There is, though. You'd be going at it alone. That's what this post is about - taking the pulse of the community at large to see how we all feel about possibly making a new org.
You can't make a viable browser product by yourself.
The problems facing the two sexes are different and the expectations of them are different, at least in many societies. The expectations of a young man have been around self-sacrifice, self-control, and self-reliance, and looking towards female role models for cues on that would lose a lot of nuance particular to the male condition.
Women do not have the same physical capabilities of men in either size or strength, and so you're not gonna see the same modeling of restraint. Women have, by and large, a different way of processing emotions than men, and and so you're not gonna see the same modeling of how to handle things like intense anger. Women are rewarded for consensus and co-support in a way that men are not, so you're not gonna see the same modeling of how and when to step out of line and take your licks. Women do not have the same utility in things like warfare or manual labor, and so you're not gonna see the same modeling of patriotic duty or chivalry.
It's fine and well to have role models for other purposes, mind you--plenty of great examples of other qualities--but you can't look towards women for how to be a good man with the same efficacy you can look at men. The opposite argument is of course laughed at out of hand: nobody would seriously suggest that a young woman look towards men to learn how to be a proper woman.
I see no difference in what it means to be a good person, whether you are a man or a woman.
If you find that laughable, perhaps we were raised very differently. The suggestion of learning "how to be a proper woman", as you put it, rather than "a good person" indeed suggests a degree of sexism that doesn't align with the values I embrace.
In a normal timeline, the way this was going to get hammered out was behind closed doors where very serious people from the State Department presented a spreadsheet of options for Ukraine's renewal of the Democracy Plus DLC and the ukies, through gritted teeth, chose a mortgage they could live with. This should not be a surprise.
(Absent, say, Europe committing more men or material.)
The US, absent anything else, needs to choose between direct military intervention, continuing sending over material (which is unpalatable long term), or cutting Ukraine loose. Again, none of that should be a surprise--if it _is_, you should get your head examined.
The problem today is that these conversations were had out in public, and in so doing we got to see the top two rungs of the US executive branch act excessively cruel on the one hand and like somebody completely ignorant of the stakes on the other--the "it'll make great TV" being perhaps the icing on the cake. Even worse, it'll probably work, because Zelensky seems to care more about his country than his ego.
Even to the extent that I agree with some of the realpolitick, I cannot abide by the odious behavior adjacent it. Kissinger was evil, but not impishly cruel.
(I also would caution people not to buy into the "Russia owns Trump" narrative when the more depressing--but probably accurate--explanation is simply that he wants the "Look at me, I ended a war I didn't even fight in!" merit badge.)
Let's not pretend like every president and congressperson has the same track record for corruption and hypocrisy. I don't need to "suddenly give a shit about integrity, capability, or neutrality" to wonder why a particular president lets a billionare give unhired people access to treasury data, lie about "read-only access", redirect earmarked contracts to the billionaire's companies, and pretend that Elon Musk does not have anything to do with DOGE or firing decisions, or to question why certain legislators are telling citizens that "nobody should bellyache" about the unconstitutional actions committed by DOGE and Elon Musk with Trump's permission.
I watched people scam VCs with drone tech, and Theranos, and other things.
Can people please do any amount of critical thinking around this sort of stuff? It steals funding from serious efforts and pollutes the pool.
What is special in this approach compared to literal decades in the field?
What is special about these young dudes compared to better-funded ventures that haven't pulled it off yet and who have been working on it longer?
What is the difference between "yeah we can do design work look at all this stuff (that's the easy 60-80% of the problem space)" versus "we can actually solve the remaining work that's got everybody so screwed up"?
I highly doubt that the poster did anything other than try and conduct business with the tribe.
Thievery is thievery--if it's okay on a small scale now, it must've been fine on a large scale then. At which point, we're just scoring who was more effective at it. Sucks to suck.
What do you mean? It’s a lovely, if slightly saccharine, slice of life article about a man caring for his dying wife. I kinda figure this is exactly the sort of stuff that should be on public media: self portraits of normal American lives. Like how we read journals of people from the civil war or the depression.
Why would you want to use human tools? Human tools exist because of how we work. If you're building a robot, it's extremely easier to give it a functionally equivalent attachment instead. (rather than a functionality equivalent arm with enough fine-grained pressure feedback to be able to reliably grab things)
Or phrased a different way, what environment are you thinking of where a fully generalised highly advanced humanoid robot and its maintenance is more cost effective than diying or airshipping a specialised handle?
Assuming the cost of the droid is low enough, I think the use-case is to have it do ad-hoc tasks using the tools you have at hand right now, without the need to invest in an expensive specialized tool which only the robot can use. The idea is not efficiency but versatility.
Just think for a moment on all the unique interfaces we humans encounter with our tools on a daily basis*. No interior in our cars look the same, coffee machines have varying functionalities, every vacuum has its buttons placed differently, all our digital interfaces (smartphones, smart home control panels, digital oscilloscopes, synthesizers etc.), even simple remote controls etc. Some of these interfaces are just some designers choice on top of an already standardized digital protocol (CAN bus, Bluetooth) - so this thing takes the hard way and needs to adapt to all those interfaces in order to be more useful than "can follow you around"?
Honestly, I think that would be quite an achievement and could be great for something like elderly care. Although this thing needs to be able to do useful tactile tasks first, like putting a thread through a pinhole, or cutting your vegetables in cubes of equal size. I'd look forward to seeing a demo!
*: How many things do you personally encounter with the exact same interface? iPhones yes-ish (apps can be renamed and shuffled around, the control center can be customized etc.), but not even QWERTY keyboards. I think we humans constantly strive for some form of individuality.
Yeah I think of it this way. I have an expensive vacuum and an expensive lawnmower. I paid a lot because they have a pretty dumb level of auto (eg roomba). If I could have bought a commodity push vac and push mower this humanoid could operate it. But they could also serve dozens of other valuable services with cheap existing tools for which no roomba equivalent even exists. At some point being surrounded by purpose built robots is not the best strategy even though when you are only focusing on a single purpose a specialized robot seems best.
Someone made a comment about energy efficiency and Bitcoin and AI should tell you everything about how much “we” actually care about energy efficiency, if this robot had infinite learning potential and the physical ability of a human it’s totally going to win out in the race to mechanize the world.
> If you want a robot to pour you coffee from a coffee maker humans also use, how do you imagine that working?
Two standardised grabbers for round and flat things. Simple three-finger device should cover almost all of the dishes. Same for water/beans refills. Zigbee/wifi/ir/whatever local comms to trigger the coffee machine.
But, I would ask...was the excommunication of Eich worth it, all things considered? Have we learned anything?