It shouldn’t, though to some extent, it operating more efficiently can be a good thing if the efficiency gains can be gotten without significant detriment to service, because then more money is available for either improvements to the mail service or for other services. Profit does not impy efficiency of course, but making something more efficient can make it more profitable.
the main argument I see for rail is that it doesnt get stuck in car traffic, which should make it easier to keep to a reliable schedule and speed, and that it can have a higher capacity per vehicle. Those would seem to indicate that it should be better than busses for routes that are very busy, provided of course that the rail infrastructure is actually good (able to do a reasonable speed, have reasonable reliability, and separated from other modes of transit to as to not cause conflicts at crossings). If your trains are so slow you can beat them by walking, and directly cross the roads and bike paths, then its not trains as a concept that are the problem, its that you have rather bad trains.
From the look of it, its is a regular bus, it just looks to have a low floor tram-like design. Which doesnt make it not a bus, but might make it a bit more pleasant to ride.
Tbf, there is a place in public transit infrastructure for busses. Trains are great, but there are routes out there that would be impractical to serve with a full size train or inefficiently expensive to build out tram rails for, but which a bus can serve effectively.
hypothetically, I suppose it could alternately be done by instances just federating the number of votes from their instance and only storing who voted what internally. Though then you might get issues with very easy vote manipulation if a server just says a lot of people voted a certain way without needing to make accounts to “justify” the fake votes.
From what I understand, they’re trying to (mis)use a law to the effect that companies cant all get together and boycott a competitor in order to try to drive it out of the market. If my understanding is correct then, for example, if say Ford and GM and such happened to also run electric taxi businesses, and those taxi businesses bought cars off the open market where in theory they should buy whatever they think gives them what they need at the best price, even if from another car maker, then it wouldnt be legal for them to all go and say “we make electric cars, and Tesla does too, so lets not buy anything from Tesla, regardless of how cheap or good their products are, so they lose business” (Assuming that the Teslas in question would in fact be perfectly suitable for said taxi companies needs that is). They’re trying to sue an advertising industry group, claiming that they’ve done this kind of thing. Except the members of the group in question arent really competitors to Twitter, and in any case, the quality of advertising is thought to diminish if the ads are next to objectionable and bigoted content, since its thought to hurt the advertised company’s image, so if my understanding is correct, it should be simple enough for them to argue “We’re not colluding to hurt your company, your product just isnt up to our standards so we arent buying it”
looks like if brutalist architects were asked to build a castle. Even with that body of water acting like a moat
Under a few specific circumstances comments can make sense, like if it’s a community for drawn stuff of one variety or another, that’s used by newer artists looking for constructive feedback.
There is a brand of flour called King Arthur that seems pretty decent as far as brands as a general concept go. I don’t get them all the time as their stuff does tend to cost more, but I’ve found my bread machine has consistently done better with their stuff than any other flour I’ve tried (I’m not sure exactly why, what is there to get wrong with grinding flour, that would enable a significant difference in quality to exist?), they don’t seem to have gotten any worse over the time I’ve known about them, and operate as some sort of employee cooperative from what I’ve read.
The article mentions that he was telling this to the president of the UFC, so not really since thats sports type fighting, not military stuff like the french foreign legion is. It sounds more like just an attempt to make migrants sound threatening by declaring them to be physically tougher than other people.
Id say yes to that statement, but for reasons that dont have to do with AI as I dont really view AI training as piracy.
Would this even be necessary for automated ordering anyway? Given that every company under the sun wants you to use some app of theirs these days, including fast food companies, Im kinda surprised they dont just get rid of the speaker/microphone system, and just put a sign with a qr code in front of the drive through telling you to download and use their app to put in a drive through order
I’m aware that it can analyze chemical composition (I work in a factory that relates to such devices), but I’m unaware of them being able to detect things like weaknesses in a grain structure, the devices I’m familiar with at least would just tell you if a piece of titanium has other elements contaminating it. Unless there’s more that can be done with them than I’ve had explained to me, which is possible
Presumably there must be something physically different about the weaker titanium, like a different structure of all the crystals in it or something? Is there any way to measure that?
I’ve long wondered if a species with a high reproduction rate (or maybe artificial womb tech) and little regard for losses could do some kind of cyberattack against the borg by either making them assimilate a lot of junk data, harmfully incorrect information, or an overwhelmingly large number of members of some desired ideology so as to shift the entire collective towards that way of thinking
For this particular case, he couldn’t pardon himself because the president can pardon federal crimes, but in this case the crime is in the New York state court system, so the governor of New York would have to pardon him to my understanding.
I’ve heard of them before, but my assumption was that whatever factor about fast food had killed them off, probably would still be in play to prevent them returning unless optimized even further somehow
This does bring the question up in my mind of what a restaurant that wasn’t a luxury would look like, ie, something that sells ready to eat food at prices that make it competitive with cooking at home, and which is healthy enough to eat on a daily basis without ill effect. My guess is that it would be largely a matter of having to carefully choose recipes that both use ingredients that are cheap in bulk, and able to be at least partially automated to keep staff costs low, but which are still nutritious and rely on minimal processed ingredients. Probably soups and chili and the like I’d imagine.
echidna I understand, but why cat?
I’m not arguing that this idea in particular is necessarily a good one, just that the concept of making the service more efficient has merit. Obviously, to actually see the benefits, the idea in question has to actually succeed at making the service more efficient.