I think automated robotic self-driving will always need a human-in-the-loop as ironic as that sounds, but for 99.9% of an automated journey, the extra 0.1% needs to be offloaded to humans, for rare edge-cases where the self-driving vehicle has no training data for. For example, random events like road maintenance, wild animals crossing the road, natural events like snow storms, etc.
The people working on this 0.1% metric want to further reduce this percentage and get all the automation to 100%, but you will need humans at some stage. Nature is too random and chaotic for it all to be modeled in a computer system.
I found using Virtualbox has a performance penalty when loading sites in a VM. It seems VM browsers just aren't as snappy as bare-metal versions. If you can live with that, then fine, but I prefer to do development on a bare-metal install.
> that paying money to play might be just a re-invention of the 80's coin-operated arcades
I agree. Game companies don't create games for free, and if they do, then they're siphoning off personal data and selling it to the highest bidder to support themselves. The business model should be clear: if you're getting a game for free, developers need to state how they make money for transparency purposes.
You didnt own an video game cabinet in the 80s and had to pay rent so people could comple play it and put money into it so you could pay the rent for the place for the people to pay to play (an arcade)....
Today we buy games, and we own the arcade. Fuck ingame extras.
You didnt own an video game cabinet in the 80s and had to pay rent so people could comple play it and put money into it so you could pay the rent for the place for the people to pay to play (an arcade)....
Continuing..
you buy/own the console, you pay for electricity/rent/mortgage, you pay for repairs, for the new/upgraded equipment, etc. So the cost is heavily externalised to the user, as a trade-off to comfort (hey you get to play from a couch/comfy chair instead of standing up).
So it depends on the usage to see if you spend less, more or break even on the costs.
I don't include cheating (i.e. after finishing D2 a few times, I started using SaveGameEditors so I can play with 'this' or 'that' set) as this has immense value that could not easily be made in an arcade.
I assume it's legal where you live? Because where I live, you get dragged through the courts and get a criminal record for even small amounts. Also since it's illegal, you have to have contacts in the criminal underworld, and fund criminal enterprises. Not to mention you don't know the quality of what you're getting. It could be laced with contaminants or simply low quality crap. If it's legal where you live, relish that and see it as an enormous privilege.
In the USA, marijuana is functionally legal through most of the country due to the hemp bill and the existence of things like THCA and Delta-8 THC. Because of how a product is defined as marijuana vs. hemp, products high in THCA but below the Delta-9 THC limit are considered hemp, even though when decarbed (smoked, vaporized, cooked into edibles) THCA turns into regular old THC and Delta-8 THC is functionally a less potent form of Delta-9 THC.
Some states have enacted provisions around some or all of the Delta-9 THC analogs, but most have not.
I regularly have THCA products shipped to me via USPS in a box with marijuana leaves on it in a state where Delta-9 THC is still illegal for recreational use.
The THC-A exceptions really have not been tested against state laws where weed is still illegal. I understand that THC-A weed is openly sold in a lot of illegal states and enforcement is low. But if local/county/parish officers wanted to test using GCMS instead of LCMS, it would still show that the weed had too much D9-THC.
Maybe people could get this overturned in court in some of those states, but maybe not. I understand that there's some arguments that the federal law supersedes state law due to being on a USDA farm bill or something, but I really, really don't think any of the THC-A stuff has been tested in court.
Even at a purely federal level, I don't think I can just hop on a plane with a pound of THC-A weed and tell the TSA "oh this is just hemp."
TSA is supposed to let it through if it's below 0.3 D9-THC
GCMS will detect THCA if derivatized - https://www.cannabissciencetech.com/view/a-brief-review-of-d... - I find it hard to believe that you couldn't get a non-derivatized GCMS thrown out in court when it's known that GCMS will cause THCA to decarboxolate into THC.
I suppose I should stipulate I'm not a lawyer and there are obvious risks to possessing something that looks exactly like an illegal product.
Oh it is absolutely a privilege! Though it should not be, in the sense that it should be legal everywhere. Here in Oakland CA I can walk down the street and buy all the weed I want at the corner store. We have also decriminalized psilocybin mushrooms and other plant based substances including DMT. I had a very meaningful and healing experience aided by mushrooms with some close friends a few weeks ago, which involved opening up about some past shared trauma that a friend had been holding in, and led to a breakthrough in communication and togetherness.
URL shorteners are mostly used to cloak affiliate links. I'm a Commission Junction affiliate and they deliberately have long complicated URLs like drkqmpo5o9qew9sz.com/?affid=54321 and they rotate these often to get past 'blocker' technology. In terms of the ethics of that: there's nothing wrong with sharing a sale of something you're passionate about. It happens quite a lot.
VMware. I used a pirate copy of VMWare about a decade ago, and they detected it was pirated and I was forced to cough up some coins, lest my VMs all became useless, and I had some important VMs which were mission critical to my startup. I have since switched to QEMU though. The migration was painless enough.
