Some are great. Take the Chrome one: Go to wikipedia and know something about pretty much everything. A lot of knowledge is useful even if you don’t properly understand everything.
Youtube is a lesser version of Chrome.
What’sApp entirely depends on how easily gullible rich people would give you money. You could probably just sell those information too.
Netflix and Amazon could yield some nice money.
Spotify would massively decrease the barrier of learning new instruments if you’re into that. But many of the benefits can be achieved by scrolling through notes/lyrics with the Chrome benefit.
Reading technical documentation on Chrome would make you an incredible subject matter expert. At the very least, you’d be able to get degrees and certifications pretty easily.
Chrome + Wikipedia was my plan. Plus “website” is so vague I could also read millions of books. Grab a spot on a show like Jeopardy and become the new chanp.
Some of the bigger tools, like vacuums or table saw do. Unfortunately the little tools are too cluttered with miscellaneous Bluetooth circuits to fit both AC and DC motors or more reasonably AC to DC converters.
I think the main issue for the companies is that power adapters have a nearly unlimited lifespan in comparison to lithium batteries, so it would be less profitable for them to sell you a direct attached power adapter than a bunch of batteries and a charger where you have to keep crawling back to them when the batteries inevitably give out in three years.
It would be trivial to design a blank battery attachment with a DC jack, and just have it hooked up to what is essentially a beefed up laptop charger. There are plenty of applications where a corded tool is perfectly adequate and even superior to cordless tools, so the fact that none of the manufacturers have it as an option hints that it was a business decision as opposed to merely an oversight.
I imagine the same as every single laptop in existence. A big brick that sits on the floor and a very long cord.
Why couldn’t that work?
Other tools are way more power hungry than a drill. Someone gave me a m12 Vacuum as a gift and it can’t run for more than 15 minutes on battery which makes it extremely limited. Inside a customer’s home that is all I need but at home it’d be great to run it as a dust collection for a table saw.
I wonder how easy it is to DIY something like that. Like would it be as easy as picking up an off the shelf power supply with the right voltage and current and 3D printing an attachment that fits into the battery slot with a DC jack on the side (or even just gutting a dead battery pack and taking out the batteries and control electronics, soldering a DC jack straight onto the main contacts, and drilling a hole for it to poke through)? Or do modern power tools actually need to authenticate the battery with some kind of tool DRM?
Yes, Festool do one for their sanders. A battery tool is usually more expensive and less powerful than a mains powered tool though, so I’m not sure what the advantage of this would be.
In the 31st century: The Borg have taken over the galaxy, and have discovered wormhole technology that allows them to traverse universes.
A rogue Starfleet captain steals a museum piece and flees through a wormhole, only to encounter a smuggler and his hairy companion. They manage to cripple the Cube that opened the wormhole, but at a cost.
Their ships crippled, they must learn to work together to warn the New Republic of the Borg threat.
The only thing that makes me question the validity of the video is the ladder.
Is it made of solid iron? Or is there some kind of weight distribution in the frame connected to the bus (or whatever that thing is) that’s offsetting the probaby 300ish lbs that man is? Am I missing something here or is that weird?
Dude am typing this on my neighbors wifi XD. Btw they left the 5ghz band public so have been using it for the past 1 year or so. Lol its quite fast too!
I’ve been doing that for 6 years when I didn’t have internet connection. I was 8 when I got a first smart device, Android tablet. One of the first things I tried was connecting to Wi-Fi of all neighbors. 2 of them had the ultra-secure password “12345678”. I remember the first website I visited was Wikipedia.
However, I have tried to not spend too much data. I only watched videos in low quality (240p) and browsed the web. For downloading large files (which I considered anything above 50MB at the time) I’ve used public networks. Usually at the bus station or a nearby pub.
Sometime later I got access to even more Wi-Fi networks using the convenient “WPS WPA Tester” app. Like a third of all networks used one of the default PINs.
Makita dude is ripped, but funny that he’s holding a DeWalt-looking…thing.
never ceases to amaze me that AI has such a hard time with basic text, but IMO that’s probably not something they want to be refined. Too much liability in churning out fake imagery with actual copyrighted/trademarked brands and the like.
I can already sing and play the guitar, not brilliantly but idgaf, so the Spotify one is really tempting. But I learned to play the Guitar from YouTube, and also how to speed solve a Rubik’s cube and pick a lock, so that one would be super useful too. In fact I could just type in “How to play X song on the guitar”
So one of those two I guess, probably the YouTube one because job interviews would be way easier after a quick scroll through the thumbnails of a quick search before going in.
Chrome: I know everything about every web page I have ever seen but don’t understand it.
So I don’t understand how to play a song.
YouTube: I know everything in the video from the thumbnail.
Closer, but I have to rely on the people on YouTube knowing wtf they’re talking about, meaning I gain knowledge about a lot of shit, and incorrect knowledge too
So the Spotify one, combined with the knowledge I already have of music, makes more sense for learning music.
It’s surprisingly hard (at least for me, perhaps I’m looking wrong :p) to find general comparisons comparing the brands for overall usefulness. You’ll find stuff comparing their drills, or something specific, but not everything overall. Which seems much more important, as (as has been mentioned in these comments) the batteries really lock you into one brand.
Be the change you want to see in the world. Start up a spreadsheet or database and start looking to see if there’s a way for others to add to it and view it, like a Google Sheets or a non-Google equivalent.
Can’t really compare cordless drills to circular saws, that’s apples and oranges. If you’re going to buy into a tool line (the only real reason is to avoid having to purchase multiple chargers and batteries, those are expensive) then pick the one that has the best tool(s) that you use the most often.
Look, I’m just setting my rent according to an analysis of the current market rate for similar properties.
Yes, that analysis is provided by the same company that does estimates for the other properties.
No, I’ve never heard of “price fixing”. Look, your avocado toast is super expensive and it’s cuz the government gave you $600 three years ago so PAY MY MORTGAGE ALREADY YOU EASILY REPLACEABLE COW IN A PEN.
Instead, make being poor illegal (arrest people who can’t pay for the essentials), arrest them, and THEN use them as slaves, it’s fine since they’re criminals
Clearly they must be giving out free land in good places to live (near were all the jobs are), free materials and free time over there.
It’s either that or that house you mention is supposed to be made out of opinions and built in fantasy la-la-land, as it’s only how the materials and places to put it in would be endless and free.
There are tons of natural limitations in all kinds of things and all sorts of Markets - which is why Free Market Theory is mainly bollocks: the conditions for it to work as advertised exist only in a handful of Markets.
In Housing, clearly Land is the main limiting factor in places like cities and surrounding suburbia, though if that was removed we would eventually run against other limiting factors, probably on some kinds of building materials or manpower (hence my mentioning of both), though all that could be overcome with time whilst Land limitations, although made worse by Landownership laws, are ultimatelly down to there not being possible to make any more of it (though different work patterns could make it be much more efficiently used if they weakenned the need for people to live in and around cities).
Also keep in mind that land usage efficiency can be increased by building more multi-story housing, though in the current situation with land ownership that possibility just gets translated into higher land prices, so in places like the US you end up with sprawl rather than medium density housing: the whole economics of Land and thus housing pricing make a bigger and nicer living place far from a city center be the same price or cheaper than a crummy appartment nearer the center, even though were land was used with higher efficiency and dwelling size is smaller the price per dwelling should actually be cheaper.
Even in space I expect there will be some areas that are most desireable than others because of proximity to resources and markets. Increasing density is something I am very much in favor of but as you correctly pointed out this mostly leads to higher land prices which represent value captured by the ownership class as explained by the Iron Law of Rent.
Oh so wait, so building a house isn’t free then since nobody is giving the land and materials away. So why do you expect a landlord to let you live for free if he had to pay to buy the land and build it?
Nice to see you’re getting close to the core of the problem.
Yeah, Land is owned rather than belonging to everybody as it used to be back before monarchs and as land ownership works in this system - any one individual with massive wealth can own way more Land than they need - it can be easilly hoarded by those with more money in a way that’s impossible for those with less money to overcome (short of a Revolution) and thus create cartels or even monopolies in Land in desirable places to live, a market positions from where they can extract as big a rent as they want since everybody else has no alternative.
It’s from the massive imballance thus created by Law in the main, essential and irreplaceable, “raw material” for housing that the massive house prices we see come from, and landlords usually use their priviledged position in that highly imbalanced market to extract excessive rents.
The whole situation is actually the very opposite of the “Free Market” you state it is - Land (and thus housing) ain’t like teddy bears and soap were a competitor can just enter the market and make more of it when somebody tries to corner the market, quite the opposite: it’s dependent on a naturally limited resource on top of which a trully ancient kind of legislation makes hoarding extremelly easy for those lucky enough to have lots of wealth, artificially transforming the limits of that resource into an extreme kind of scarcity.
In this Not-At-All-Free Market, most landlords will extract excessive rents far beyond the value they add. If rents were not mainly based on exploiting a dominant position in a market dominated by hoarding and artifical scarcity and only paid for the actual service being provided by landlords, they would be tiny in comparison with the current situation and very few people would be critical of landlords.
Let private interests amass huge amounts of resources and you have hugely powerful autocracies.
Let these autocracies hire so-called economists to convince everyone that they will settle into some kind of optimal state if we just let them be and you have the current situation in the USA.
Your point being what exactly? My landlord has spent his entire life working at a coal mine to buy a building that needed to be torn down. He then tore it down and built a modern one in its place. Since then, he is here all the time doing maintenance, packing the trash so it gets accepted, despite being over 70. But fuck him regardless according to you guys, since every landlord inherrited millions of houses, and if only you were so lucky, you would have given those houses to the poor.
See, you can’t even believe someone telling a real story. You need to ridicule, make fun of it, because you can’t fathom that people still work / worked recently in coal mines. Newsflash, read up on European coal mines. Read up on industrialized regions - Ruhr in Germany. Silesia in Poland.
Yeah and I know to block you now. People like you only want to push their agenda, even when confronted by an actual example that says otherwise. Go be a hateful person somewhere else.
I mean I get both sides here. We live in a free market economy, where the scarcity of something affects the cost of it. People want land close to the city and there’s an extremely limited amount of it. If there are n*100 people and only n parcels of land in a small area, how do you provide it to people? Do you sell it? Is it a lottery system? Is the land sold at a base value that never changes? Like, how do you envision this going?
Right now, people have to freedom to buy as much land as they want and set the pricing for that land. What we need is a property owner tax that scales up depending on the amount of property that you own. Though this will just make more land available. No one in their right mind will sell it for less than it’s worth though.
lemmyshitpost
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.