Don’t forget that if anyone from a small town goes and gets a formal education, comes back, and starts pointing out issues and ways to fix them, they get demonized and declared brainwashed by the LiBErAl eLiTe
- 0 Posts
- 77 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 29th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Aerospace industry engineer here:
We try to identify failure modes and use tools like Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and fishbone analysis to track down failures and how they cascade to understand system behaviors. However, the more you increase the complexity of the system, the more difficult it is to fully think through all the possible ways things can go wrong and it’s not unheard of for things to slip through review.
Starliner has consistently been plagued by program management issues where they think they’ve caught the failure modes and implemented appropriate mitigations. They do an analysis, run some tests to prove those assumptions are correct, and fly it. In this case there was a design flaw in the thrusters that they saw on a different test flight, thought they fixed it, and flew again not knowing that they didn’t actually fix the problem.
False sense of security is a dangerous place to be when it comes to fault scenarios, but the alternative is extreme paranoia where you trust nothing. In fairness to Boeing, taking some level of risk is necessary in the space industry but I think it’s pretty obvious that they were not paranoid enough and were too trusting that they did their job right
The conspiracy theory isn’t that the automotive industry makes them look bad, it’s the rail owners.
Real: Amtrak doesn’t own any rails, they lease them and legally are supposed to have right of way on tracks unless the owner/operators of the rail currently have their own train that’s too big for the bypasses.
Conspiracy: Rail owners make Amtrak experience so painful that it drives down usage so Amtrak runs fewer and fewer trains, so they can be less of a nuisance to them or outright get rid of the service line and they get to completely ignore Amtrak
I hadn’t thought of that before, and I can think of several characters who’ve said things I doubt the writers would want attributed to them. I just want to see quotes from fiction being clearly labeled as such, and not using the grandiose of a character’s title to add weight to the quote.
For example when I see people quote Admiral William Adama on how when the military becomes the police, the people become the enemy of the state. That was Ron Moore writing a character for a show set in a post apocalyptic universe where the only survivors are hanging out on military ships, not a real world seasoned officer’s opinion. Is it an interesting point worth discussing? Sure, but I’m not putting it in the same category of 5-Star General Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about the military industrial complex
Props to you for actually attributing the quote to the writer and not the character. It’s a pet peeve of mine when people take profound sounding quotes and attribute it to a fictional character that never existed, never had real thoughts or opinions of their own
Closing bracket indented with current level?
Lol yup, got the idea from a Technology Connections video on how one of the common humidifier designs are literally just large swamp coolers
I’ve taken to using an old cake pan, a desk fan, and a towel. Fill up the pan with water, stick one end of the towel in the water, drape and clip the other end to the fan and let it sit running for a few days. Before the towel gets gross, toss it in the laundry when it’s dry and grab another towel
It works so well I’m completely confused as to how/why there isn’t a commercialized product like that, it completely solves the cleaning/highschool biology experiments problem
They mean they’re looking at what laws the guy may have broken, not exclusively 1A. Probable cause gives cops a limited ability to arrest and ask questions later, and public nuisance laws absolutely are a thing.
It should be noted that stadium security initially held him, but the police did not detain him, and have not charged with him a crime because he did not commit one.
Edited cause Sync messed up the link
I’m curious as to what the worst one is. GIMP is pretty bad, KiCAD has pronunciation problems, nothing else is coming to mind
Did you not understand anything I typed out?
LMG used GN material, yes.
LMG did not commit plagiarism
LMG did not violate copyright law
Words have meanings, and by the definitions of the words plagiarism and copyright LMG does not meet the criteria. You and I do not get to change the definitions to fit whatever narrative we have in our heads on who we want to be the good guys and who we want to be the bad guys
That is not what plagiarism means
The action or practice of taking someone else’s work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one’s own
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author
All three definitions clearly state that Plagiarism is taking some production of someone else’s and claiming it as your own. That there is some kind of deception going on as to who created the original thought/work. Merriam-Webster’s definition has that second component talking about the act of using without crediting the source, which LMG didn’t do at first but later added a pinned comment. While not immediate and the barest amount of effort on LMGs part, but it still is credit.
Plagiarism has no legal component to its definition.
Copyright does have legal implications as it is someone’s right to duplicate a work. In general a creator of a work has exclusive rights to reproduce it, but there are exceptions (everyone’s favorite Fair Use laws). With LMG being Canadian the legal side is more complicated but in US courts it’s been tested that one such exception is around additional commentary and that the usage of the work was limited as to what was relevant to being actively discussed (big case here being H3H3 a few years back). Even by GN’s own admission the WAN show was taking phrases and repeating them verbatim, but just that, only phrases. Ones pertaining directly to the on hand topic of EVGAs ending partnership with Nvidia. They were not showing GNs video, reading his script word for word start to finish. Again, IANAL but I find it highly unlikely that a US or Canadian court would say that what LMG did on WAN Show meets the definition of a copyright violation
Edit:
And to answer your last point directly, Plagiarism and Copyright are orthogonal to each other. You could plagiarize by not giving public credit but still get copy permission from the copyright holder. Semantically kinda weird to think about
I took Linus’s statement to mean that he doesn’t understand why he is continuing to get heat from GN since they have addressed the issues GN pointed out.
The could sue but won’t part I think it’s coming more from a context with the ongoing Honey lawsuit, since at least on WAN show its been brought up several times that people recommend LMG join the lawsuit and Linus repeatedly refusing because as he puts it, he’s not a litigious person. Given the rest of the his plea in that segment for the viewers to not go after GN, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it. I also personally give a lot of leeway to people and organizations who have admitted mistakes in the past and corrected them so that definitely feeds into me choosing not to interpret things the way you are, even though I can see why you view it that way.
And yeah the dedicated clips channel video was moronically named imho. Linus or someone else at LMG should have vetoed it, it’s a serious topic and deserves to be taken as such. If they felt the need to make a joke, do it like the “channel this angry energy into powering RTX 5090s”. A small quip at the end, not leading into things
Are we talking copyright or plagiarism here? GN is claiming plagiarism, not copyright infringement
Edit: spelling
I’m not sure these are the receipts GamersNexus believes them to be. They’re all kinda stretching things into a gray area.
The plagiarism part is straight up incorrect. LMG did not say that their discussion was original reporting. The WAN show is explicitly a podcast reacting to news articles and events (WAN = Weekly Analysis and News). Plagerism needs a “passing off as your own” piece, while IANAL given react content typically ends up in the fair use category because of additional commentary and thoughts being added, the WAN show doesn’t have to disclose sources. Usually on WAN show they mention where they heard of the story, and not mentioning GN is a dick move, but it’s not plagiarism.
The history of not following up on issues was definitely better addressed in the original GN video. But at the same time, this just makes it seems like GN is trying to use the argument “Hey we warned you once that some of your methodologies aren’t great and led to skewed results and you didn’t really react, so now we’re gonna release an hour long video on all of your previous fuck ups and not tell you, k thx bi*”
To Linus’s original point on not getting a heads up, that’s not industry standard behavior and also kind of a dick move.
The unprofessional communication part I can go either way with. Would I talk to my boss like that? No. Technical mentors and peers that I had a good relationship with? Absolutely and I have done it. By the book it’s unprofessional it’s hardly the damning statements Gamers Nexus is trying to sell them as.
Also for those of you who have not watched any LMG content since that original GN video, LMG has cleaned up their act quite a bit, so credit where credit is due. Linus also only asked for receipts since he was getting increasingly frustrated with several negative comments coming from GN whereas on the LMG side they’ve continued to praise and recommend GN content
There’s a few threads over on Reddit and the LTT forum about how Linus has apparently handled this all wrong, they should have made a video years ago, Linus being dismissive of if on WAN show is him being detached from reality, you know, the usual bullshit
Edit: ITT https://lemmy.world/comment/14273487
In fairness to me (and maybe you) Sync didn’t load the comment initially so only after I kept reading I found it
Realistically no. The support needed to manage the devices we all use is just insane, and I think a lot of people take for granted how the x86 platform has evolved over the last few decades. The ARM landscape does not have the standards set that x86 does and that will always hold it back. Qualcomm learned long ago that it’s within their best interest to be constantly changing the SoCs and never really documenting/supporting them very well because it forces all of the downstream vendors to do constant refreshes. Toss in the development hellscape my fellow programmers created ourselves and we get the vicious cycle we’re in today where Google saying they’ll support a device for longer than a few years was the headline sales pitch
-typed on a Pixel 8 which was purchased due to that sales pitch
Freshly picked Tingles Rosy Rupeeland is a masterpiece and the most important game in the series, I will not hear otherwise
ITT: People not understanding staffing costs. $150 barely covers the cost of a substitute teacher for one day
(At least it used to, ten years ago my sister was a sub and she’d make a little over a hundred a day doing that, it may or may not still be enough)
It’s a still frame from Star Trek The Next Generation, episode The Game
The plot is a wearable device that is an AR “glasses” game that as you play the game it “makes you feel good” gets used to take over the Enterprise so terrorists can hijack it.
At the time I imagine it was intended to be part of anti-drug campaigns with the AR and companies curating what you see to distract from reality angle/sentiment being more relevant today