Back when I was in my first year of uni, I applied for a part-time job on indeed. Found out it was a scam when they wanted to pre-pay me with a too-big check and have me transfer the difference to some other account. I noped right out of there.

For those who might be unaware, the scam is they send you a fraudulent check, but it might take a few days to be discovered as such by your bank. But in the meantime, the amount shows up in your account and you transfer the money they tell you to (which is a legitimate transfer). Then, when the bank discovers the check was fraudulent, they remove the amount from your account, but you’re left high and dry because you can’t undo the transfer because the transfer you did was legit.

Yeah, definitely, and I think that’s (unfortunately) why we haven’t seen anything like this make it mainstream. Imo, they’re most compelling as a wholesale replacement for private cars, especially in dense urban neighborhoods. Instead of 2-ton chunks of steel hurtling by at 50 km/h, have a 100-kg (?) glorified tricycles cruising at 25 km/h. The lower top speeds would not only be great for general safety, but it would also discourage them becoming too dominant (like cars have), as they’d be too slow to allow for super long commutes from all the way out in the sprawling suburbs; instead, people would use them for shorter trips and use rapid transit for longer trips.

But with current bike lanes and car-dominated streets, I don’t think we’re likely to ever see something like this take off. It would definitely take a very forward-thinking and committed city council to build the infrastructure to make these viable.

The closest existing thing I’m aware of is Peachtree City, GA, aka the city of golf carts: https://youtu.be/pcVGqtmd2wM?si=6mqxbwk98vj6ItJo

In a collision with a car, definitely. But if we’re considering dedicated bike trails or dedicated golf cart trails (a man can dream), this thing is just an e-bike at heart, so it can only go e-bike speeds. And e-bike speeds aren’t going to be fatal unless a fast-moving car is involved.

Judging from this video, you could probably fit 4 or 5 in a standard car parking space. Obviously takes more room than a bike, but tbh I see these more as a car-replacement vehicle than a bike-replacement vehicle. Plus, these would weigh so much less than cars that it would probably be waaaay more cost-effective to build vertical parking garages for these things (like the ones in the Netherlands for bikes) than for cars.

Yeah, I’m working in embedded ML, and it’s an insanely exciting time. We’re getting more and more microcontrollers and single-board computers with special AI accelerators, many of them RISC-V, by the day it seems. One of the next steps (in my opinion) is finding a good way to program them that doesn’t involve C/C++ (very fast but also so painful to do AI with) or Python (slow unless it’s wrapping underlying C code, and unsuitable for microcontrollers). In fact, that’s exactly what I’m working on right now as a side project.

What’s also cool is RISC-V promises to be the one instruction set architecture to rule them all. So instead of having PCs as x86, phones and microcontrollers as ARM, then all sorts of other custom architectures like DSPs (digital signal processors), NPUs, etc., we could just have RISC-V with a bunch of open standard extensions. Want vector instructions? Well, here’s a ratified open standard for vector instructions. Want SIMD instructions? Congrats, here’s another ratified open standard.

And all these standards mean it will make it so much easier for the compiler people to provide support for new chips. A day not too long from now, I imagine it will become almost trivial to compile programs that can accelerate tons of scientific, numerical, and AI workloads onto RISC-V vector instructions. Currently, we’re stuck using GPUs for everything that needs parallelization, even though they’re far from the easiest or most optimal devices for many of our computational needs.

As computing advances, we can just create and ratify new open standards. Tired of floating point numbers? You could create a proposal for a standard posit extension today if you wanted to, then fork LLVM or GCC or something to provide the software support as well. In fact, someone already has implemented an open-source RISC-V chip with posit arithmetic and made a fork of LLVM to support it. You could fire it up on an FPGA right now if you wanted.

This talk, given by David Patterson (a legend in computer architecture and one of the people who helped create RISC-V at UC Berkeley) is an excellent (and accessible) introduction.

It’s especially dumb because RISC-V is – dare I say it – inevitably the future. Trying to crack down on RISC-V is like trying to crack down on Linux or solar photovoltaics or wind turbines. That is, you can try to crack down, but the fundamental value proposition is simply too good. All you’ll achieve in cracking down is hurting yourself while everyone else gets ahead.

This video by a political science professor explains it best: https://youtu.be/zMxHU34IgyY?si=N5oHElN4Xlbiqznh

In short, the only people who truly know are Hamas, and the best the rest of us can do is speculate.

Some possibilities are that Hamas wanted to sabotage normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Muslim world, that Hamas wanted to bait Israel into a wildly disproportionate response that would garner themselves sympathy and recruits, that Hamas was bluffing and feigning strength and counting on Israel to think the attack was bait, that Hamas was just acting on bloodlust and wanted to attack regardless of the consequences, or many other possibilities.

Further, we focus a lot on the substative issues, i.e., the grievances and disagreements at hand, but we don’t talk about the bargaining frictions nearly enough. There are countless border disputes around the world, and yet they rarely result in war. Why? Because war is costly and most wish to avoid it. War typically happens when there are both substantive issues and bargaining frictions, i.e., things preventing the two sides from negotiating a solution. But us onlookers can’t even know for sure what these frictions are, only speculate.

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won’t be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn’t actually know with any degree of certainty. Nobody but Hamas actually knows.

I do recommend watching the full video above, as the professor is very engaging, rather amusing, and covers this topic quite thoroughly.

And Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in cervids such as deer, moose, and elk, which thankfully has not been shown to be transmissible to humans yet. Prions are the stuff of nightmares.

Oh, and Fatal Familial Insomnia.

Definitely. If you don’t understand how the world works, you can’t tell if someone else does either. Only experts can easily spot fake experts. And that’s exactly the trouble with things like pseudoscience and misinformation; it’s easy to fall for without the domain knowledge necessary to avoid falling for it.

A great example is when you’re in elementary school and you get that one really athletic kid on your team for some team sport in gym class. You know you’re not on that level and never will be, so you tie yourself to them, knowing that them succeeding is good for you.

Likewise, we like to attach our fortunes to a designated person, and they become greater than just a person in our mind. Like, that athletic kid is not longer simply a kid who’s good at sports; they’re the athletic kid. Our favored 19th-century political thought leader is no longer just some person who had opinions on society and wrote them down; they’re a political messiah.

The type of biome you get depends largely on availability of water, not temperature.

Deserts are deserts because they have very poor availability of water most of the time. This is most often caused by simple lack of precipitation, but other factors can influence this:

• High temperatures cause high evaporation rates, meaning to need more precipitation to achieve the same level of plant growth. This is why, for example, 10 inches (25.4 cm) of precipitation will get you desert in the tropics, subtropics, and temperate latitudes, but it’ll get you boreal forest in the colder subpolar latitudes.
• Extremely low temperatures (such as in Antarctica) result in everything being perpetually frozen. Most of Antarctica is a desert, both because it gets very little precipitation and because all the ice on the ground isn’t available as liquid water.
• Extremely sandy or gravelly soils which do not retain water cause poor water availability, even with abundant precipitation and a mild climate. While these aren’t typically classified as "true deserts), the plant life certainly reflects the harsh conditions and poor availability of water.

As for why we largely don’t see desert at the equator, it’s because of precipitation. Due to the circulation of cold and warm air in the atmosphere, the equator typically sees warm air, often laden with moisture due to the oceans and the high moisture capacity of warm air, rise. As it rises, it cools, and because cool air cannot hold as much moisture as warm air can, it drops a lot of that moisture as rain. This results in most of the equator getting a lot of rain.

Once the air has risen and cooled, it cycles north and south into the subtropics, where it falls down to earth again. And in falling, it warms up again, especially as these regions still receive a ton of sunlight, particularly in the summer. But the air has already lost much of its moisture, so now it’s just a bunch of hot, dry air blasting down over the subtropics. This is why we have bands of deserts across most of the subtropics, from the Sahara to the Middle East to the desert of the SW US and northern Mexico. Same on the opposite side of the equator, with the Kalahari desert in southern Africa, the Australian outback, and the Patagonian desert.

There are other factors, too, of course, such as rain shadows from mountains and ocean currents, but the atmospheric circulation is the big one to answer your question.

Unfortunately not. They have big signs on all bridges going onto the island reminding people that there's no turn on red on the island.

Here on the Island of Montreal we have no right turn on red. It's great, highly recommend.

Granted, there is a difference between a temp agency or a third-party recruiter and a "coaching" type service. The former are strictly about finding applicants, and they get paid for that service by the prospective employers. The latter are about 1-on-1 coaching, CV editing, etc., and hence they're paid for by the prospective employee.

That said, I've never used one of them nor do I really see the point, given the wealth of information available for free out there. Then again, I did benefit from speaking to career advisors at my university, which were free to me at the point of service but obviously still paid for by me via my tuition.

I am struggling to find any online testimonials from third parties. I have seen other similar deals with other legit companies, but how they usually work is you sign a contract with them to give them a certain percentage of your salary for the first year or two of any job they help get you hired for. This is important as it gives them an incentive to actually follow through and get you as good a job offer as they can. With an upfront payment like this, they have no material incentive to follow through and actually try to get you a good job. Even if they're not a straight-up scam, it might be sufficient for them to avoid a lawsuit by getting you one or two crappy job offers, then throwing up their hands and saying, "We've done our job; it's on you if you don't wanna accept these jobs."

I wouldn't bother with these guys. If you really want this sort of coaching, go for a reputable one that you would sign a contract giving them a percentage of your salary. And definitely one with plenty of third-party reviews online.

They show you ads based on your search terms, not based on trackers or digital profiles of you.

66 is recorded currently in my ecosia account, but I used to have well over a hundred on an old PC before I ever realized you could sign in to track across devices. I probably have a ton on my work PC that isn’t tracked to my account either.

I use ecosia as my default search engine! It’s pretty great, and it respects privacy. It even tells you roughly how many trees have been planted from your searches.

Remember that in social media (including Lemmy) there’s always some sort of general audience, lurkers that are following the discussion but not interacting with it. What matters is less to convince the moron(s) and more to inform the general audience.

This 100%. The rule of thumb I’ve heard is that about 90% of people are lurkers, 9% are commenters, and 1% are posters. This might be skewed somewhat on lemmy, as the reddit migration resulted in a disproportionate amount of commenters and posters to move to lemmy, plus the general sense of “doing my part” to provide content for this platform.

Anyhoo, regardless of the actual numbers, the most important people to convince in an online discussion are the onlookers. Rarely will you convince the person you’re debating, but if you come in calm and rational and bring good links and supporting evidence to your claims, most lurkers will recognize that in my experience. If you look deranged and/or ignorant, you’re unlikely to sway many except those who already agree with you.

The reason this is important is because, unfortunately, misinformation can spread like wildfire on the internet if you let it, so convincing onlookers of the actual facts is important. Sure, it’s not healthy to dedicate our lives to schooling ignoramuses on the internet, but it’s always good to help in the ways you can in the fight against misinformation.