[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

The Spanish Invasion (of privacy)?

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

The Spanish Inhibition

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Well if thats true then it’s pretty annoying.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

So you’ll misspell a write-in vote for an idiotic Russian plant. Sounds like you’re really someone to listen to on this.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

The mere suggestion of Jill Stein clearly demonstrates that you do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Holy crap.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago

Really? I’ve found that the really nice thing about the Apple App Store is that I can always cancel subscriptions in the same place and the subscription still works until the end of the designated period. Has this changed, or have I just been lucky in the apps I’ve subscribed to?

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

One problem with this analogy is that if you’re in a burning house, you literally don’t have time to have a conversation while you’re in it. But in fact we could spend the entire weekend discussing viable candidates and it wouldn’t become too late to then decide to support the idea.

Another problem is that you’re presupposing that the course of action is obvious, as it is in a house fire. In a house fire, it doesn’t matter what can be done about the stuff or where you’re going to live if you lose your home, because if you don’t get out of the house ASAP then you will die, based on thousands upon thousands of previous house fires. In the case of this election, nothing like this has ever happened and staying with Biden does not actually mean guaranteed loss. Perhaps continuing the public call for Biden to step down is the thing that hurts us the most. In any case, the only thing that would mean a literal guaranteed loss would be withdrawing Biden and not replacing him with someone.

So, coming up with suitable people who could take the helm and do better (as well as figuring out a viable way to make this happen democratically) is necessary to this process actually succeeding. We actually do have the luxury of time to spend all day discussing it right now. And if good ideas for candidates can actually win over more people to the idea, then it might in some way be helpful to the success of it.

I would say I’m a person who both feels like things have reached a point where Biden should ideally be replaced, but I’m very worried by the fact that I haven’t yet heard someone else who we could theoretically rally behind, and haven’t heard how this could even be accomplished legally and politically at this late stage. I feel the worst thing we can do is to just repeatedly say it’s a fire and not actually figure out steps to fix it.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Forget telling you, they should just start playing the movie and bill you

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

It’s definitely pronounced like the u in union

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I don’t want someone to go kill him, but I absolutely wish that he would drop dead without the slightest moral reservation.

My only concern is that however he were to die, everyone on the right would go full conspiracy theory and blame it on the left, and somehow we’d be worse off in ways I can’t imagine right now. The right always seems to find a way to make me regret any turn of events that I thought was good.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think that electing someone as deranged as Trump — who basically would try anything and everything that a sane person wouldn’t risk out of self-preservation, we basically saw a speedrun of finding out all the weaknesses and exploits of our government, combined with proving that impeachment and removal is basically impossible as long as one party is in collusion with the president.

We might have gotten here anyway, but it might have been a decade or two rather than four short years.

And the Supreme Court wouldn’t look like it does and be doing what’s it’s doing, which is also now a speedrun of horror.

I’ll never forgive Americans for 2016.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Because they’re sexy. We’ve been over this.

24
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

For example, if it says “bear left” versus “turn left”, what process is it using to make that nuanced judgment?

I see two possible ways:

a) It analyzes the map visually and has an algorithm to decide, based on the angle/curve/etc, which way to describe the turn.

b) Every place where two roads meet has metadata keyed in, indicating what type of turn it is in each direction.

I think option (a) is too expensive to be done in real-time by the end-user’s GPS, so most likely if option (a) is used, it’s done periodically on the server side to generate metadata as in option (b). And then perhaps this metadata is hand-checked by a person, and things the analysis gets wrong are overridden by a person, but all of this is just speculation on my part.

This question came up when some turn-by-turn directions incorrectly said to “bear left” at a standard, right angle intersection. I wondered if someone keyed something in wrong or if there is some little blip in the way the map was drawn at the intersection that we wouldn’t visually detect, but threw off the turn-by-turn.

I expected to easily find an article spelling it out, but I haven’t been able to and it’s driving me crazy not knowing for certain!

view more: next ›

CoggyMcFee

joined 1 year ago