Or do something to make it so that payment processors must process payments for anything legal, without any say in the matter.
Probably get sued up to the Supreme Court like pharmacists that don't want to accept birth control prescriptions. Which may not work out that great with how much the current court hates freedom.
but, really, if the product or service is legal, payment processors should have to accept the payment. Same for all the other categories of product they are blocking with similar methodos.
What if it is unclear. I cannot tell 100% if a girl between 12 and 32 is over 18. maybe I can be right 75% of the time but I can think of two girls at the extreems that I was way off (that is a girl I guessed was 12 turned out to be 27 and a different girl I guessed at 32 won an under 16 race). Fake ids are all over (because 18-20 year olds want to drink at college).
ontil we legally give payment processors a pass for enabling money for crime they will be very careful about grey areas.
Why would it be on the payment processor at all to determine if something is legal or not? I think that is a massive issue on it's own as I don't want Visa/MC deciding whether they think what I'm doing with my money is legal, that's for a legal system to do, not a private company.
I agree. I couldn't find the reference on the first few pages, so I pasted the URL to chatGPT and asked what is an ROV to get the context based on the article
Once I got to the end of the first page without finding out, I selected the "ROV" in the title and three-finger-touched my trackpad and it told me the answer. One of the little Mac niceties I'd struggle without.
Funny, because I'd say that jargon is a facilitator of communication between knowledgeable people. It can always be looked up by those with the interest but not the knowledge. I end up doing this all the time, and appreciating reading dumps of domain knowledge and perspective. Meanwhile, writing everything for a lowest common denominator audience creates real barriers to communication - both destroying communications bandwidth, and also encouraging experts to retreat to less visible forums.
It would take the author a few seconds to type "remotely operated vehicle" (or whatever it stands for), and therefore save hours of time for people who need to look it up. Not to mention...I almost skipped the article because I didn't know what ROV stood for. Lost audience.
Your argument is that lots of experts on remotely operated vehicles would scoff at the article because it didn't use their "inside" jargon? First off, how many people would that be, compared to the number of people who love a good mystery and a good gadget, but have no idea what an ROV is?
As to bandwidth, you only have to spell it out once. Simple practice: I built a remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) and solved some cold missing person cases.
The author of this piece doesn't strike me as someone who relishes communicating in cryptic acronyms, so my guess is that it was just thoughtless. He hadn't yet seen my screed on the subject. :-)
I'm sure there are those who love communicating in cryptic code. They tend to congregate in like-minded cliques that don't much care about communicating outside their tightly-defined world. So be it. But if you want to be read and understood by a wide audience, spell it out.
Jargon generally takes on its own meaning and context beyond a naive reading. "ROV" customarily refers to an underwater remotely operated vehicle, not merely any "remotely operated vehicle" (contrast with flying "drones" or contemporary cars with cell modems). I'm nowhere near an expert or even frequent user of the term, that's just from my casual recollection and a quick search seems to back it up.
The proper comparison isn't the author's time versus the readers looking it up, but rather readers encountering a term for the first time having to look it up versus every other reader having to read overly verbose writing that reiterates basic definitions rather than getting to the novel points. If you're as interested in ROVs as you imply, well now you know for all of the other times you will read the term. If you're really expecting to never encounter the term again, I wonder why you're reading a technical engineering-adjacent forum.
And yes, effective communication within "like-minded cliques" is exactly what is facilitated by jargon. Personally I'd rather read concise technical descriptions from such direct communications (doing the work to learn what I don't know from context or external sources), rather than having to skim through watered-down general-audience "edutainment" articles and read between the lines to figure out the specific touchstones being referenced by canned general phrases.
>The proper comparison isn't the author's time versus the readers looking it up, but rather readers encountering a term for the first time having to look it up versus every other reader having to read overly verbose writing that reiterates basic definitions rather than getting to the novel points. If you're as interested in ROVs as you imply, well now you know for all of the other times you will read the term. If you're really expecting to never encounter the term again, I wonder why you're reading a technical engineering-adjacent forum.
This isn't a water hobbyists forum, nor one for all manner of remotely operated vehicles, so it's a bit optimistic to assume many people here will know "ROV" as a remote controlled submarine. Fact is, most of us cannot, from the title, figure out if we're interested, nor from skimming the first six (!) pages of a long article. Explaining ROV once at the beginning would, I dare say, not have impacted the enjoyment of underwater professionals very much, but saved me and most others on this forum some time figuring out if I want to figure it out.
I don't get this pigeonholing of the concern as being only about "water hobbyists" or "underwater professionals". It's literally just a type of machine you will become aware of some time during the course of reading about engineering or subsea operations. As I said, I'm not even fully sure it just applies to underwater vehicles yet I have bumped into the term/concept more than several times already in my life. If you're new and this is your first time encountering it, appreciate the learning opportunity. I bet you'll see the term a lot more now due to Baader-Meinhof.
> Fact is, most of us cannot, from the title, figure out if we're interested
This is a situation where HN’s “no editorialising titles” rule falls flat. Simply with the context change the title would be also best changed. I also understand why we have the rule of course.
> Explaining ROV once at the beginning would, I dare say, not have impacted the enjoyment of underwater professionals very much
Sure. There is a lot which could have been improved on the whole article with better editing.
Musk is always good for the 'hot take' that on the surface seems smart...but turns out it isn't, because he thinks that talking with an engineer in a specific area makes him qualified to talk like them. And then it turns out that he does the very thing he complains about.
What the fluff is a "Brick Monitor Board"? I'm a car nut and I know a lot about EVs, and my best guess: it's a submodule of the battery management system that monitors a group of cells, which I think the only reason I know to guess that is because I've watched youtube videos of tesla packs being repaired or torn down. IBST? Turns out that's the vacuum pump for the brake servo, and "I" means "electronic."
For the former, he was probably ranting about this because he's always struck me as a little insecure about being better than NASA (not really that hard) and thus is annoyed by NASA's fetish for backronyms...which I think it inherited from the military due to sleeping in the same bed for three quarters of a century, but also their convenience.
During all phases of a mission, there are often times where comms need to be fast (for example, when the flight director or whoever does it, asks each subsystem person if they're go for launch - there's a lot of those subsystem people and the "are you OK with us proceeding" happens multiple times just during the lead-up to launch. It's a lot faster to have the following conversation:
"ECS?" "Go."
"TACNAZ?" "Go."
"DONUT?" "Go."
If you're the astronaut, you don't want to be shouting "Electronic Cookie Stabilizer failure!" over the radio during an emergency, and anyone on the channel with you probably knows every acronym relating to the mission by heart..
What surprises me is that it has taken the US Gov. so long to act on this. And even more than that, that it took the Telcos so long -- and they've still barely done anything. It is destroying their business. And now the spam is being allowed to creep into the cell market.
The fact that we all have to screen our calls is just insane. Makes phones almost useless for their intended task.
I don’t know that the telcos care one whit about degradation of trust in telephony; they’re effectively ISPs at this point and telephony is a legacy service.
Sounds about right. I played off and on for a month or so; through a few updates.
There had/have been recurring problems with elevators and inventory. I would get ejected into space; no leg breaking.
I think just the way they mesh the world together makes that something that has been hard for them to fix.
The inventory issues are what got me to stop playing. Long inventory load times, and then 75% of the time, inventory would be lost or permanently broken (items lost/can't add new things to inventory).
Still fun for a few days. Pretty graphics. Space flight was fun.
FPS missions needed a lot of work, but functional.
Another thing that made me quit, was the tedium of setup. You respawn quickly, from death into the hospital (unless you end up in prison, for shooting an at FPS guard that looks 90% exactly like an FPS enemy (then you get the prison play loop, which is fun once or twice)). But, then you need to take the elevator (chance of instant death) down to the ground floor. find the train. wait for the train. take the elevator (chance of death; or stairs if you are lucky [ i feel like there's a 'I'm gonna git you sucka' joke in here ]) to the shopping district. Wander around the shopping district (which is different on each planet) to hopefully find new Armor, Rifle, Mining tool, Gravity-gun tool (not all planets have the things you need, even)... then get back to the train and repeat for the space dock. then elevator to your ship bay.
... that's like 10-30 minutes. it just gets tedious.
- probably more fun playing with groups of people, but it got too tedious playing solo.
Was an early Kickstarter backer, so I'll try it again at some point when it is more polished.
Agree that what I paid for was mainly a modern Wing Commander/Freelancer type game, and they are overreaching by a lot. I think the First-person-shooter stretch goal was added later in the funding campaign.
I also feel like a lot of the kick-starter ships have been power-creeped (and they also seem to be lagging behind in quality updates; because CIG has to design and sell new ships to make more money to fund development, and then most of that money goes to make new ships).
They should not be making new ships at all at this point, unless those ships are required for the single player campaign. Focus should be on game systems and game play.
I've been less trusting of WireCutter reviews lately. Still see so many of these strange brands listed when I go in to read a review, combined with no real long term testing. Lack of long term testing makes me not trust Consumer Reports as much either.
I still use their reviews as a reference point, but for a lot of things I don't really go for their top selections.
Probably get sued up to the Supreme Court like pharmacists that don't want to accept birth control prescriptions. Which may not work out that great with how much the current court hates freedom.
but, really, if the product or service is legal, payment processors should have to accept the payment. Same for all the other categories of product they are blocking with similar methodos.