I always see people point to 'just round the corner' future Proof of Stake systems when the energy waste topic comes up, but it seems like there are still a lot of big unsolved challenges with that, as well as new problems introduced by it.
As long as there's no actual widespread fully working currency using only PoS, it's a bit like justifying the emissions from flying by pointing to experimental solar powered aircraft, and saying all flights will be solar powered any day now.
I keep seeing discussions of this include something like 'but it will all be moving to proof of stake soon', which seems to me a bit like arguing for how green air travel is by saying we'll have solar powered airplanes soon.
A lot of faith seems to be being placed in an unproven advance, which if it is really possible at all (and that's a much bigger if than many acknowledge), would introduce all sorts of new problems.
You have an objection to the content, instead of an ad-hom attack on me?
"Having a flatscreen TV is a very high priority for poor people in the US".
1) TV is comparatively cheap entertainment.
2) Flatscreens are the only kind of TV produced in years.
3) Is that objectively "a very high priority" for "poor people"? Citation needed.
4) Being poor sucks, and things which make life more pleasant would be a completely understandable high priority.
5) Obtaining things which make life better is a very high priority in all stratas of American life.
And yet the comment ""Having a flatscreen TV is a very high priority for poor people in the US" doesn't sound filled with empathy, understanding, approval, celebration that even poor people can afford material goods in America, does it?
Instead, somehow, it sounds judgemental, critical, accusatory. In the middle of a thread about a Raspberry Pi which was designed and made to be cheap so that poor kids have a chance of computing access, with the context "even poor people have TVs" who would throw in that comment and why?
From an opinion piece[1]: "The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. [...] Regardless of how they were intended, poor people and minorities sense that with those comments Gingrich is winking — some call it “dog whistling” — at certain white audiences by intimating that black people are lazy, happy to live off the government and lacking any intellect."
That's obviously what happened here. The comment "Having a flatscreen TV is a very high priority for poor people in the US" does not say "poor people value education and it's a good thing even poor people have access to a TV where they could plug in a Raspberry Pi", it says "of course poor people will have a TV, they're lazy and watch TV all day and feel entitled to the luxury of a flatscreen, right guys?" wink wink, allowing the poster to deny any responsibility because "many poor people own televisions".
The Center for American Progress paper "Moving away from Racial Stereotypes"[2] says "The notion that poor people, particularly poor people of color, are lazy is the most significant and persistent stereotype affecting efforts to address poverty in our country." and "It’s notable that labels suggesting laziness or lack of effort that have been used to describe African Americans are also applied to poor people more generally." and "Getting tough on poor people is a way to try to win votes during elections, derail legislation, or distract attention from positions that would otherwise be unpopular. Given modern-day sensibilities, however, very few single out groups directly—instead of using words like “black” or “Hispanic,” they raise stereotypes and employ code words that let audiences know exactly which groups they are actually
talking about without actually saying so" and "Over the years, progressives have contributed to the continued association of African Americans and Hispanics with poverty"
That is, there's a certain demographic characterised roughly by older, white, 1950s, Republican, Fox-News watching, to whom "poor" means "black" and "TV" means "lazy", "flatscreen" means "entitled luxury" and "high priority TV" means "irresponsible" or "stupid", and the whole sentence is completely innocently deniable because everyone has a TV so it's just plain fact and completely innocent.
The only hint is that if it were a completely innocent observation, there would be no need to say it at all, no need to single out the poor, no need to mention "high priority", no need to mention "flatscreen". You'd just say "people who can afford a Raspberry Pi 400 probably have a TV, which is nice". And that was already said one comment before in the chain.
Also, while they might not change plan because of a reading of 93 instead of 95 - the article describes a bias of up to 8%, which does seem enough to be significant.
https://www.visualarq.com/ adds BIM tools to Rhino (and the total price of perpetual licenses for Rhino+VisualARQ is still significantly less than a year's Revit subscription)
Sounds perfect, but I've yet to hear of any company using this plug-in!
Personally I also have hope for the interesting hybrids that are continually coming out that are trying to create a seamless pipeline between Revit and Rhino: Google's Flux (which failed), Speckle, RhinoInside.
I also hacked up my own crude solution, which was to continually run a flask server in the background, and then pass json strings between Rhino, Revit, and Jupyter. I do a lot of analysis work (building energy and environmental simulation/optimization), so wanted a solution that gave me access to the scientific python ecosystem.
At first I was assuming this was using streetview.
I realise not everywhere is included on streetview, but when it is, it would be nice to have the option of using that instead of having to shoot your own video.
I would imagine that use of streetview imaging would not meet the api agreement for google maps. They have little incentive to allow it to be reused in something like this.
(the link was there but buried at the bottom of the page)