There’s a ton of reasons that an operator would not want to rely on reverse kinematics. They are a professional who needs to make sure they don’t slam a big machine arm into something. While reverse kinematic control is nice as a user, it has multiple possible solutions, some of which may not be acceptable.

What the fuck

Their only solution is wait until enough people become leftists to have a successful revolution. They’ll say it with a straight face like it’s a realistic near-term plan.

No you do both. Voting is the hedge if the “tear down the system” plan doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked here for 250+ years and a civil war, but it is because of voting and labor action and protests we have made any progress.

Fuck you very much for making me read that.

I used to work down the street from another building that had a small cafeteria, but on Fridays the chef would set up a big grill outside and cook up sausages, hot dogs, burgers, chicken, and grilled veggies. It was just like going to a backyard BBQ. Those were some good Friday lunches when we made it over there.

What a rediculous, and untrue, comparison to make. NASA (1) isn’t a consumer manufacturing company, (2) makes an absolutely insane variety of types science experiments from space telescopes to supersonic planes, (3) absolutely makes/uses parts with orders of magnitude tighter tolerances than Lego holds.

Lol it’s a letter to the editor and has a creative commons license.

Yall ate the onion.

So far Musk’s relationship with DoD is mostly just hucking their satellites into orbit. He’s not really doing the crazy military stuff.

DoD is way more interested in the big primes - Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. Satellites are just a piece of the bigger package. They still need missiles, tanks, and aircraft to act on what the satellites teach them.

If you are always listening to podcasts or audio books your brain can’t over think so you only do it while trying to sleep.

In my experience if 2 cars arrive at a 4 way then it’s just pure panic until someone decides to go. Drives me up a wall.

I think I interpreted it the same way the original commenter did, but I see now we’re all on the same page.

Maybe instead of saying she was “supposed to” it would be more clear you meant her campaign was “trying to”.

He’s conflating losing miserably in the primary with losing the general election after being nominated (beating men and women to the nomination).

Leftists are just about the only group that will go around saying they “won’t vote” if there isn’t a candidate making enough concessions to them. Leftists are a small group but they are enough they could sway an election if they came out and made their voices heard by voting instead of just holding signs and yelling. But getting that to happen isn’t as simple as just saying you’re against the genocide, because Harris did that and it wasn’t enough. It isn’t as simple as supporting unions, because she did that and it wasn’t enough. It isn’t as simple as supporting rights for women, minorities, and LGBTQ, because she did that and it wasn’t enough.

The right isn’t stupid enough to believe that they can get their oligarchy without winning elections, but belief in incremental change is fundamentally incompatible with a lot of leftist ideology.

Checks and balances only work if the branches fundamentally care about their job and the country rather than their party. We just have a completely disfunctional parliamentary system where sometimes, just for funsies, the prime minister and cabinet are the minority party so nothing gets done. Oh and also we have a critical part of our legislature elected just from arbitrary lines.

In other words, “no, I won’t stop desperately trying to abolish an nationally popular system and ignoring that it hasn’t been possible for centuries even after a civil war, instead, I’m just going to refuse to do anything to help within the rules of this system that might be able to improve life for people care about over and over and over again eve though history shows us things can be made better”

I think we’d all love to. The constitution is fundamentally broken and should be completely rewritten. It’s founded on ideas that just aren’t true now, if they ever were. The idea that the states are more like countries than counties is the biggest one. The idea that we can and should protect ourselves from the tyrrany of the majority by having independent branches of government and countless ways to stop and stall things is another huge one.

But here’s the biggest problem, not enough of the country agrees that the system is broken, and even smaller portion of those who do can agree on how it’s broken or what changes to make. So no, we can’t just abolish it. We can either (1) fix it enough to get to the point that we may be able to have the stability it would require to safely transition to a new constitution or (2) see things get so bad that enough of the country is on board for revolution. Both options suck, but option (2) has a pretty bad record compared to option (1) in my view.

Again the polls seemed to be OK. I need to have the article ready with the headline “We are a normal polling error away from a landslide victory for either candidate”.

Copium.

Steamdeck made many times more Linux users than Windows ever did.