I want to comment on this because you are phrasing it as if people who got the vaccine are in denial and not wanting to talk about it. Topics like this are hard to discuss because they are immediately polarizing and everyone who has a strong opinion but very little understanding of the science feels the to get their quip in about how right they are and how wrong the other people are. You can especially since it in threads relating celebrity deaths with comments like "well we know what REALLY killed them wink wink"
It still isn't affordable. You can get a phone add-on from FLIR for $180/$200.
This is a great exercise in building stuff for yourself but not affordable at all.
The thousand of dollars cameras you refer to have very high resolutions which are really not the use case for the curious maker that would be interested in such a project.
Kudos for this project though. It is important to have well documented open source hardware in a as many field applications as possible.
This is still a great project for a lot of educational use cases e.g. thinking of universities and high schools who want to envolve students in the build process.
It worked against Democrats because the Republican base does not care about facts and just need a reason, fact or fiction, to justify the outrage they are told to feel.
Ironic that you would confuse your emotionally felt bias, for a fact. There are many good and decent people, who are firmly rooted in reality and facts, that count themselves as part of the Republican base. We need to return to political argument, rather than vilification.
Just because people are "good and decent" doesn't mean that the outcomes they support are thus.
As for facts even without the recent "alternate facts" the truth is you can easily come to radically different conclusions even based on the same facts.
That's all fodder for valid political debate. My objection is the denigration and condemnation of those with differing opinions. It's immature and toxic.
> Just because people are "good and decent" doesn't mean that the outcomes they support are thus.
That's exactly what many on the right think of leftist policies. That the bulk of sustainable and healthy solutions should come from the grassroots, and that many government interventions are unsustainable and have profound unintended negative consequences that aren't fully appreciated by the calculus of the left.
> There are many good and decent people, who are firmly rooted in reality and facts, that count themselves as part of the Republican base.
I'm sure that's true, but those people aren't being voted for. Those people aren't in power and as long as people are voting for literal Nazis there is no discussion to be had. Can't have a rational discussion with people who don't believe you should even exist.
The most recent research suggests partisanship, esp negative partisanship, is rooted in identity. Which is to say facts, beliefs, positions are besides the point.
There have been many more recent follow ups, but the two books I read were Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels, and Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein.
As a recovering activist, this has been very hard for me to accept and adjust to. What hope is there if discourse and persuasion don't, can't work? I have no clue.
You can argue it is more confusing but it is by definition not more restricting. It gives everyone the chance to just use whatever name they want which is the opposite of how restricting unique usernames are. Also, you can already change your display name by server.
> It gives everyone the chance to just use whatever name they want
But it's not actually the user name they want since it is required to have a special number attached to it. Which is the part that makes it confusing, and also a restriction.
In lieu, they'll take TikTok's subservience in giving them access to the data, as with all the other social media companies. It's the one reason I think my data is SAFER in TikTok than in Facebook. If the NSA had a backdoor into it like all the others, they wouldn't care.
What UX work goes into making sure you watch sponsored content? Every content creator I know uses chapters to mark where sponsored content is, Youtube has a flag at the beginning of the video to note that this video contains sponsored content. I'd argue they do a lot of UX work to make sure you know this video has a sponsor in it.
Saying we should have an off switch is different than saying there is tons of UX work going into making you watch these videos. Especially since there is no incentive on Youtube's part to do this because they don't get a content of sponsored revenue. You are moving goal post.
I think you’re right, I conflated two issues I was talking about earlier: the attention cost of avoiding this model in general and the attention cost of ignoring sponsored content on YT. Thanks for pointing that out.
They are an American business that does not deal with other countries outside North America. Why would they care about the world outside of "ol' Merica?"
And they are fine with that just like large numbers of retail chains in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc. which don't have a presence in the US or other countries outside their own or their own economic region. Home Depot does operate stores outside the US in Mexico and Canada.
Standing up and maintaining a distribution network is non trivial, especially for bulky goods that aren't practical for mail order shipping. Home Depot doesn't contract out locally sourced production like your examples do.
