Really? I'm noticing the opposite. First round of imagegen assets seem basically ok, but as time goes on you start to notice the similarities that are properties of the current crop of models and they start to annoy you.

No it's not! Under this proposal you work shorter days in winter, longer days in summer, to match the natural light.

That’s the exact opposite of the work schedule I’d want if we were doing seasonal variations in working hours.

Except you're not going to be more productive working those additional hours in the summer, so as unless you're willing to take the respective pay cut for working less hours, this proposal is a non-starter. Personally, I'd argue that more (smaller e.g. 15 minute) shifts would be better (and you could more closely track sunrise), and avoid the hard shift which it feels is the main complaint people have with switching timezone.

It's a non-starter in your mind, because you have already accepted that businesses get to dictate it be so, and that instead we must pass laws (e.g. daylight savings) to govern all people to conform to their wishes.

We can also let people dictate that it will be my/another way, and pass laws to govern businesses instead.

And it's wild that so many people nowadays don't seem to realize this is perfectly normal and expected.

We didn't used to have 5-day workweeks. Or 8 hour days as the norm. Or worker's comp. etc etc etc etc...

Same as you handle uptime on anything else: you use monitoring software.

If people need to tell you your services are down, you end up eating a huge amount of downtime.

Chess is not solved in any meaningful sense of the term. Computers have been better than humans since the 90s, but better chess programs are released all the time.

It's solved in that we have had grossly superhuman capabilities for some time. It's not interesting for frontier labs. I suspect you understand this and the greater point so why be needlessly pedantic ?

Calls of "you should allow free speech" invariable actually mean "I should be allowed to harass your members".

I enjoy spaces that are at least semi-moderated.

Food and shelter if nothing else. Gotta pay the upkeep on the meat robots!

I've had no end of trouble registering an account on our corporate SIMs as the phone numbers (not the actual SIM cards) had been recycled as employees leave.

So many systems cannot handle known pattern of a phone number changing. Who's decided these are imutable values? That I have only one? That it's not shared?

That seems like the kind of name that's gonna earn you a C&D.

Trans-neptunian objects, including Pluto, are in orbital resonance. They owe their stable orbits to the existence of Neptune.

It’s like saying Jupiter is not a planet because the Trojans exist.

...or like saying Earth is not a planet because NEA's share our orbit.

If you have to argue that it doesn't apply to Jupiter or Earth because they are obviously planets, it implies that "clearing the neighbourhood" is a vague and not particularly useful criteria.

Except I said nothing of the sort. I said the opposite.

Jupiter, Neptune and earth in your example dominate the gravity of their orbit by locking the smaller bodies into orbital reasonances.

It’s not a vague criterium. It might be an irrelevant one if you are interested in geophysics, but it’s concrete and testable.

It’s not vague or unimportant. Clearing their orbits literally made them planets because they absorbed the mass of everything they cleared out.

> “One of the biggest flaws with the IAU definition is that you can have the same object in two different orbits,” says Kornfeld. “In one, it’s considered a planet, and in the other, it’s not considered a planet.”

So… planet Ganymede when? Or Titan?