It’s such a far fetched idea it sits in the same camp as teleporting but we all have to have dreams, and napping on the train on the way to work sounds so pleasant
You’re being down voted, but now you’ve got me legitimately curious…
Would anyone out there be able to explain what sort of additional features Sync has they makes it worth the price? I’ve been a Voyager (formerly weed) user practically since it was created and I think it’s a great experience.
I don’t mind them and lived in the midst of two wind “farms”. They aren’t usually clumped tightly together so you don’t see many until you’re out on the road.
Personally found them kind of calming to look at as part of the backdrop when it was nice outside and I could go out and listen to music or radio and just unplug. Personal opinions vary wildly and some people will hate them just for existing just as some people will find a mural or new building an eyesore, they don’t have a tangible reason and usually they just don’t want change, ontop of there being no shortage of easily disproveable conspiracy theories about turbines they cling to because someone said they were bad once and they can’t be bothered to fact check anything that doesn’t already support their opinion.
So ultimately I don’t mind them anymore than a water tower or grain bin/silo, they are just part of my skyline now and it didn’t take long to get used to them.
the visible deterioration and negative aesthetic quality of the natural and human-made landscapes around people
All human activity creates “visual pollution” of all kinds. It is completely unavoidable. By the textbook definition, farmland, barns, barbed wire fences for livestock, all could qualify as visual pollution.
Wind turbines are no different. They could technically be defined as visual pollution, but they are quite benign in the grand scheme of things. They are typically designed with smooth edges and sweeping curves, and don’t give off a cluttered look, and as such do not really “interrupt” one’s environment. They do move, which can be a bit distracting, I guess.
They’re certainly much nicer to look at compared to the average nuclear/coal/nat.gas power plant
AI is already well underway, so that's probably the most plausible soonest.
A fully reusable rocket in the form of Starship is also well underway and should be successfully orbiting for the first time soon. Just a matter of a year or two before it's doing workhorse cargo launches probably.
The new round of superconductor possibility might pan out, which would be another one. But that's more of a yes/no outcome that hasn't quite been settled yet, rather than something with a "completion bar."
The most recent test launch was just a few seconds of engine firing short of reaching orbital velocity, it would have made it if not for an apparent oxygen leak. The next test rocket has been doing static fire tests already, and it has a cargo door and rack capable of launching Starlink V2 satellites so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they send up a few on it.
Just a matter of a year or two before it’s doing workhorse cargo launches probably.
I doubt that. I’m a big fan of the concept, But SpaceX is behind their promises schedule in a way that would make NASA blush.
Starship launches are becoming less transparent in what they share and information is becoming less frequent. Starship is supposed to land humans on the moon for Artemis III for 4 billion dollars but right now it can’t even make orbit without violently exploding for mostly unknown reasons.
The main lesson from launch 1 was that a deluge system is an absolute must, like literally everyone told them, but Musk personally vetoed. Now they have something almost the same, but more complicated because Musk refused to do things on time. And the lessons from launch 2? Who knows, they stopped talking, and analysis of the videos is very hard because SpaceX realized random YouTubers could analyse their failures.
Remember, Elon said we’d have 2 Starships on Mars in 2023.
They've launched a total of two Starship test flights so far, so I'm not sure how you're drawing a meaningful trend line on them becoming "less transparent." We know a lot about IFT-3 already, they've been doing static test fires and the Starship slated for it has a cargo bay capable of launching Starlink V2s.
SpaceX has never been shy about their failures. They've released humorous supercuts of their Falcon 9 landing failures before, and have allowed those Youtubers to place cameras around Starship launches to get views from close enough to be fried by the rocket exhaust. So I'm not sure where you're getting this sense of secrecy from. What other launch companies are so open about their development process?
I would say in some cases, people are conditioned now to expect an app, even if it’s basically a website. I think in a mobile context, most non-techy people don’t normally think to open up a browser and say, browse Amazon or something. Instead they go for the Amazon app on their phone, and browse/shop/whatever there.
I wouldn’t say this is exclusive to phones either. I once worked on a product that was essentially web-native, but they had to ship a desktop app because their market expected it, even though it was only a web-view wrapper to the website. No offline storage, no difference in behaviour, or need for some specific API; nothing. I guess you try explaining to boomers that a web-view desktop app is unnecessary.
The data vacuuming and additional marketing are just added benefits for the app developer, if they go down that path (they usually do).
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.