Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
Why do they keep insisting on humanoid? Just give me the crushinator to do chores for $10,000.
Because a humanoid robot can theoretically do all the things humans can do, using appliances designed for humans to operate.
I felt like robo simian made sense for versatility. I can see some thing that is more like a carbon atom so it can naturally tripod but can go to 2 or even one limb as base and have more grasping limbs.
Non-humanoids can theoretically do that too.
"Non-humanoids" is an incredibly broad description. For example, a Roomba can't empty your dishwasher. But a humanoid robot can use your existing human vacuum to clean the floors.
Yes that's the whole point. They're forcibly thinking in humanoid forms, while I dont care about form, I care about function. Make shit that's useful, and I dont care what package it comes in. In the vast majority of use cases it's incredibly cumbersome to have it in bipedal form; you to have reserve cpu power/mechanics/power for balance and shit, while not at all necessary for the tasks at hand.
...what? Is your point?
They are largely the same in this case.
You said non-humanoid is a broad description like it's a negative. It's not. Fixating on making the robot humanoid unnecessarily narrows it down. Form and function are by definition not the same, so I don't understand what you mean by that. But I'm got going to stop because it seems.you're intentionally obtuse.
No, I said it like it's a meaningless phrase.
Its not a fixation. Its simple logic that I've already explained. Everything we own is designed to be used by humans, so creating a humanoid robot makes them extremely versatile.
That's not correct at all. Function is very largely tied to form, especially in the case of robotics.
This is not the argument clinic.
What does that even mean?
Then… don’t ask a question and argue with someone when they give a plausible answer, maybe?
It was a rhetorical question, smartass