stealthdawg t1_jdvoqhe wrote

depends on your application I suppose i.e. when do you think you're going to need to use the powerbank and in what conditions?

induction charging is 75% as efficient as plug in.

Between improved phone battery life and the ubiquity of available power, I find myself very very rarely needing a power bank and the old Anker one I bought years ago serves that well enough.


stealthdawg t1_jdhzf7f wrote

more power to you if that's what works for you.

The GTD methodology separates these two things. Rather it opts for one bucket of 'next actions' that one is meant to use as their only source of "what do I do now." That can be refined with various contexts (location, time of day, etc), and then there is a separate activity meant to refresh new tasks onto the list based on incoming sources.

So in the case of GTD you'd just always have a todo list with you giving you those same pending tasks without having to port them over from day to day.


stealthdawg t1_jdhgn9l wrote

GDT specifically recommends against putting things that are not datetime bound events or tasks on the calendar.

The risk is that you don’t do the tasks in the assigned blocks (because the time-pressure is contrived) and then the calendar itself loses its impact, you stop paying attention to it, and end up ignoring it to the detriment of actual time-bound events.

The foundational tool of GTD for unbound tasks is really just a running list that you crank through.


stealthdawg t1_j8ioopi wrote

Happiness = Reality - Expectations

if Expectations are greater than Reality, you have negative Happiness (Disappointment).

If Reality exceeds expectations, you're happy.

So keep your expectations low and you'll always be happy.


Tat's the instantaneous effect, so really:

H(t) = R(t) - E(t)

But over time, our expectations can also shape our reality right? As our expectations increase, our reality generally does as well:

E(t) = A*t

where t is time and A is some factor by which our expectations rise. Lifestyle creep, could be one example.

and R(t) = mE(t) + C

where C is your reality spawn-point (trust fund kid vs inner city slums kid, perhaps?), and m is the factor by which your expectations are able to influence your reality.

You'll note time (t) isn't in this equation directly. Some might disagree, but I don't think it makes sense to include time as a contributing factor If your expectation of reality doesn't increase, your Reality won't either.

But we know that expectations can't drive reality linearly, at least not forever, and eventually our reality will level off even as our expectations continue to rise. In fact, each increase in expectations is likely to lead to a smaller and smaller increase in reality (diminishing returns).

R(t) = a * E(t) / (E(t) + n)

where 'a' represents your reality 'cap' and n is a factor that affects your ramp-up speed.

And at the end of it all, if reality tops out but expectations continue to grow, then as reality falls further and further short of expectations, happiness continues to increase.

Limit[H,E->∞]= -∞


Don't ask me why I decided to write this out.


stealthdawg t1_j508ewj wrote

IMO the salient points are:

Atlas is an amazing specimen for robot physiology. Balance, articulation, movement, recovery, etc. This is the real showcase.

The movements are choreographed using motion capture tech. These are not showcases of any type of AI, decision-making, etc.

That said there are real world applications even at this level. Think human pilot in a VR rig piloting this guy into extraneous locations (Surrogates, anyone?).


stealthdawg t1_j4vv1v0 wrote

imo its more like my concious mind's role is to shape/train my unconcious as well as my environment to produce the desired results for my self/life.

As in, my typical behaviour is a running engine that I need to tune, upgrade and direct, and I also need to set up my surroundings to optimize. I don't control it, but rather guide it and provide course correction.


stealthdawg t1_j24fwi4 wrote

Nobody will 'attempt' to make it too expensive. And by 'it' I mean non-mainstream, non-muscle, items like organs and other animal tissue that are ecclectic.

It will become too expensive because lab-grown meat will dissociate the supply of regular meat from those other items, and it will cost more to raise an animal at lower quantities.

Nobody is saying there won't be small-batch farmers raising animals for these markets, but in agregate the supply is, imo, going to be severely reduced.

And tbh yes I think wayyyyy down the line (100s of years perhaps), if we can synthesize all the products of an animal, there will be valid discussion on banning animal slaughter.


stealthdawg t1_j21z72x wrote

There is certainly a breaking point between how expensive the item becomes and how strong of a tradition it is.

Cultures use odd things like organ meat because they have to use the whole animal, not as the primary product.

Those ingredients will be substituted for something else when they become too expensive to acquire.


stealthdawg t1_j1zrg1n wrote

I think pricing on things like organ meat will drive the extinction of those related dishes.

The most common meats are arguably the easiest to lab-grow (eg. ground beef).

Basically 50% of the meat from a cow goes to ground-beef. Luckily in the US that corressponds to how much beef is eaten overall vs steaks.

I'm not sure how the beef industry will reconcile this, because you can't grow a steak-only cow.


stealthdawg t1_j1zpsdl wrote

Recipes using 'ecclectic' ingredients are borne out of necessity. You have the animal, you want (if not need) to use all of its parts, so cultures create these recipes to incorporate those ingredients.

These recipes of course, range from delicious to barely tolerable, and even that scale shifts between cultures and individuals based on familiarity and such.

That's all to say, I don't think it's a bad thing if recipes with unpalatable ingredients go extinct. Conversely if we discovered a new plant/animal, we may create new recipes around its components.

In the meantime, markets for those products would still exists and they would probably become much more expensive to acquire, driving the markets into the ground. So what?