vaguerant

I like how the author says Google killed the Fitbit Sense so they could sell an inferior product without having to compete … then said author reluctantly buys and recommends that inferior product. I’m way pettier than that. I’d use anything else, even if it sucked, rather than directly reward a company for fucking me over.

Lemmy.World specifically forbids any sort of discrimination against queer groups on this site.

You’re in violation of the terms of your instance, I guess we’ll see how that goes.

Both things are technically true: the article is primarily made up of content literally written by the company or people contracted by them for PR purposes, and it is a Good Article (Wikipedia jargon for having passed a review of certain quality standards around writing, coverage and sourcing, but not the higher standard required to be classed as a Featured Article).

How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject. Does Juniper Networks have any bad practices which the article omits because the people who researched it (i.e. Juniper Networks) didn’t think they needed to go in the article? You’d basically need an independent observer to research anything that potentially should be in the article but isn’t there, but how many people that aren’t getting paid are invested in researching a corporate networking business?

There’s absolutely merit to Wikipedia having articles that are written by people paid to write them by their subjects, because a lot of it would otherwise be missing from Wikipedia entirely. But it’s also good to know that many articles are not necessarily written by impartial authors.

Now we know who dropped the bombs.

Mate, wtf is an old carburator?

Operation Clippy.

In fact, he could have just argued that he did spend the money on “white horse”.

The big headline is understandably that it crashes into a fake painted wall like a cartoon, but that’s not something that most drivers are likely to encounter on the road. The other two comparisons where lidar succeeded and cameras failed were the fog and rain tests, where the Tesla ran over a mannequin that was concealed from standard optical cameras by extreme weather conditions. Human eyes are obviously susceptible to the same conditions, but if the option is there, why not do better than human eyes?