TVs, game consoles

Lets say the theft is successful of a TV or game console. The thief likely wants cash, not consumer electronics. So they need a way to convert stolen goods into cash. Any TV worth money worth bothering with is also very large and fragile which is a problem for offloading it. Sure, there’s craigslist and facebook marketplace, but there aren’t many that will buy a TV off of those because of the likelihood something is already wrong with it, and TVs just aren’t that expensive new. Many consoles also have a theft reporting function that will block or limit how the console can be used. I imagine this also make theft of a console a high risk, low reward path.

I’m very glad to hear that! Thank you for correcting me on this.

For instance analogue IO would be very welcome for many purposes.

I have a handful of the original Raspberry Pi A and B models that have analog audio built in (with 3.5mm jack) and they’re still in use today because of that built in analog audio out. Also honorable mention to the original Pi Zero which had the logic (but not the header pins) for NTSC out. I have a couple of those in use too because of their NTSC out capabilities.

The byline at the bottom of the article jumped out at me:

This is a professional journalist and doctor of microbiology. She has spent many many years in education and practice to reach her level of knowledge and ability. Then some editor says “hey I need 1500 words in a story we want you to write covering dudes injecting their junk for cosmetics and athletic performance enhancement. Can you have it done by Tuesday?”. I can just imagine her eyerolling as she accepted the task. Dr. Beth Mole, don’t worry. We still respect your credentials and achievements and understand you just have to pay the bills too.

If the text messages of Agent Exum show deep remorse for the killing or immense anger with the system that put him in the position he needed to kill then I think that would reflect well on Agent Exum.

If instead it shows him making jokes about the victim or boasting about the killing then, yes, Agent Exum’s reputation will be further sullied.

The government is telegraphing what the tone of his text messages are even before they are being released.

pass the asvab.

Oh man, I made a mistake taking the ASVAB. I had no plans of joining the military, but was encouraged to take the test anyway. I got 99s or 97s in all the general categories and a 99 in Electronics (my program of study at the time). I had Air Force and Navy recruiters chasing me for months. Navy recruiter said he wanted me for a nuclear technician. It took close to a year for the last attempt to contact me ended.

In Nebraska you’re old enough to vote or die for your country at age 18 or 19, but don’t you dare think you’re worthy of earning the regular adult minimum wage.

Just a heads’ up — I get these messages, not Hegseth.

You understand that in that context (because of how the headline is worded) the response is to Hegseth and not you, right?

When I’m replying to a headline a person posted, I’ll specifically address the person in the article by name, but I wanted to let you know that most people aren’t going to think you’re a Nazi because you’re posting a new article about a Nazi’s behavior.

I’m not understanding why he would want the station to be renamed “Orange Turd Station”?

There has to be enough motivation for them to get rid of bad cops before they become a problem, not after.

I’m understand where you’re going with this statement in spirit, but not in execution. An officer is only a problem after they have done harm to the public for which they serve. How then could a department get rid of a bad officer before this bad behavior presents itself?

“Are you going to get vaccinated against the Vegas Virus or are you going to roll the dice?”

“Blakloclovier vaccine against the Vegas Virus shows strong protection. Always bet on Blak”

“Don’t cash out early on life. Get vaccinated”

My suggestion (though I’m open to any idea that works) is fines/penalties/settlements for shit like this comes out of their retirement funds.

My favorite reform approach is for law enforcement officers being required to carry professional insurance. Police are often referring to themselves as professionals. Let them carry insurance like doctors do for malpractice or professional engineers do.

To ease the transition, I propose that the department cover the base insurance premiums for each officer. If an officer has a judgment against them that raises their insurance premiums, the officer is now responsible for paying for the overage out of their own pocket. If the officer continues to exhibit behavior that results in judgments against them, their premiums will continue to rise eventually to the point where the bad officer cannot afford the overage premiums and will then have to stop working as police because they are not carrying the required insurance. So bad officers will self select out.

There’s also another angle where the base premiums will likely be calculated based upon the entire department. If there is a badly behaved officer, this will raise the base rate of all officers too, so the department has a financial incentive to get rid of bad officers because they are too expensive.

after decimating the indigenous americans that have been here more than 10k years.

No argument on the truthfulness of your statement, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the premise of society enforcing the thought that the rich are rich because of god.

If you’re looking for specific historical knowledge, as in citations, here you go:

https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america

https://youtu.be/LvmwGwnJf7c?t=598

These are exactly the type of thing I was looking for. Thank you for sharing them.

I have never intentionally put words in your mouth. The best I can figure after rereading our entire thread is that you’re jumping around on different points but giving no clues in the conversation you’re doing that. As in, I’m responding to one of your points, but you’re providing a rebuttal for a completely different point of your own.

In this conversation I’ve been trying to restate what I’m seeing as your interpretation in an attempt to confirm we’re communicating, but then I get another response indicating we’re not communicating.

There’s two possibilities I see as to whats happening here:

• your thesis and points are not logically consistent

OR

• we are simply not able to communicate effectively with one another today

For the purposes of civility, I’m not going to make a judgment one which one these it is. I’ll let you give your downvote button a rest and simply bow out talking more with you today. Maybe in the future we’ll have better luck with one another.

I’m not looking for pedantry. I’m looking for clarity. You eluded to a specific action by robber barons in the 1900s. I’m looking for what that is because I’m seeing that idea predate them.

Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle

I never said that and the quality of a ford truck is irrelevant to the assembly worker who lost their job due to automation.

You need to back up because you have gone down a tangent alone.

I agree we’re down a tangent, but I’m following the logic of your responses. This is a response to your original thesis: “AI robots can be utter shit”. Then you introduced the ford example for automation, which isn’t shit for assembly.

Which point to you want to back up to that would change our conversation path?

The notion that people won’t eat sawdust bread is demonstrably false with many historical examples proving you wrong.

I’m glad you saw those. I specifically chose sawdust in my example because of those events in history. Those support what I’m talking about. When the adulteration of the food became bad enough, people stopped eating it.

Your stipulation about zero flour is a moving goalpost and a strawman fyi

My “zero flour” comment is a response to your original thesis where you said: “quality of service can drop indefinitely.”

It can’t be indefinitely. There’s a point where people will stop consuming it when it gets bad enough.

Early colonized America used slave labor by racist christians. Those racist christians said they were supposed to be rich because god made them that way. That predates the robber barons of the early 1900s.

And yet youtube is still the dominant video host.

Youtube hasn’t descended to being unusable yet.

You’re missing the point entirely. If instead of luxuries you look through the lens of necessities perhaps you’ll see. Like replace cookies with bread and try tell me people will choose to starve first. Like obviously not.

I think you’re missing the point. If we substitute bread in the example I gave and they’re putting sawdust in it, then yes people will not buy bread made with zero flour, but instead made with sawdust. Yes, people will stop buying bread in that situation because they would die anyway because the bread doesn’t produce nutritional value.

Ask a ford employee 30 years ago about robot automation. Like this is not a new thing in the 2020s. The rich have a playbook for this.

Now you’re speaking against your original point. Robot automation has not lowered the quality of a Ford vehicle. If anything it has increased it. A robot can have assembly tolerances much tighter than a human. Where is the lowering of quality from a robot making the vehicle that your original thesis demands?

The short version is that the ultra wealthy were pissed about the New Deal, so they used fundamentalist Christianity to tie the idea of wealth to holy favor from Yahweh.

That concept existed WAY before the United State did.

The old idea was kings were rich because they were ordained to be kings by god. Questioning why the king was rich was questioning the word of god and punishable by death.