|
Quantum dots fluoresce to get their narrow colors, and I believe fluorescent materials are not bound by Pointer's gamut.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Antonymous posted:how many people really need whatever those devices I cannot recognize are They're synthesizers. But he's suggesting they could have branched out into less niche tech stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2023 10:02
|
|
|
Apparently they have two kinds of mini bottle, one of which has whiskey, and they look basically identical.mawarannahr posted:guy buying fireball: oh no I've been deceived. I'm going to stop drinking this garbage
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
3D Megadoodoo posted:But it's not a whiskey, it's a liqueur. You can't just name things what they are not! If I add cinnamon to whiskey, then why can't it be "cinnamon whiskey"? Shame Boy posted:
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2023 09:49
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Not economists, but I’m reminded of how decades ago there used to be a really bad epidemic of babies in hospitals failing to thrive and they thought it was malnutrition or infection and they kept brainstorming and trying poo poo for years until eventually someone had the bright idea of “hey, what if we held them?” and surprise surprise babies like physical contact A lot of 'obvious' things are true. But it's also important to measure the effect size. A lot of 'obvious' things are not true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:no, because giving a dying human material comfort is a good thing, even if it fails to heal them and also would be a relatively low cost thing to try. Failure to thrive isn't dying though. And I'm sure there was plenty of contact going on but nobody was taking measurements and running the statistics to know just how important it was. "We don't have the resources" is a bad reason, definitely. But I don't blame them for failure to understand the impact for a hospital stay that isn't intended to last very long.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:You're going to have to define what you mean by "plenty" there, given that the results of "more contact" was "babies started thriving". Do you see what I mean? My point being: The issue isn't that "nobody" had this idea. It's that it wasn't universal and also nobody was doing a rigorous study.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 01:32
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:They "didnt understand" that babies benefit from human contact because human contact is expensive and hard to quantify, things the relentless drive for profit does not include unless forced. If thriving babies was the singular goal things would look a lot different, and all the hand wringing and "sensible changes" are just ways to skirt around that in defense of the present system. There is no utility or point in wondering what was in their heart of hearts lest you find yourself perpetuating the system you recognize as having failed But again you need numbers. Not everything is truly obvious. What if it was better to isolate babies for a week for immune reasons, and only then give them maximum contact? You need to be compassionate, but common sense differs between people and isn't always right.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Sounds like the system was adopted before anybody had the numbers and data then, I wonder why that was, and why it seems to keep happening? My point is that they did have the numbers and data they felt they needed to make the choice, and they're exactly the kind when you let """healthcare economists""" run everything. What's the point in apologizing on their behalf? The promise of technocratic liberalism is more efficiently starving grannies and Brave New Worlding babies, like even the New Dems said as much and they represent the only faction near the levels of power that is the "face" of compassion I'm not trying to apologize on their behalf, I'm critiquing the idea that they should have already known for sure. So sure, they should have studied it before changing things. They did a bad thing to make this change. But I felt like the post I was originally replying to makes the correct answer sound too obvious. There are other situations in hospitals where the answer is different.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:That math is really off. I can only see a large videostore getting to 7-10k individual disks. I don't remember exactly how my blockbuster was set up, but the building was 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The aisles went across the width with a gap in the middle, so let's say 30 feet of shelf space on one side of one aisle. If there were ten aisles, leaving space for a big lobby, that would be 600 feet of shelf space. Add on 150 feet for the walls, go seven shelves high with two movie slots per foot, and that's 10500 slots, each able to hold several copies. Apparently the bigger stores were in the 10000 square foot range. So even with a ton of repeats for new movies and popular movies, I could believe that a big store with 20-25k slots has 7-10k unique titles. But a small blockbuster definitely won't have that. And it won't beat Netflix.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2024 08:32
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:am i the weird one here? before i got divorced, buying 10-20 bags of groceries for a family of 2 kids, 2 adults and a large dog doesnt seem unusual to stock up for 2 weeks...especially during covid when everyone was home all the time. Dr. VooDoo posted:So all these companies pointing to AI as the future, citing companies like Amazon using it to track groceries and not needing a cashier as the computer can just figure out what someone picked up. It turns out AI really means a bunch of barely paid people in India watching camera footage and marking what a person bought. The real innovation was finding a way to trick people into accepting outsourcing human face to face interaction
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 03:12
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Uh, no. From Amazon's own mouth, 700 or 800 out of 1000 transactions had to be manually confirmed, i.e. done by a person, and that figure is just what the system itself caught. That many entire orders had to have at least one item manually confirmed. Probably 90% of individual items worked fine. Making humans do that much correction isn't feasible, but it's very different from saying it was a sham and the humans were doing almost everything. And I wouldn't say it was a scam either. They couldn't reach their unrealistic goals, so they shut it down. If it was a scam to use cheap labor they'd keep going, wouldn't they? You could argue that it was a PR scam, I guess, but that's different from exploitative labor practices.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
euphronius posted:the Amazon defender is here
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:I bet 90% of it worked fine and Amazon never bothered to brag about that, because they're humble I'm saying it was a huge failure but it wasn't fake either. It wasn't a smokescreen for making underpaid humans do all the work. Even underpaid, that's too expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:i bet if they could say "it worked 90 percent of the time" instead of "if didn't work 70 percent of the time" they would have Two different measurements. I'm suggesting that 70% of trips needed manual checking, while probably less than 10% of items needed manual checking, because a trip has several items. In that situation the computers are unacceptably bad but also the Indian employees are not doing a big fraction of the work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 01:54
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:The Indian employees were doing 100% of the work required to make that bullshit shopping concept function, get the gently caress outta here The claim that "AI really means a bunch of barely paid people in India watching camera footage and marking what a person bought" is not true. They're doing 100% of the work that's left over by the AI, but that's a tautology. Even if they only needed 1 guy to supervise, he'd be doing 100% of the work left over. Amazon needing 1,000 underpaid Indian workers is a failure, but that's not the same as the AI being fake. Edit: And "AI is entirely a scam propped up by highly exploited labor from the global south" makes it sound like they're a lot more competent than they actually are. They failed, that's dumber than a deliberate scam. And if exploiting workers was the goal why would they shut it down? the milk machine posted:i'm suggesting you're just making numbers up for some reason and i don't understand why Trips are made of multiple items. If the per-trip success rate is 30%, the per-item success rate has to be a lot higher than 30%. Dylan16807 has issued a correction as of 04:09 on Apr 26, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Shame Boy posted:If there wasn't an AI amazon wouldn't have even run these stupid-rear end stores to begin with so no, they wouldn't And good point about the quote, maybe it really was that hilariously bad, though in that case I really want to hear how it got deployed at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 05:43
|
|