There's another factor to consider: If what you physically own requires a proprietary platform to play or operate, then you don't actually own it. The platform can change the rules at any time, requiring an arbitrary number of steps or payments, or limiting features through forced updates as soon as the media is inserted. Technology cannot solve what is fundamentally a legislation problem.
I get that involving a human body complicates the analysis. That was the point: that you can’t appeal to it as a simple example to ground the intuition in other case.
Not really, if the job lasts 30 years it will absolutely offset itself with local economic activity. These people will pay taxes, buy homes, visit doctors and much more.
Wrong on all points. Iran has already used anti-ship ballistic missiles. They might not be as advanced as China's but they appear to work, and in confined areas the targeting can be done using mobile shore-based radars.
Even setting the ballistic missile threat aside, LCS can't defend itself against regular drones and cruise missiles. It's severely limited in terms of sensors, fire control, and magazine depth. In order to operate in that area with reasonable survivability it would have to be escorted by a more capable surface warship with area air defense.
People have trouble pricing it because they do actual new engineering and don't spend time and money making the stock price wherever they want it. All the other F500s are owned by the same few companies and all the board members are the same.
Wall Street has never understood engineering. Eventually Tesla will pull a Boeing, GE, Ford, etc- lose the founder of founder's influence, get taken over by suits, and slowly die but hang on by playing the financial games.
Exercise will help. It's Physics, it's not an opinion based thing that works for some people and not others. It's energy in vs energy out. If you simply eat less calories then you exercise/use, you WILL lose weight.
I don't get this weird thing people do where they act like their bodies don't follow the laws of conservation of energy.
A good article about a genuinely great and important book. One quibble.
> Lukashenka knew that arresting children for eating ice cream would make him a laughingstock abroad. Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire.
I don't think they think that. People this powerful who choose to surround themselves with fawning sycophants are undoubtably being told daily that the whole world is understanding and routing for them in their "perfectly reasonable response to these vicious attacks."
The subtext is the most interesting part. If Masa Son thinks it's bullshit, there's probably a lot more bullshit to it than just the orbital data centers. We've gone from flooding zone with stuff that makes it seem any bullshit is possible, to the vibe that maybe someone has thrown a $2 trillion turd into the punch bowl.
It's sad that people can't be satisfied with the most reliable medium lift rocket that can be launched at an amazing cadence, and a working satellite Internet connection, albeit one that can't really compete with terrestrial wireless. But no, you've got to build a cult, back fascist politicians, vandalize the government services that make things run smoothly and support science, and make the normies suspicious of tech if they don't outright hate it. Feh.
Is this article targeted just to an American audience? Because the US isolationism will only hurt them. Unless they truly have achieved AGI or ASI, the Chinese models soon will catch up. I'm pretty sure we will have an open weights frontier model this year.
As a very general statement, there's a cost to having laws exist. A law that stops one human-scale action ever is very unlikely to be worth the overhead.
Most have been lost already, before AI came around. The most important skills are genetically coded and can never be lost. Otherwise we would have exterminated ourselves a million years ago already.
However, all the evidence is that the vast majority of people fail at changing their habits in ways that produce lasting weight loss, so it does not generally work as advice for reducing your weight.
So you're technically right, but it is irrelevant, because we don't know how to actually get people to change habits with any meaningful rate of success.
At this point it is downright harmful and wildly unethical to recommend it when we now have a far more successful option.
Training is the least of my worries. They’ve got the single most valuable treasure trove of ad targeting data the world has ever seen. People type way too much personal stuff into these text boxes.
That trove that they “can’t” sell is going to get a lot of attention when they’re trying to hit quarterly numbers.
Heck, is it even against the current agreements for them to spin up their own Adsense network and serve personalized ads? They wouldn’t be selling your data, just Showing You More Relevant Ads™
Don't confuse the creators and maintainers with people who click on a link out of curiosity. I also briefly "walked by the window" glancing at cats using automated feeders in china when someone posted that page to HN recently.
I'm surprised this is still a thing though. I remember being shocked when I came across an extensive feed of these inadvertently pubic CCTV feeds ~15 years ago. I had assumed it was no longer a problem.
> HEB operates a similar model to Costco in being more expensive to the customer in a subtle way, through desirability. Their products are so interesting and appetizing that I go in with the intention of buying $30 of groceries and leave with a $100 load.
Costco groceries are expensive because you're forced to buy in bulk. You can leave HEB with 1 tube of toothpaste or a single potato. You can't leave Costco with fewer than 5 tubes of toothpaste or several pounds of potatoes.
> I thought a wicket is what you call an out? Now it’s something else, too?
It's a metonym.
The actual wicket is the wooden things the bowler is trying to hit. Because hitting the wicket eliminates the batter, the word is also used colloquially to refer to an out.
