I live in the SE US suburbs and a regular story on the news are fears over roaming packs of kids on e-bikes or e-motorcycles. Now, while the safety concerns of reckless riding are warranted, it also tells me that at least some of the kids are alright.
I live in a low density, large neighborhood where kids 8-17 are out roaming all the time, the older half heading to adjacent shops and other neighborhoods. I recognize and know who most are and their parents. The common trend I see is a purposeful limiting of screen time.
We have the same "problem" where I live in central coast CA. It's so rad to see kids ripping e-bikes all over town. Would I prefer the kid riding on the back seat isn't staring at her phone? Of course! But at least they are outside exploring! Fwiw most of the kids I see with this freedom are Mexican but that could be because I live closer to and work downtown, closer to lower income areas and not in the suburbs.
I've been trying out MCP servers for FreeCAD to mixed results.
One area I had near magic was providing a land survey which includes details in writing of the plat. It took those directions and beautifully reconstructed the boundaries to exact precision in CAD.
Where I ran into trouble was creating good constraints on sketches without being overly explicit. I kept running into it creating distance constraints from an arbitrary point instead of using other elements in the diagram that a human drafter would think to do by default.
I've done this exact approach before. It's a good way to exfiltrate data. Post the software on GitHub pages, or a popular CDN that co-hosts other shared libraries and you've got a very difficult to block method.
Really goes to show that it's very difficult to stop a motivated and informed actor.
I'm likely being overly specific, but blocking npm downloads, installation on corporate devices, etc is trivial in a restrictive corporate environment.
Admittedly I’m unsure if it was Google or DuckDuckGo. I switch between both. I quickly asked the in search AI for a UTC time conversion like a lazy fool and it got it off by almost a day wrong.
I avoid any asking any agent a fact-based (especially math) request. It's a great compression algorithm and a great language generator, and I guess the intersection of those two things is "an answer". Calculation doesn't intersect.
I've always wondered how this plays out in practice. I might certify that I have signing authority but I most certainly do not. What happens in the US (in Delaware?) when there's a dispute?
We had a customer try to back out of a contract by claiming the person signing didn't have authority. It didn't work because the person's manager (who has authority) was included in all of the communication.
Legally it didn't matter whether the signer had authority because the way the signer's company behaved during the signing process implied that the signer had authority.
E.g. If the CTO at a company tells a vendor to "send the contract over to my product manager" then the CTO created the impression with the counterparty that the product manager has authority, and the company will be hound to the contract based on that fact regardless of whether the product manager actually has authority or not.
I'm sure it's more nuanced than this, but my understanding is actual authority is less relevant than implied authority. E.g. if you have your board of directors take away the CEO's authority to sign a contract, it doesn't automatically invalidate everything the CEO signs, since a counterparty can reasonably assume that the CEO has authority just based on their job title.
Generally any W-2 has authority to enter into contracts, strictly from the vendor’s POV. As a vendor you don’t need to get your customer’s publicly listed officer or director to sign off on contracts. The W-2 can also be fired for entering their employer into the contract, but that's not (directly) the vendor's problem.
Once a vendor has entered into a contract, that could change - e.g. "any change orders must be approved by $EMPLOYEE_SET".
It's absolutely wild that every W-2 employee can expose their employer to essentially unlimited liability, but AFAIK, that's the truth.
Can't believe I had to scroll for this. Trust the OEMs to do something very close to what enthusiasts might want, then immediately torpedo it with "but we won't sell it to you."
This level of conversion isn't exactly trivial but it also isn't rocket surgery for the kind of person who pulls an engine out for rebuild on a classic car project.
>This level of conversion isn't exactly trivial but it also isn't rocket surgery for the kind of person who pulls an engine out for rebuild on a classic car project.
If you saw the "quality" of electrical work otherwise very smart car enthusiasts do you might think otherwise.
Also look at the "DRM" controls:
"
Q. Can I increase horsepower?
a. The first-ever Chevy eCrate conversion kit has a locked system that does not allow you to increase horsepower at this time.
"
... so you're buying into a locked, digital control system, akin to what John Deere puts out.
This ranks right up there with BMW wanting to charge a monthly fee for heated seats - building in physical abilities, with digital lockouts. You know, you can buy a LS engine, and do whatever horsepower changes you want to it. For those more akin to computers than cars, this is called a "LS swap" and is common with restomods.
This is disappointing to hear and tarnishes a brand like Chevy. Fortunately, we're in a free market; I'll vote with my dollars.
Modern gas crate powertrain swaps which include engine management usually have the same restrictions; GM Connect and Cruise, Hellcrate, Ford Performance, etc. What you’re describing with LS swaps is unique to kits that come with no engine management; it would be as though this kit were sold with no inverter and motor controller. Of course, reverse engineered aftermarket tuning is more readily available for gas ECUs, but that’s just a matter of market forces, not the OEMs.
I didn't know I could do that, so I just gave it a try.
First instinct, double tap the side button to open Wallet. Couldn't rearrange the cards there. So,I opened Settings app and couldn't rearrange the cards there. Finally, I opened the Wallet app and found I could rearrange cards there, though there's no visual indicators that I can. I accidentally changed my default card on the first attempt.
I find it very strange - I don’t really know what to make of it.
I have the wallet shortcut in my control centre. If I use it while on the Home Screen, I end up in the wallet app where I can rearrange and change settings for the cards. If I swipe down the Notification Centre, on my still unlocked phone, and then also swipe down the control centre, and then use exactly the same shortcut, I now end up in the “double-click to pay” version of the wallet, with no rearranging.
Sometimes there seem to be two different apps - the transition to the full app is a sideways transition, while the double-click version slides down from the top of the screen.
However, if I am in the full wallet app, with rearranging options available, and I double-click, it changes the wallet app to the double-click to pay version with no transition.
It's wild. I reinstalled Facebook to sell some things on Marketplace. Thirty minutes later I'm doom scrolling through shit I wouldn't have sought out. I uninstall the app after I no longer have items to sell.
Good point. You sort of have a purpose for opening it up, then you get distracted, or fired up or whatever, because the app just unloads tons of information at you.
I sort of claimed that everyone enjoys it when they use these apps, maybe it's better to say they are likely getting something out of it in that moment. This could be kind of a bad deal - people make bad deals, and repeat old ones all the time. Other times they delete the app once they realize it.
I live in a low density, large neighborhood where kids 8-17 are out roaming all the time, the older half heading to adjacent shops and other neighborhoods. I recognize and know who most are and their parents. The common trend I see is a purposeful limiting of screen time.
reply