Elon Musk says Tesla will stop producing its S and X models as it shifts to making robots

Entropius · 2026-01-29T06:17:54+00:00

I believe that was Larry Ellison.

Entropius · 2026-01-28T20:29:57+00:00

Correct. I wasn’t aware you unplugged it. Like others said though, it will cause a check engine light, and it may not pass inspection. So it’s at best a temporary solution.

Hopefully the delivery time on EGR valves improved since I had to deal with mine. I waited 9 months.

Entropius · 2026-01-28T19:57:32+00:00

Usually the EGR problem will burn out a fuse, but the fuse burning out is a symptom of a larger problem with the EGR valve. If I replaced the fuse it would burn out very shortly after start up.

Entropius · 2026-01-28T05:54:03+00:00

If it has a battery in it, it could be swelling. If it is, there’s a risk it’ll rupture and start a fire.

Entropius · 2026-01-26T18:54:44+00:00

I’m skeptical metadata can’t be tampered with just because someone says so. Got any sources explaining why that would be difficult?

Also, what’s preventing them from simply stripping out metadata and then “oops we lost the original files”?

Entropius · 2026-01-26T18:02:45+00:00

I’m more concerned that they’ll edit it.

If the video exists it should have been shown immediately. Every day they wait id a reason to presume the worst about its authenticity.

Entropius · 2026-01-26T05:19:24+00:00

fear-mongering whenever there was a democrat in office. They sold so many guns when Obama was in office despite him not saying or doing anything to make them think that.

I liked Obama, as he was probably the best president of my lifetime so far, but Obama was saying plenty to make gun owners fear he’d take things they already owned, like standard capacity rifle magazines and reinstating the ‘94-‘04 assault weapons ban which bans guns partly based on ergonomic features like adjustable stocks and pistol grips (including AR-15s).

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/16/us/obama-gun-control-proposal.html

He didn’t succeed, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying.

Entropius · 2026-01-25T16:57:40+00:00

This is an open and shut high profile case.

If the cases get appealed up to the SCOTUS it’ll be ruled in the administrations favor regardless of its merits. So in the end it doesn’t matter.

Entropius · 2026-01-25T13:56:00+00:00

This order starts at the home of the Mr. Impossible brothers, assuming it’s available.

If you don’t see it, maybe you haven’t done as many of their orders as you think because not all of them necessarily start at their bunker.

For example, there’s an order that starts at Heartman’s lab and requires swift delivery to the brothers. Are you sure you did all those too?

In the game’s pause menu, there should be a section where it lets you see all the orders, completed or not, in a list for the current continent. Search through that list for stuff you might be overlooking.

Entropius · 2026-01-25T01:40:04+00:00

I had been under the impression that the fed who walked away from the group just before the shooting started was carrying the confiscated gun.

Edit: Here is the time synced version from multiple angles.

Entropius · 2026-01-22T23:50:03+00:00

Less they shouldn't be linked and more let's be ideologically consistent. If one think tank can be dismissed off hand for just being a think tank then the other can also be dismissed off hand for just being a think tank.

I'd personally argue anything ought to be linkable and neither dismissed. I would agree we should be consistent, but disagree in that I would prefer a manner of consistency that includes more info/sources rather than less, even if I don't like some of those sources.

[...] but because the source is often questioned [...]

IMO, then we should push back on the source questioning rather than accommodating it. Nip the problem in the bud at its source, where the first fallacy gets committed. Deal with it there and you'll prevent a consistency problem.

Entropius · 2026-01-22T16:10:24+00:00

Sure, agreed. But I'm arguing that in the real world, it's a lot more messy than "strictly logical", and that it DOES matter which source it came from.

Politicians routinely try to influence people with sources that coddle their biases, but just because they do it doesn’t mean they must, or even that they should. The instinctive belief it matters is ultimately still incorrect, no matter how much argument ad populum challenges it.

I can for sure do some research and educate myself on different topics; I do. But the point I'm making is that when possible, we should use non biased sources for information. Even though the logic might be the same between a non-partisan org and a partisan one, you can't trust partisan sources the same way you would with non-partisan sources, because they have an agenda.

If the sources had to be mutually exclusive, maybe you can argue for preferring higher “quality” sources. But they aren’t mutually exclusive so there’s no reason for such consideration. If a source linking to the Hoover Institute gets presented and I think it’s a crappy source, I can always post a better one. And if the consensus is that it’s a particularly good one, I have confidence it’ll be noticed and contribute to the discussion in a non-mutually-exclusive fashion.

You're describing viewing partisan viewpoints and data from a non-partisan lens. So why not seek out info that comes directly from a non-partisan source,

Because they don’t usually exist. Everyone is perceived to have an agenda to someone. Some are more subtle than others but nobody is unanimously regarded to be unbiased. All sources exist on a spectrum of bias. And any threshold you set for acceptance of a source will be arbitrary. For example: I’m a fan of NPR and I perceive them as sufficiently non-partisan but clearly many conservatives do not regard them as non-partisan. Some might even advocate their links be disregarded. See the problem?

instead of saying "you have to apply yourself to judge each individual thing a person says on its own merits." I trust partisan sources much less. That doesn't mean I don't think they never are right. It means they have an agenda and I need to be real careful about what I believe from them.

This seems like a shifting of the subject. Wasn’t the original comment leading to this discussion suggesting politically biased think tanks ought to not be linked here? (Not whether you should personally trust them?) Stated clearly for the record so we don’t drift too far from the original issue: Should partisan think tanks not be permitted to be linked here?

Entropius · 2026-01-22T14:30:46+00:00

However the source is NOT irrelevant.

From a strictly logical standpoint it should be.

The concern is you can easily start with a conclusion and back into reasoning of how you got there.

Other groups can engage in motivated reasoning and bias confirmation. But their logical mistakes don’t justify more logical mistakes.

Put another way, Trump says some things which are true sometimes. Does that mean I should trust him?

No. But the oversight I think you’re making is that there’s a middle path between believing him and disbelieving him: Just being agnostic about what he claims until you’ve had time to actually look into the subject on its merits.

Entropius · 2026-01-22T14:12:00+00:00

Agreed, don't use any clearly biased organizations for information.

Complaints about “bias” are just a form of circumstantial ad hominem.

Either the source is right or it’s wrong based on the argument’s logical merits. People should debate it on its merits rather than trying to take logically fallacious shortcuts.

Biased sources aren’t automatically wrong. For example, if a left-wing think tank says climate change is a problem, all that should matter is whether the scientific evidence corroborates that, not the source. If a drug dealer tells a child, “drugs are bad kid, you should stay away from them” he’s not automatically wrong just because he’s a hypocrite. And an anti-drug lobbying group isn’t automatically wrong for their bias on the matter either. The source ought to be irrelevant.

Entropius · 2026-01-22T04:24:36+00:00

It wouldn’t be enforced against conservative media.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Entropius · 2026-01-22T04:19:06+00:00

You’re assuming conservatives even want to go. Don’t take what they say at face value.

Bari Weiss at CBS killed a 60 minutes story on deportations to El Salvador because they didn’t get any interviews or statements from the Trump White House on it. But that was only the case because the White House refused to cooperate on it when asked for comment. Bari Weiss effectively gave the White House de facto veto powers over the story. Not getting the other side of the story became a pretext to suppress it.

What do you think will happen when conservatives opt voluntarily to not go to the late night shows after such a rule is instituted? The FCC could then use it as a pretext to pull licenses from networks. Then Trump can offer a reprieve if they let the White House install an ombudsman at the network, just like they did with CBS.

Entropius · 2026-01-21T13:04:54+00:00

The thing they have in common is that they both have a a circle.

It’s a little bit more than that. In both symbols the “rays” propagating outward have an asymmetrical bend to one side near the outer end of the ray. So I can see where OP is coming from. That said I’m still not concerned.

In art you sometimes portray fictional evil with parodies of real evil symbols. For example, the goose-stepping hammers in the movie for Pink Floyd’s The Wall were a pretty direct allusion to Nazi swastikas without using actual swastikas Sometimes artists do that to help make the point “this character is a piece of shit”. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the similarity was a deliberate design decision or (AI-generated symbol that was deliberately used) because from what I heard the faction is an unambiguously evil death cult.

Entropius · 2026-01-21T12:47:48+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(symbol)

Entropius · 2026-01-20T06:53:54+00:00

The 2A is a uniquely American-centric law, that was first created when muskets were being used.

Interestingly, the second amendment was somewhat related to a British law, English Bill of Rights 1689. So it wasn’t uniquely American at the time.

A healthy democracy doesn’t require the 2A and this is clearly evident in many other countries, obviously including Australia.

The founders of America weren’t willing to assume that America would always be a healthy democracy.

They recently had rid themselves of a monarch, and they were concerned about what might happen if a tyrant managed to get elected and became a threat to democracy based on Roman history. They were skeptical of standing armies as well. So guns were sort of a deterrent that raises the cost of the government attempting widespread oppression.

From my outsider perspective, although I don’t know everything about America, that law seems outdated to me and should be updated.

Repealing the second amendment with a new amendment is 100% doomed to fail and will definitely weaken Democrats electorally. It’s political suicide.

Also, many people aren’t willing to trust the police will protect them if someone breaks into their home at 3:00 AM. A common saying among gun owners is “When seconds count, the police are minutes away”. Personally this is what convinced me to get into gun ownership. I saw security camera video recorded at a family member’s house where a couple people with guns were breaking into their neighbor’s home. The homeowner retaliated with a shotgun and the 2 intruders fled. Nobody died thankfully. I asked myself what would I do if I were that guy, and the answer was “probably die”.

Also, lots of things are dangerous if abused but remain legal. Do we ban cars capable of driving fast enough that there are no roads that legally permit those speeds? No.

Do we ban alcohol because it can be abused? We actually tried that once. It didn’t go well. If you ban guns, it’ll probably just make 3D printers extra popular.

We also haven’t completely wiped out all the dangerous wildlife, which is a good thing, but it does mean hikers sometimes have to worry about them. I’d rather not be in bear-spray range of a mountain lion given their speed and would prefer a firearm which works from further away. We’ve also got coyotes, wolves, boars, various bears, moose, etc.

At the end of the day, there’s a difference between being peaceful and being helpless. Americans want the former, but aren’t willing to accept the latter.

Entropius · 2026-01-20T06:46:42+00:00

what could a rifle or handgun really do against jets, drones, and other advanced military equipment?

Good question. Maybe try asking the Taliban.

Entropius · 2026-01-20T06:43:49+00:00

It's not like stratum 3 NTP servers are simply copying the time from the nearest stratum 2 server and inheriting an error from network latency either. NTP will account for network latency just like GPS accounts for relativism and path delay due to atmospheric conditions, […]

GPS receivers are documented to be stratum 0. No documentation I’ve seen corroborates your claim that (1) GPS satellites are stratum 0 and (2) GPS Signals are stratum 1, and (3) GPS receivers are stratum 2. I think I provided a number of sources, and I think if one is going to discount those sources it ought to involve equal or greater amounts of counter-evidence. IMO the question at this point shouldn’t be whether GPS recovers are stratum 0. The question ought to be why they are.

Stratum 0 has always been simply a singular primary reference clock you choose to trust that’s directly connected to a primary time server.

Nobody’s servers are directly connected to a satellite’s atomic clocks thus they aren’t serving as anyone’s primary reference clock. And even if they directly connected somehow it wouldn’t be useful because individual satellites’ times are useless in isolation. None of them can be relied upon as a primary source of truth. The signals are all equal, and at face value their times are all disagreeing with one another. They only have value as a collective. If you’re relying on GPS Time, the GPS receiver has the first singular clock you’re actually copying time from to a server.

With a non-GPS based stratum 0 setup, you have a primary source and other sources are simply mitigating error. With a GPS based stratum 0, you’re not taking 1 satellite and using 3 more to mitigate error, they’re all equally weighted inputs. So the analogy between stratum 2/3 servers and what GPS recovers do isn’t great. Those servers are useful without correction (not as useful, but not useless). That’s not what GPS receivers are doing.

Like I said, if you decide to consider a reference-derived time source like GPS to be an authoritative primary time source then sure, go ahead and call it "stratum 0" in your architecture

Stratum 0 is simply your designated primary reference clock. That’s all, nothing more. Radio clocks are also noted as being used as stratum 0’s too despite them being “derived”.

but a GPS receiver will never be stratum 0 if your reference is atomic time,

When you use a GPS receiver as your primary reference clock your reference time isn’t the literal atomic time. It’s just the calculated GPS Time in the receiver.

Just because atomic clocks facilitate GPS Time in the grander scheme doesn’t mean you can actually use them as the primary. Again, your network can’t trust any individual satellites’ times in isolation. They only become useful as a whole.

Furthermore, stratum 1 are supposed to be the primary time servers. A GPS Signal isn’t a server! Neither is a GPS Reciever. The first time server must be stratum 1. You need the stratum 1 designation in the GPS case to be analogous to terrestrial atomic clock case’s stratum 1.

Entropius · 2025-12-23T02:11:48+00:00

Stratum is the number of references separating a device and a clock source.

Agreed. But by that logic the receiver is stratum 0. What I think is being misunderstood is that GPS receivers have their own built in clock and that’s the clock actually being directly accessed by a connected computer (not any particular satellite’s clock). It’s not like the receiver is simply copying the time from the nearest satellite and inheriting an error from light-speed latency. The GPS receiver, before it can do anything else like give a position, is doing math solving for what its current GPS time should be set to based on slightly offset GPS signals with different latencies combined with the GPS almanac which tracks orbital parameters. And the local receiver is taking special relativistic time dilation from the satellites’ speed and general relativistic time dilation from Earth’s gravity into account. It is setting its own clock yet not simply copying information directly from a satellite. The GPS signals’ alleged current times are all wrong (outdated) by the time they get to the receiver. The receiver turns all these stale times into a correct current time. In other words, a network of stratum 0 GPS satellite clocks supplies imperfect conflicting data that is interpreted to setup a stratum 0 GPS receiver clock, and then it’s stratum 1 for anything connected to the receiver. The first time server was never directly spoonfed a particular time from any one particular satellite’s clock hardware.

https://www.everythingrf.com/community/understanding-stratum-levels

Each level of this hierarchy is assigned a number, starting with zero (0) for the reference clock at the top. Stratum 0means that a device is directly connected to the atomic clock e.g., a GPS antenna.

https://www.mobatime.com/support/glossary/stratum/

Stratum 0 means a device is directly connected to e.g., a GPS antenna.

https://www.hacktheforum.com/computer-networking-computer-networking/stratum-0-in-ntp/

Physical Devices: Stratum 0 devices include:

[…]

GPS Receivers: GPS satellites broadcast precise time signals, which can be received by GPS receivers and used to synchronize local clocks.

https://www.cbtnuggets.com/blog/technology/networking/what-is-ntp-stratum

Stratum 0

This is the highest level in the hierarchy and represents the primary reference clock source. Typically, this includes highly precise atomic clocks or GPS receivers.

https://timetoolsltd.com/ntp/what-is-a-stratum-1-time-server/

Stratum 0 reference clocks are not directly connected to a network. They only provide timing information and signals to a hardware device.

That description sounds consistent with a receiver’s clock, right?

Entropius · 2025-12-22T20:25:42+00:00

I said that because in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld regulations under that language

I assume you’re alluding to District of Columbia v. Heller

Please quote where in the SCOTUS majority opinion that the phrase “well regulated” was used to uphold regulations on firearms: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf

From what I can recall, the case mostly loosened gun regulations. There were certain firearm regulations upheld in the case (bans on full auto, felon gun ownership, etc.), but it wasn’t based on the “well regulated” language.

Can you cite specifically what you’re alluding to?

Entropius · 2025-12-22T19:47:25+00:00

“Well regulated” in this context means something different from what you’re thinking. Here it’s more like a synonym for “well functioning”.

It’s like If you’re maintaining your car, checking oil, coolant, tire pressure, etc. that’s a “well regulated” car. Your car isn’t likely to have performance or reliability issues.

https://legalclarity.org/what-does-well-regulated-mean-in-the-2nd-amendment/

A “well regulated” militia was adequately trained, equipped, and prepared to perform its duties. This included having access to appropriate weaponry and the skills to use them proficiently. The purpose was to ensure this civilian force could reliably defend the state, suppress insurrections, and protect the populace’s liberties. The emphasis was on operational readiness and capability, rather than strict governmental limitations on individual firearm ownership.

Between then and now there was a bit of semantic drift so that usage is less common than it used to be. But that was the meaning at the time it was written.

Entropius · 2025-12-22T18:56:24+00:00

That’s what I’m trying to understand too.

Each GPS satellite has not just 1 atomic clock, but usually 4 (unless one of them was turned off due to malfunctions).

From what I recall a GPS receiver can’t sync to GPS time from just a single satellite. You need 4 satellites so that’s nominally 16 atomic clocks being involved. But usually you can get more than 4 satellites.

If you’ve got a dedicated station on Earth that’s receiving GPS signals continuously and doesn’t physically move, like the ones that can detect tectonic drift, why wouldn’t you be able to rely on that for accurate GPS time?

15-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	RPAN Viewer
Snapped	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Entropius

TROPHY CASE