They don't need a lot of tools to do such a deep 'search' of your car, they're not under any requirement or mandate to make it easy or even possible to repair.
In my 40+ years of driving, I've seen such disassembled cars along the road a hand full of times.
I also lived not too far from that location, and unfortunately got a glimpse of the aircraft as it was spiraling down. The scene on the ground was pretty hellish.
Some of the garbage I've been involved with that I either had to avoid or bail out of an edit or revert war:
* A claim on "Fisting" that "seasoned fisters can insert their arm up to the shoulder into the anus", "supported" by a deleted PornHub video.
* Fighting on a Production Car top ten list when Tesla announced that Ludicrous Mode was coming the next year and "expected" to have certain performance stats, where multiple editors fell over each other to make sure it stayed at the top of the list, even when they eventually had to add a column just for Tesla where every other result had "Actual Results" and the Tesla had "Projected/Expected Results".
* A collation of John Deere tractors that described multiple models as "light years ahead of the competition".
* An article on an Australian drug smuggler where exhibits from court case were being removed as "biased".
* He's a quite interesting historical character popularized by the video game Assassin's Creed Shadows. However, this insertion has also been controversial. East Asian male protagonists are underrepresented in Western media already, and with Assassin's Creed there's the perception that now they snubbed East Asians again, following a long trend of forcefully inserting foreign perspectives in Asian settings, like The Last Samurai, Shōgun, etc.
* There aren't that many real historical accounts about him so people can argue all day about stuff like "Was Yasuke a real samurai?" without clear evidence about who's right.
Since the first games, many fans have clamoured for "Assassin's Creed in Japan"... I suspect they fantasised about being a male Japanese ninja running across rooftops in the moonlight, sneaking over nightinggale floors, and silently assassinating people in their beds, combining what they saw in Altaïr and Ezio, with every Japanese media trope they knew of.
But in the intervening years, Ubisoft and/or the entire AAA games industry is now seemingly driven by a need to conspicuously showcase diversity and inclusion (from some gamers' viewpoints). You could also view it as the gaming industry trying to broaden its audience and get out of the pigeonhole of catering to the base desires of sweaty manchildren, but either way, it's upsetting a certain type of game consumer.
So, when Ubisoft finally got around to setting Assassin's Creed in Japan, and they picked pretty much the only person around that time period who wasn't Japanese as the main protagonist, seemingly to meet diversity goals, capital-G Gamers went bananas over it, like it was a personal affront to them.
"In May 2024, it was announced that Yasuke would be a major character in an upcoming video game (Assassin's Creed Shadows). While onwiki disagreement about Yasuke's status as a samurai predates this announcement, the historical figure's Samurai status became part of a culture war around video games (J2UDY7r00CRjH evidence) that media sources have described as a continuation of or successor to Gamergate, leading to an increase in attention to the article. (Symphony Regalia evidence)"
I don't get your point. You are allowed to edit articles on contentious topics. Its just more likely to be reverted. Because the topic is... contentious.
My attempt at a point is that the controversial topics are a tiny percentage of the human knowledge stored on Wikipedia. If there were no controversies, then I would actually start to get worried. That would indicate that there was pure control of information on Wikipedia, like a theoretical CCPedia. [0]
Wikipedia is so open, that they even have their own "controversial" section! Is that not the coolest thing ever?
The chip on my shoulder is that there is a concerted effort to destroy and discredit Wikipedia.
The accomplishment of Wikipedia is not just beating the Library of Alexandria by many orders of magnitude, but doing so while keeping moderation logs in the open as well.
Ask @dang, or anyone that has ever had anything to do with forum moderation, if they would be cool with their moderation logs being completely open. Almost everyone with experience would say 100% no. They likely tried that and saw how much nutso drama it creates. Wikipedia actually does that, at the largest possible scale!
[0] Of course that exists, apparently it's called Baidu Baike
> if they would be cool with their moderation logs being completely open
It takes a certain mentality. That's rare but I think it makes for much better communities on the whole.
However I think most participants, not just moderators, don't like the environment that sort of mentality results in. When anything and everything, including the moderation itself, is up for civilized debate that tends to foster an environment in which it's acceptable to question core parts of people's worldviews. There's little shared doctrine beyond "argue any position you'd like" which most people seem to find intensely uncomfortable.
> The accomplishment of Wikipedia is not just beating the Library of Alexandria by many orders of magnitude, but doing so while keeping moderation logs in the open as well.
There is at least one exception to that rule. Users who attract the ArbCom's attention may get a general block. If they ask what they're blocked for, the ArbCom rep will tell them to read their email. These moderation decisions are not public, not even in a form with PII redacted.
There is also what's called "Oversight", which performs actions that are invisible to the public and administrators alike (though not invisible to some very privileged people)
There are also "office actions", where essentially the Wikimedia Foundation and/or its legal counsel have been required to do something. In most cases, the office actions are visible and logged, unless they've been required to use Oversight as well. But the main thing is that the office actions will generally not be explained to anyone, as it usually stems from some legal threat to Wikipedia.
I can't edit now, but when I wrote "CCPedia" I was first thinking about "muskpedia," but I didn't want to get political in a way that might offend other readers.
Currently ROFL, given grokpedia or whatever objectively dumb shit to which we are now exposed. I should not have bitten my tongue. Self-censorship is the worst kind.
I also have problems with Wikipedia's favoritism of insiders who have learned how to navigate its bureaucracy, but the fact that most edits of political and/or controversial topics are immediately reverted is not in itself evidence of a problem. A priori, I would expect that the majority of edits to political and controversial topics are bad and should be reverted.
I guess you picked “tax stuff” because the tax related thing you edited was a sort of dry tax related topic, but I’m sure we could find lots of controversial topics under the “tax stuff” umbrella.
I don't have an extensive wikipedia career, but I've found that even my few edits to political topics have been accepted.
What did get reverted was a trivial [citation needed] fix, for a musician's page, for a sentence stating they were involved in scoring a film. I found a relevant citation and this was promptly reverted, for reasons that were explained but, at least for me, utterly incomprehensible
You're not really considered a veteran editor until you've won at least 10 Request for Comments outquoting your detractors with at least 100 obscure Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
I am seeking a hands-on, team-oriented role at a stable, technologically innovative company where we will be able to facilitate evolutionary and revolutionary adoption of various technologies, intended to produce consistently growing operational return on investment.
I am passionate about improving operational processes and flows via the collaborative approach of design and architecture. Fundamentally, I am a programmer with decades of hands-on operational experience, ranging from all kinds of Linux system administration to databases to strong networking skills.
Collaboratively designing and shipping high availability is my forte. Through many and diverse focus areas, LiveOps achieved 99.99% availability in Q4 2011.
Above all, I seek to understand, assimilate and process all of the issues, big and small, that stand in the way of efficient and smooth operations, using that analysis to design elegant integration solutions. Shipping that automation so my co-workers can get their work done is job one.
I heard most code today is written by LLMs. I hope that's not true, but if it is, the future improvements will be slow (barring something like, actually teaching them to read the docs).
Recently, something quite rare happened. I needed to Xerox some paper documents. Well, such actions are rare today, but years ago, it was quite common to Xerox things.
Over time, the meaning of the word 'Xerox' changed. More specifically, it gained a new meaning. For a long time, Xerox only referred to a company named in 1961. Some time in the late 60s, it started to be used as a verb, and as I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, the word 'Xerox' was overwhelmingly used in its verb form.
Our society decided as a whole that it was ok for the noun Xerox to be used a verb. That's a normal and natural part of language development.
As others have noted, management doesn't care whether the serverless thing you want to use is running on servers or not. They care that they don't have to maintain servers themselves. CapEx vs OpEx and all that.
I agree that there could be some small hazard with the idea that, if I run my important thing in a 'serverless' fashion, then I don't have to associate all of the problems/challenges/concerns I have with 'servers' to my important thing.
It's an abstraction, and all abstractions are leaky.
If we're lucky, this abstraction will, on average, leak very little.
> Over time, the meaning of the word 'Xerox' changed. More specifically, it gained a new meaning. For a long time, Xerox only referred to a company named in 1961. Some time in the late 60s, it started to be used as a verb, and as I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, the word 'Xerox' was overwhelmingly used in its verb form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE#t=5m58s I don't think this dramatization (of a court proceedings from 2010) is related to Xerox's plight with losing their trademark, but said dramatization is brilliant nonetheless
I watch this video at least once a year, and make my immediate family do the same.
Everyone in the United States should watch this video, or something similar, on a regular schedule.
As great as the first part is, I actually think the second part, with officer George Bruch, is even more important.
It's not as smooth, it's not flashy. Officer Bruch comes across as just a regular guy who wants to help you.
I've long viewed the world primarily through the lens of incentives and motivations. When officer Bruch is talking to you in a little room, you just want to tell your story, get it off your chest, and he makes it very, very easy to do that. In fact, if the roles of these two guys were reversed, and professor Duane, with his slick and fun personality, was interviewing you, you'd likely trust him less.
Even though it feels like it, officer Bruch is not your friend. He's not on your side. It doesn't feel like it, but his incentives and motivations are mostly in conflict with yours, whether you are guilty or innocent.
Arabic OCR is a mess with historical texts. Take the word الف (alf/thousand) in dates like 1950 - in old documents, the ف (fa) had a dot below it, but modern OCR doesn't get this and outputs الد (alad), which is just gibberish in Arabic
Same problem with ق (qaf) written as ف (fa) in old Arabic
And don't get me started on merged letters! In محمد (Muhammad), sometimes the م (meem) sits right on top of the ح (haa), or appears as a little circle below the line. Modern OCR has no clue what to do with these
My solution? Run OCR first, then use LLMs to fix the mess based on context. The surprising part? In my tinkering, smaller fine-tuned models actually do BETTER at this specific task than the big general-purpose ones. They seem to learn the patterns of historical Arabic quirks more effectively. Pretty neat tradeoff of specialized knowledge vs. general intelligence
In my 40+ years of driving, I've seen such disassembled cars along the road a hand full of times.
reply