone backs off or otherwise pivots to try to avoid getting shot, it probably couldn’t do what it was there to do anyways.

Obviously, a big array of military industrial camera technology running in a big fence is going to be able to spot the drone pretty quick, but the video doesn’t focus on the tech there because presumably that’d be too interesting and probably the company would not like that.

Mostly I just hate when very obviously sponsored videos don’t declare their sponsorships. The entire first half of this like, 15 minute video is an ad, and then the rest of the content is made by like 3 other people. The thing he did was a big dart launcher. Now sure, that’s probably just for fun, it’s a scaled up version of the science kit he’s selling, it’s probably laudable that he didn’t want to show up his co-stars or whatever, but this is a video that has no content and basically no educational value. It’s trash, basically, it just has science education skin on.

Veritasium has done a similar thing a couple times, like his video on the autonomous cars. Very clearly a sponsorship, I think he only says so at the very end of the video, he totally glosses over any problems or downsides the technology has and speaks glowingly of it the whole time, paycheck please, next video, credibility is basically totally shot. I dunno, when I was a kid, magazines like popular science sold me on shit like the hyperloop. I wish they had been as forward thinking and hyped about normal trains, instead. Especially considering how many people have probably fallen for similar garbage like this due to that kind of stuff.

I mean no not really, I was just kinda advocating for dual power because people always like to make a big fuss about how it’s their way ideologically or the highway, without stopping for five seconds about how a lot of people’s ideal goals are actually mutually inclusive or mutually beneficial.

First we get people away from having to work merely to live, and THEN we can take further steps towards whichever utopic ideal we believe in

I mean it’s not even really a first, if, then, kind of deal, because they’re both mutually inclusive goals to be working towards, rather than being mutually exclusive.

I mean I guess my main point is just that I find these robotic humans to be kind of interesting and cool, but also totally unambitious and cynical, precisely because they don’t require things to be redesigned in any way. You could have floors and bathrooms designed so that they rinse themselves out and are steam sanitized with the press of a button, and not that much of a change in infrastructure compared to the norm, it’s just a different way to doing things that requires more thought out design for more discrete applications. Most fast food bathrooms already have a floor drain. Same with food delivery. There’s conveyor belt restaurants, we already have drive thrus with windows, restaurants already need to be navigable by foot in order for people to be able to sit down. These seem like maybe more efficient solutions long term than replacing people with humanoid robots.

Are the numbers working out that these are actually more efficient, economically, or something? Is it just that the tech sector is what has all the money lately, so they’re prescribing these as kind of a blanket solution to every other use-case? Is it just that human shaped robots are kind of cool? I dunno, but I do wonder about the versatility being more efficient. It works if the versatility itself, in a human environment, is kind of the end-goal here, but as a good in itself, I dunno.

Okay somebody probably knows better than me, but what is the advantage of humanoid robots? Why are people kinda, on this, now? It feels very 20th century, as an idea. It’s pretty cool, but I don’t understand why this would be necessary compared to just like, specialized normal robots that do specialized normal tasks. It seems more efficient, if you wanted a robot to, say, do the dishes, to make a robot that just does the dishes, instead of making a robot in the shape of a person that does the dishes. The one that’s in the shape of a person is maybe more broadly applicable to human contexts, software notwithstanding (which does seem like a major hiccup). But it’s not as though there’s like, an upper limit on the amount of robots which we can have, in total. You could just make more robots, and make them specialized for certain tasks, like stocking shelves or whatever, and that would probably be easier, I would think, than making one robot to rule them all. Like, one robot, with ostensibly an on-board computer and on-board batteries so it’s as universal as possible.

It gives me self-driving car vibes, where we could’ve had them in the 50’s if everyone was willing to install metal spikes in the ground every however many feet ahead, but then that maybe doesn’t make any sense, because it’s just kind of a shitty train or tram. Basically, that nobody’s willing to front the cost of infrastructure for anything anymore, so we have to make like, a universal device, and end up quintupling the total cost while making a solution that is either less efficient or doesn’t exist.

Also, what’s the point of the legs? Is it supposed to go outside, or go up stairs better? We already have pretty efficient wheeled vehicles capable of doing that in most public spaces, or, we’re supposed to, anyways, they’re called wheelchairs. What do we need this guy to walk around for?

Edit: So far, what I’ve gotten is ladders, and the scalability of a humanoid design vs other kinds of designs.

For ladders, I think you could probably tackle that with a similar set of constraints what you might need for a stair climbing robot, maybe just with a couple heavyweight anchors inside of it and some gearing or something. Use the robot’s big arms, the manipulators, to climb like normal, and then use the bottom wheels to sort of ratchet the robot up. Probably that could work on most ladders with some clever engineering. Could maybe also run a cable from the top of the ladder to the bottom and then have a system where the robot rappels up and down for lots of ladders, but yeah.

I don’t think you end up spending all that much on a robot that has wheels vs legs, and I think probably the increased efficiency would be worth it if you want like a generalized robot here. Might be wrong, maybe a roboticist can tell me no, but I dunno. As far as engineering goes it doesn’t seem any more complicated than legs. Legs seem better for, offroading, basically. Which are why lots of animals use them, cause animals don’t have roads.

For the versatility and scalability thing, I dunno whether or not it’s more or less efficient still. While a steam cleaning room does require some amount of consideration to build, I would think that you could really get the price down from the tens of thousands of dollars required for this kind of robot to perform a similar job. Especially if you built it that way up front, retrofits might be much more expensive considering how many bathrooms aren’t built correctly. Or you could go with a kind of hybrid approach, which I totally forgot about, but would seem to make some amount of sense, especially for a larger building.

Maybe those savings build up over time, and you could just have a McDonald’s staffed by like three of these at once and only spend like 500,000 on it, which does seem like quite a bit to add on top of a McDonald’s opening costs. I’m assuming you gotta buy multiple to staff it as a whole and also that you have to buy multiple to have more battery capacity, but maybe one of these will come out with the clever innovation of a swappable battery if/when they come to market. I would definitely hope that’d be the case.

I’m not sure it works out economically. I’m not sure of anything here. These are just suggestions because I haven’t seen a lot of FUD on these human robots, except of the Terminator variety, which seems dumb.

I suppose my biggest difference here is just one of philosophy, mostly because I’ve seen it reflected in self-driving cars. You can make something that’s capable in any context. Wind, snow, rain, shine, heavy traffic, pedestrian traffic, intermodal traffic, different kinds of roads not created to a set standard by the state’s DOT. You can make a Swiss army knife, right. Maybe there are some economic and QoL savings there if you can do rideshares or do like, johnnycabs, right, if you can eliminate the desire for car ownership and status from the American mind. Maybe you can get all those cars out of parking lots as much as possible, and onto the road, doubling, maybe even tripling the amount of traffic as cars now move from one person going from one place to another place. Maybe you can also solve traffic, if you can get all the human driven cars off the road and totally automate everything so none of the cars ever hit each other or anyone, maybe you could try to do this piecemeal with autonomous vehicle only zones and surmount the nimbys with venture capital to buy a whole local municipality. Maybe you can balance the speed with the safety so we don’t have heavy traffic and we get places on time, but when a disaster strikes from ice buildup on the road in a random place, or leaves flying around your car, it doesn’t kill everyone. Maybe, you can get all this to not computationally require an energy cost collectively that rivals a medium sized European country. Maybe you can also solve the wireless communication issues that would plague this system, and maybe that allows you to simplify it instead of having every car be self-driving and predictable even though probably a bunch of different companies will be trying to get in on this and will be mingling in traffic, with different softwares.

Maybe you could also make a tram, though. Maybe you could have an electric folding bike you take on the tram. That’s also an option. That’s just infrastructural cost, and we could do that right now.

Neither of these solutions is necessarily better, right. I mean, in this case specifically it’s pretty apparent to anyone with half a brain that the trams are better quite obviously but like, as an analogue about humanoid robots, especially with the point taken about a variety of contexts as opposed to a single high friction context like cars, neither of these solutions are necessarily better. They entail different philosophies. One created a world around the thing, one creates the thing. One changes the world to suit the people, one changes the people to suit the world.

Is what I’m saying making sense, did I get my point across?

I can probably do that too if I dislocate my hip bones

I like this because it makes me feel like it’s a decade ago

it really is exhausting, isn’t it?

Mostly just because it’s kind of seen as a higher profile example of mobile phone manufacturers colluding and creating totally unnecessary changes in the market because they’re incapable of actual innovation. The reason people are mad, basically, is because there was no reason to remove the headphone jack. I haven’t seen a reasonable argument for it’s removal, really, or the removal of most of the other used-to-be-standard features on smartphones.

While I think we can do better in some spaces, the reality is that a lot of modern tech is fundamentally un-repairable. Not because of evil conspiracies but just because it is a lot easier to print a PCB and slot in some components than it is to connect vacuum tube diodes. And when so many of those components are fairly complex chips and the damage is less “oh, the metal prong on this chip broke” and more “oh, the via shorted out”?

Is this a fundamental piece of tech as it exist now, or is this just kind of the way that tech has manifested after 50 years of development inside of a profit driven system which incentivizes unrepairable and disposable products over things which can be sustained for a long time?

I’d also like to posit that we’ve experienced a relatively rapid growth in the last 50 years, and that possibly has also affected design. In a rapidly changing market, you’d be a fool not to design everything as disposable, since next year’s thing is going to be so different and so much better that it’s kind of ridiculous to expect as much backwards compatibility or to expect repairability since people won’t be sticking with stuff for as long. Now, whether or not that growth is actually slowing down intrinsically, or if that growth is just slowing down as a result of the current structure of the market, who can really say.

But largely I would posit that, don’t mistake the fundamental nature of a thing as being the same as said thing in relation to a much larger and broader system. We could frame infotainment systems and the increasing digitization of cars as an inevitability, but in a radically different context, like southeasy asia or africa, we might see cars that are prized for their ease of maintenance and utility value, fuel efficiency being a lower concern, and luxuries like infotainment being much, much lower.