When you start seeing companies changing their names to include AI, start cashing out your investments. Similar to the.com bubble, and the craze over a company name having *-tronics in the 1960's (including ones having NOTHING to do with electronics), from what I remember reading.
FTA: "Neither pass poses any threat, according to NASA."
It would be hilarious if that collision will suddenly change the asteroid's path to collide with Earth.
OMFG, THIS!!!! People forget that the states are free to follow their own guidelines. If you don't like how things are done in your state, vote or move somewhere else. Really that simple.
NPR (most stations) | Listen Money Matters | Stuff You Should Know | Ben Greenfield | Optimal Life Daily | Optimal Finance Daily | Optimal Health Daily | Brain Stuff | Psychiatry Today | Physics World
Data-hungry, so these are on my list. I just added some from here now:
Security Now | Freakonomics | O'Reilly (Data and Security)
I'm afraid to ask for suggestions, but please do share.
Saving money wasn't my main reason for staying off cable; it just didn't make sense to pay for TV AND still be hit with commercials. And, in NYC, having to pay a sports tax for crap I don't even care about. Yeah, I'll stick to Netflix.
There will be a study claiming that streaming services keep us on the couch longer; thereby making it unhealthy.
From the article, it looks like they may be looking at cost deducted from revenue. But how about the market impact? Wouldn't their overall net worth suffer an immediate blow too? Optimistically, it would recover over some time, but still leaves a stain in the company's image that may drive some investors away. But I'm sure they've accounted for this.
So, what do we need them for then? We already make our own robots. I guess we've reached peak population finally. I also read that most millennials do not want children (no source, sorry). With good reason, I'd say.
This!
I just posted this below, but I'll repeat here:
Should we cast blame on employers? What if we saw true numbers, and judge by those. I would be interested more in the applicants, than the ones hired. Could it be that simply there's that many less minority/female applicants? Of those minority/female applicants, how many get hired? This is a better number to look at, IMHO. I would guess that the number of white male applicants is just that much higher, so they would obviously have greater probability. Not fair that employers should have to increase their hiring from such a smaller pool. But, that's just my $.02.
Should we cast blame on employers?
What if we saw true numbers, and judge by those. I would be interested more in the applicants, than the ones hired. Could it be that simply there's that many less minority/female applicants? Of those minority/female applicants, how many get hired? This is a better number to look at, IMHO. I would guess that the number of white male applicants is just that much higher, so they would obviously have greater probability.
Not fair that employers should have to increase their hiring from such a smaller pool. But, that's just my $.02.
Slashdot Mirror
When you start seeing companies changing their names to include AI, start cashing out your investments. Similar to the .com bubble, and the craze over a company name having *-tronics in the 1960's (including ones having NOTHING to do with electronics), from what I remember reading.
FTA: "Neither pass poses any threat, according to NASA." It would be hilarious if that collision will suddenly change the asteroid's path to collide with Earth.
OMFG, THIS!!!! People forget that the states are free to follow their own guidelines. If you don't like how things are done in your state, vote or move somewhere else. Really that simple.
NPR (most stations) | Listen Money Matters | Stuff You Should Know | Ben Greenfield | Optimal Life Daily | Optimal Finance Daily | Optimal Health Daily | Brain Stuff | Psychiatry Today | Physics World Data-hungry, so these are on my list. I just added some from here now: Security Now | Freakonomics | O'Reilly (Data and Security) I'm afraid to ask for suggestions, but please do share.
Just offer $5 discount upon agreement to allow them to share your data.
They should also reconsider paying the over-the-air networks for content. How did this happen? The networks charge Cable AND still show commercials?
Saving money wasn't my main reason for staying off cable; it just didn't make sense to pay for TV AND still be hit with commercials. And, in NYC, having to pay a sports tax for crap I don't even care about. Yeah, I'll stick to Netflix. There will be a study claiming that streaming services keep us on the couch longer; thereby making it unhealthy.
From the article, it looks like they may be looking at cost deducted from revenue. But how about the market impact? Wouldn't their overall net worth suffer an immediate blow too? Optimistically, it would recover over some time, but still leaves a stain in the company's image that may drive some investors away. But I'm sure they've accounted for this.
Meh, if(this) { //stuff here
}
No. Depending on the editor, you can substitute tabs with x number of spaces, so every tab is actually two spaces; I prefer two spaces/tab.
+1 to you, sir. I came here, CTRL-f: "sparrow", and glad to see this referenced here.
So, what do we need them for then? We already make our own robots. I guess we've reached peak population finally. I also read that most millennials do not want children (no source, sorry). With good reason, I'd say.
This! I just posted this below, but I'll repeat here: Should we cast blame on employers? What if we saw true numbers, and judge by those. I would be interested more in the applicants, than the ones hired. Could it be that simply there's that many less minority/female applicants? Of those minority/female applicants, how many get hired? This is a better number to look at, IMHO. I would guess that the number of white male applicants is just that much higher, so they would obviously have greater probability. Not fair that employers should have to increase their hiring from such a smaller pool. But, that's just my $.02.
Should we cast blame on employers? What if we saw true numbers, and judge by those. I would be interested more in the applicants, than the ones hired. Could it be that simply there's that many less minority/female applicants? Of those minority/female applicants, how many get hired? This is a better number to look at, IMHO. I would guess that the number of white male applicants is just that much higher, so they would obviously have greater probability. Not fair that employers should have to increase their hiring from such a smaller pool. But, that's just my $.02.
Let's make it equally hazardous for women as it is for men. Of course, why would they start this battle?