Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

blog.hubspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#191

Post by [deleted] »

swalkergibson wrote: post #186
Houshalter wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A technological civilization isn't even possible without massive specialization and worldwide cooperation. The first world standard of living wouldn't be possible if every country wasted it's resources trying to be self-sufficient (not that is what you were advocating for but it's the same principle, just to a smaller degree.) Besides what do I care if my dollar goes to some stranger down the street, in another state…

> [W]orldwide cooperation What cooperation, exactly? Malaysian children being forced (perhaps not in the physical sense, but certainly in the economic sense) to work 13 hours/day for less than 1 USD so that Target can sell Kathy Lee Gifford's branded sweaters for $15? Is that really the world you want to live in? There is no cooperation here, it is exploitation pure and simple. > [W]hat do I care if my dollar goes to…

[deleted]

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#192

Post by [deleted] »

swalkergibson wrote: post #186
Houshalter wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A technological civilization isn't even possible without massive specialization and worldwide cooperation. The first world standard of living wouldn't be possible if every country wasted it's resources trying to be self-sufficient (not that is what you were advocating for but it's the same principle, just to a smaller degree.) Besides what do I care if my dollar goes to some stranger down the street, in another state…

> [W]orldwide cooperation What cooperation, exactly? Malaysian children being forced (perhaps not in the physical sense, but certainly in the economic sense) to work 13 hours/day for less than 1 USD so that Target can sell Kathy Lee Gifford's branded sweaters for $15? Is that really the world you want to live in? There is no cooperation here, it is exploitation pure and simple. > [W]hat do I care if my dollar goes to…

[deleted]

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#193

Post by pyre »

haukilup wrote: post #84
001sky wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've already seen what supporting Walmart has done to our country Have you ever shopped there? Or do you just repeat what you read all the time? Wall mart typically only exists in rural poor areas, and I doubt a drive-by HN commenter has any sense of proportion on the real issues at play. Wall-mart migh mean more competition for mom & pop stores, but they also bring reliable and affordable access to otherwise unaffor…

You say "Wall mart typically only exists in rural poor areas", is this true? Here in Canada, Walmart is pretty much in every city, regardless of income. The only place Walmarts don't exist is in areas where the population is too sparse, or rent is too high (e.g. downtown Toronto). I find it hard to believe Walmart is only "in rural poor areas", unless their position is radically different in the States.

> rent is too high (e.g. downtown Toronto)

They tried to put a Walmart downtown a few years ago ~2008, and they are currently trying to get approval for a Walmart in a different location that's would be on the edge of the 'official' boundaries of the downtown core.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#194

Post by swalkergibson »

Houshalter wrote: post #190
swalkergibson wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [W]orldwide cooperation What cooperation, exactly? Malaysian children being forced (perhaps not in the physical sense, but certainly in the economic sense) to work 13 hours/day for less than 1 USD so that Target can sell Kathy Lee Gifford's branded sweaters for $15? Is that really the world you want to live in? There is no cooperation here, it is exploitation pure and simple. > [W]hat do I care if my dollar goes to…

>What cooperation, exactly? Malaysian children being forced (perhaps not in the physical sense, but certainly in the economic sense) to work 13 hours/day for less than 1 USD so that Target can sell Kathy Lee Gifford's branded sweaters for $15? Is that really the world you want to live in? There is no cooperation here, it is exploitation pure and simple. And you think the worker would be better off if you didn't buy i…

> And you think the worker would be better off if you didn't buy it? No they'd just be unemployed or employed at a worse job.

As a matter of fact, I do. The world is littered with suffering due to Western economic expansion (exploitation). For evidence, see the Banana Republics [0] generated in Latin America due to large fruit producers invading under the banner of "this is better for you." Globalization has an extraordinary human cost.

> The money you lose by buying more expensive local products, plus the the probability that the small amount of your money that actually goes to a local worker will make him less likely to rob, times the probability that he would rob your house specifically...

> Even with absurd estimates of how likely that is, it's still cheaper just to spend the money you save on insurance than what you would gain from slightly reducing the risk of robbery.

Did you even look at the artifact that I submitted? 73% of the money you spend locally stays in the community, whereas 43% stays in the community if you shop big-box. Furthermore, there is more than one "guy down the street." If everyone in your neighborhood is now suddenly suffering due to money leaving the community, what does that do to your probability model?

> What are you referring to that has been reduced in quality so much it actually costs more in the long run (especially things where this is done without the consumer's knowledge or choice to buy higher quality elsewhere.)? And can you actually attribute that to Walmart specifically, and it wouldn't have happened anyways? Or even just people making irrational purchasing decisions or just having a high time preference?

Have you been to a Walmart/Kmart/Target lately? What product have you picked up there recently and thought, "Yeah, this should hold up for a while, thank goodness I saved $2.18 on it!"

Additionally, if you have a high time preference, you should definitely not shop at Walmart. Walmart is responding to competitive pressure by "implementing deep cuts in labor hours at the company’s US stores, setting in motion a "vicious circle" of understaffing, operational miscues, and lost sales that is diminishing the company’s long-term value." [1]

I don't know about you, but wandering around a 100k square foot building with nobody to help in sight sounds like a serious waste of time to me.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic [1] http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/files/2011/10/The-High-Pric...

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#195

Post by SimHacker »

dllthomas wrote: post #189
SimHacker wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like the rest of the screed is just copypasta, since in that part Walmart is spelled right. (Pardon my weasely use of the passive voice to avoid specifying the subject to the verb "to spell").

I'm not sure to what degree your apology is tongue-in-cheek, but I'll just leave this here. There is nothing wrong with the passive voice when used correctly; evasive sentences are equally a problem (or not a problem) whether written in the active or passive voice, and it's quite possible to be evasive or not with either. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922

Passive voice is also a bland, meek way to avoid using gendered pronouns. I much prefer using an active verb if I can think of one, and singular them.

I have a question for you: how can you be actively evasive -- care to demonstrate by not actually answering my question? ;)

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#196

Post by lsc »

Crito wrote: post #146
krallja wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all helicopters have constant speed rotors and use the pitch of the blades to control all but 1 degree of freedom (the last is the pitch of the tail rotor blades, which directly controls the yaw in upright flight).

My understanding is that quad/octo-rotor helicopters do not have constant speed rotors because they turn about by varying the relative speeds of each rotor. They don't have any sort of swashplate. My understanding is that this simplification is more or less the entire point of quad-rotors, since otherwise a single big rotor would be much more efficient.

Yeah... but is scaling down the 'single big rotor' mechanisms used by real helicopters that difficult? would it be more expensive than developing a lightweight electric battery that could give you the same range?

I don't know the answers to those questions; I'm just saying, if range is the problem there are solutions that don't involve breakthroughs in battery technology.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#197

Post by dragonwriter »

lsc wrote: post #196
Crito wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that quad/octo-rotor helicopters do not have constant speed rotors because they turn about by varying the relative speeds of each rotor. They don't have any sort of swashplate. My understanding is that this simplification is more or less the entire point of quad-rotors, since otherwise a single big rotor would be much more efficient.

Yeah... but is scaling down the 'single big rotor' mechanisms used by real helicopters that difficult? would it be more expensive than developing a lightweight electric battery that could give you the same range? I don't know the answers to those questions; I'm just saying, if range is the problem there are solutions that don't involve breakthroughs in battery technology.

> Yeah... but is scaling down the 'single big rotor' mechanisms used by real helicopters that difficult?

TL;DR: Yes.

TS;WM (Too Short, Want More): The top-and-tail rotor design relies on varying pitch on the individual blades of the top rotor at different points in their rotation (rather than varying speed on separate rotors) for translation, varying pitch (the baseline/average pitch of all blades throughout rotation) of the main rotor for lift, and pitch of the tail rotor for rotation.

Quad/octorotor designs get all of that by just vary rotor speed without the additional machinery needed to vary blade pitch, which makes the vastly easier to build at small scale.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#198

Post by dllthomas »

SimHacker wrote: post #195
dllthomas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure to what degree your apology is tongue-in-cheek, but I'll just leave this here. There is nothing wrong with the passive voice when used correctly; evasive sentences are equally a problem (or not a problem) whether written in the active or passive voice, and it's quite possible to be evasive or not with either. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922

Passive voice is also a bland, meek way to avoid using gendered pronouns. I much prefer using an active verb if I can think of one, and singular them. I have a question for you: how can you be actively evasive -- care to demonstrate by not actually answering my question? ;)

Interesting. It seems passive voice can be used that way. I don't see any reason to complain unless the usage is strained, though (including, possibly, through the destruction of diversity in sentence structure - a crime that insistence on the active can also commit).

As to your last point, I am not proving witty enough to abide by your request in an amusing manner, so I will simply address your question: it is completely possible to avoid assigning blame with the active. A classic example would be, "They say...". Or compare the active "Someone made a mistake" with the passive "Mistakes were made by Steve."

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#199

Post by SimHacker »

dllthomas wrote: post #198
SimHacker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive voice is also a bland, meek way to avoid using gendered pronouns. I much prefer using an active verb if I can think of one, and singular them. I have a question for you: how can you be actively evasive -- care to demonstrate by not actually answering my question? ;)

Interesting. It seems passive voice can be used that way. I don't see any reason to complain unless the usage is strained, though (including, possibly, through the destruction of diversity in sentence structure - a crime that insistence on the active can also commit). As to your last point, I am not proving witty enough to abide by your request in an amusing manner, so I will simply address your question: it is compl…

It might date me, but my English teacher explained the passive voice, and its nefarious uses, by quoting Ronald Reagan on the Iran/Contra Scandal: "Mistakes were made."

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#200

Post by dllthomas »

SimHacker wrote: post #199
dllthomas wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. It seems passive voice can be used that way. I don't see any reason to complain unless the usage is strained, though (including, possibly, through the destruction of diversity in sentence structure - a crime that insistence on the active can also commit). As to your last point, I am not proving witty enough to abide by your request in an amusing manner, so I will simply address your question: it is compl…

It might date me, but my English teacher explained the passive voice, and its nefarious uses, by quoting Ronald Reagan on the Iran/Contra Scandal: "Mistakes were made."

Yes, that's quite explicitly what I was referencing. It was weasely and it used the passive voice, but that is more or less coincidental. Your English teacher was wrong.
Post reply on HN