The interesting part about saying the market is efficient is that currently, the market is headed for optimal extinction.
The better model has always been to treat money as a zero net worth system that cannot be used to carry value into the future at no cost because such an idea inherently contradicts the biological reality that human societies and their economies are built upon.
The consequences of using money as a "store of value" are so predictable and inevitable that I'm honestly tired of explaining it over and over again.
If you can carry money into the future but not the real physical equivalent it is the representative of, then the difference is a loss that is not yet reflected in the state of money. Your decision making will be suboptimal as a direct consequence.
This isn't something that can be swept under the rug or hand waved away.
It's no different than rust eating itself through your car. If you ignore the damage when it is small, the repair will be more expensive later on.
Meanwhile the economic model says, it is impossible for the condition of the car to get worse through a mere passage of time as that violates the idea of pure time preference theory and the idea of interest being a reward for abstaining from consumption. All of these are purely ideological wishful thinking. They basically claim that everything must get better through the passage of time and that rust doesn't exist.
Consider a society where rusting as a phenomenon was illegal to express. You would be allowed to talk about holes in the chassis but not be allowed to invent a primer or clear coat that effectively prevents rust since rust as a problem does not officially exist. Your attempt to avoid rust through economic expenditures would be considered value destruction.
Importantly, "adjusting budgets" here is for most companies, you know the ones you have to fight to event get an IDE license, a euphemism for zeroing the budget.
> Ever wondered what NPR's code of journalistic ethics involves for the newsroom?
I have been thinking a lot through the years about the choice between joirnalistic ethics and journalistic activism in the ranks of organizations like NPR. This is an extremely important topic because today's media are as impactful politically as the "regular" political process.
My point is, such discussion would not make me sleepy, the opposite would happen.
the idea is that you don't have half of all companies all share the same liability of a single cloud provider who is half-arsing it because of their monopoly position.
Offhand, Ulysses S. Grant had a scandal ridden presidency (1869 - 1877) with multiple large scale corruption examples all headed by his closest associates.
There was some goings on related to foreign territories and annexation that I don't well recall, but to this day Grant's degree of involvement is debated - he tolerated much corruption from his personal secretary, defended him, and steered corruption investigations away until eventually removing Babcock(?) from his post.
Much pressure was exerted during this period, I hazard some of that pressure was via threats to persons, their assets, and perhaps their families.
For macOS and iOS, you can create a profile to configure which DNS server you want to use at all times (including across different Wi-Fi networks and mobile data). See:
A sysex librarian for $230 per year? For a small number of machines which are getting rarer and rarer? Who are your prospects? I hope you support plain .syx downloads, because at that price, you're bound to go under, and your users will want their data when that happens.
In fact, money is printing every day more and more. So technically there is more of them every day. Which decrease their value and then we have inflation.
Isn't this the underlying phenomena as to why free markets outperform managed markets. Because theoretically the controlled market can be much more efficient than the free market, you know, because people don't have to fight each other for their share of the market all the time. But they never are. Why? Because nobody has to understand the market for it to work, everybody just pushes and the market molds itself into the form it needs. Where a controlled market operates under the illusion that it can be understood.
I can't but agree. Either the Gerald Ford was not in shape for a conflict, or it was taken out. Our navy kept a good distance from the conflict and it seems pretty obvious why: these ships are expensive and the drones that could come in en-mass are cheap. Iran never showed the medium range ballistic missiles that were one of the given excuses to start a war.
I would point the finger at the head of the DOD, who does not seem to be qualified for the job. After his massive gathering of the top brass and the messaging shared therein, I'm seeing a dissonance of action promised and action shown. Piss Poor Planning.
I am under the opinion that this war should never have started, just to be clear. This is a mis-use of all our military resources, and insulting to our service men and women.
Most likely, this (reverse engineering) is one of the numerous things these LLM companies target. You can also assume all of the internet has been slurped up in to any frontier model. That doesn't mean what you want will be a one shot prompt though...
Commentators typically know more than players. But in any case, the article quite literally contradicts you. The New Zealand captain believed it to be illegal and the commentator said “you can’t do that,” implying he believed it to be illegal at first.
I just want you to know that I perceive a very low level of politeness toward me in this exchange. I put thought into my responses and it seems like in return I’m being called ignorant and stupid.
If you’re interested in trying to have a productive discussion I’ll leave you with this question: can you imagine a scenario where a group of people online overreacts to very boring set of functional telemetry that is collected for a very specific purpose?
Basically, my thoughts on the subject are that for the 20+ years of Windows telemetry being around, the surveillance state hypotheticals don’t seem to have played out. It seems like the whole intent of it is to figure out how to combat malware at scale. Plus, you’ve always been able to turn off the this telemetry and the linked paper verifies that turning it off is a functional option.
What about quality though? Some people produce a lot of writing or music for years and it all sucks. Maybe while you're producing a lot you should also try to improve quality, to the extent that it doesn't stop you from producing. But I don't know how to find the right balance on this.
It would represent a pretty sharp inversion from all the progress of mathematical physics until the present.
Up until the present it has been a nearly uniform march of revealed symmetries, collapsed privileged frames of reference, and other such (in the deepest sense) simplifications in our model of reality that has improved its fidelity to the measurable.
I hang qualifier about these developments being simplifying because the result isn't simple in the details: quantum chromodynamics is a daunting subject! But it's not just an enumeration of details and contradictions, the particle zoo that preceded the Eightfold Way looked like line noise, now in indexed notation the Lagrangian of the entire Standard Model fits on a page (or so I've been told I've never actually seen the page).
It's almost tautological that the frontier where it's still messy involves an unrevealed symmetry or a persistent privileged frame of reference, that's what frontier means, we don't see past it to the seam where it folds up.
Personally I suspect AI systems will be a great deal more inclined to discard the parochial axioms that have every point placed human ego above simplicity.
It doesn't resolve all of the open problems in physics if you amputate consciousness, free will, agency persistent identity, and an unambiguous arrow of time.
I did, as an exercise. Work kept me from sticking with it. I deeply regret not staying with it for physical fitness. Bummer too, my instructor became 9th Dan.
Is this true even for more targeted prompts that aren't about looking over an entire codebase or w/e? I just stick to my sub pricing and find good success on targeted requests, but I wonder if I would run up against things even then if not for subsidies.
You are injecting a lot of assumptions and wishful thinking to view the removal of ownership from this equation as a net positive.
I see no reason to assume that this would lead to the disappearance of parked cars or to more trees. Our corporate overlords will want to make use of that space for more cars or infrastructure to support the new car network, why would they ever just give it back willingly?
The better model has always been to treat money as a zero net worth system that cannot be used to carry value into the future at no cost because such an idea inherently contradicts the biological reality that human societies and their economies are built upon.
The consequences of using money as a "store of value" are so predictable and inevitable that I'm honestly tired of explaining it over and over again.
If you can carry money into the future but not the real physical equivalent it is the representative of, then the difference is a loss that is not yet reflected in the state of money. Your decision making will be suboptimal as a direct consequence.
This isn't something that can be swept under the rug or hand waved away.
It's no different than rust eating itself through your car. If you ignore the damage when it is small, the repair will be more expensive later on.
Meanwhile the economic model says, it is impossible for the condition of the car to get worse through a mere passage of time as that violates the idea of pure time preference theory and the idea of interest being a reward for abstaining from consumption. All of these are purely ideological wishful thinking. They basically claim that everything must get better through the passage of time and that rust doesn't exist.
Consider a society where rusting as a phenomenon was illegal to express. You would be allowed to talk about holes in the chassis but not be allowed to invent a primer or clear coat that effectively prevents rust since rust as a problem does not officially exist. Your attempt to avoid rust through economic expenditures would be considered value destruction.