It's really hard to compete when people are willing to work for free just for the experience and a recommendation letter.
Or, he spent his own time and money to do something that he thought was important, but nobody else with money thought was important enough to do or pay someone to do.
Nobody owes you a job, and certainly nobody owes you a free 3D digitized map of anywhere on the face of the earth you desire. Stop whining on an anonymous internet discussion and go do something half as inspirational as this.
Approximately 420,000 federal employees continued to work through the shutdown. The handful of employees needed to handle this certainly could have been deemed "essential" as well under the circumstances.
This is just a cynical political decision to suspend a high-visibility, low-cost service to try to pressure the shutdown to end, exactly like the cynical political decision to barricade national monuments (and even disable the corresponding websites) during the 2013 shutdown.
We also need to get off this planet before we are wiped out by an asteroid or something.
I dunno -- somehow it seems a bit less comprehensively daunting to come up with a way to divert/destroy such an asteroid from our nice habitable planet than to solve the plethora of nearly intractable problems standing in our way of settling on a generally uninhabitable one.
FTFA -- it's not the best translation but doesn't feel like a translation issue:
Participants will receive unconditionally the amount from whatever sanctions they will be subject to by job centers (e.g.: by not responding to certain job offers or refusing to get suggested training actions); Sanktionsfrei will always try to recover the sanction money through legal action, and if it does, the participant will transfer the contested amount back to Sanktionsfrei. Otherwise, each participant gets, for the whole time period of the experiment, the full amount of their social security benefits, no questions asked.
I'm playing competitive FPS against people on high-end gaming machines and consoles and they don't notice except that I'm always just above them on the leader boards.
Ah, Jim -- I do have to credit you with adjusting your game and now generally constraining the tall tales to ones that are completely impervious to fact checking. Merry Christmas!
Most of the Dems don't really have a solution besides "consume less", which would be great if a) the vast majority of pollution was from consumers and not the companies they buy from
Careful, now... this is vying with your long-lived (and never documented) canard about broadband costing ISPs $9/month for the dubious honor of being one of the dumbest things you've ever said. In the real world the rest of us live in, companies don't keep steadfastly churning out the same volume of products regardless of long-term demand.
The question isn't whether there's a greater fool in existence who's willing to buy stock at a multiple of a company's cash on hand (or a company's value, for that matter). The question is whether cash on hand increases the value of a company beyond the amount of cash on hand. Any basic textbook you care to pick up will readily confirm that it doesn't.
which will itself be a major driver of ongoing revenue
This is closer in that future cash flow is one factor that can be used to calculate enterprise value, but since Starlink has been in the pipeline for quite a while, whatever future cash flow it was projected to generate should have already been baked into the $27.5 billion valuation in October. And that's my point -- there's nothing new here to justify a $3B increase in valuation other than a $0.5B increase in cash on hand.
So its valuation earlier this year was externally estimated to be $26 billion and just two months ago was self-reported at 27.5 billion, and securing an additional half billion in funding suddenly pops it to $30.5?
Where I live, the delivery guys ring the door bell, hands over the package, and takes my name and signature as proof of delivery.
Where I live, delivery services have to run throughout the day to get everything delivered, and not many people either work from home or sit around at their house all day waiting for deliveries.
I've read about a dozen articles now, and every single one talks about there being a final agreement (some say a "rulebook") and talks in broad contours about the contents, but not a single one suggests that anyone has a copy of what was actually negotiated/agreed upon. That's more than a bit interesting given the broad range of documents that routinely get leaked to the press and the stupefyingly broad worldwide implications of this particular document.
I don't think a lawyer can just sue on behalf of the government.
No, but a lawyer can sue on behalf of a bunch of farmers. That's the class action bit.
Cause it's the government that got screwed over, not the farmers. Or rather, the farmers got screwed, but they only violated the contract with the government.
If the ISPs violating the contract with the government screwed the farmers, that starts to sound an awful lot like the farmers were third-party beneficiaries under the contract. That could give them standing to sue.
we sue AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon for the $400 billion of public funding they already received for rural broadband and just pocketed
If the amount of money were even close to that level and the case for liability even close to that clear, any number of creative and enterprising class action lawyers would have swarmed over this a long time ago.
"Default Autopilot behavior, if there's no driver input, is to slow gradually to a stop & turn on hazard lights," Musk explained in the replies.
If that's even close to true, then why in the world did the Tesla in question (the one that supposedly prompted his response) continue to drive for over 7 minutes before essentially being corralled into a stop by police cars? Something doesn't add up.
Autopilot lanekeeping & collision-avoidance is now better on average at avoiding accidents than most human drivers.
This (along with the assumption that autopilot is always going to be operational and operate as intended) is clearly the assumption underlying your entire post, and I'd be surprised if you have any real data to back that. If you'd like to share some, I'd be happy to look at it. (Remember, it has to span a reasonable sample of all potential weather conditions, road conditions, and routes, not just a cherry-picked sandbox.)
A car stopped on the shoulder creates an active road hazard for everyone else.
Limited-access highways are designed with emergency breakdown lanes that put the car completely out of the travel lanes. The only reason a car outside the travel lanes would cause a hazard to people inside the travel lanes is if the people inside the travel lanes are driving unsafely.
Again, where's the data to show that keeping a 2018 semi-autonomous vehicle rolling down the highway without a conscious driver is safer in the aggregate than pulling that car to the side of the road?
This is what they've arrived at as the best balance between "encouraging people to actually use it" and "discouraging inattentive driving".
If Tesla deliberately programmed Autopilot to go more than 7 minutes (remember, the car STILL hadn't begun to stop on its own by then) without meaningful driver feedback because they were afraid people wouldn't use Autopilot if it had more frequent safety checks, it's just a matter of time before they get on the wrong side of a massive civil negligence suit. That's ridiculous, imprudent, and worst (as you point out), it's a deliberate crippling of safety checks that already existed in the past.
When a drunk passes out at the wheel, would you rather the car just crash?
Yet another one of your classic false choices. When a drunk passes out at the wheel (a sober person falls asleep, has a heart attack, etc.), I'd rather the car come to a controlled stop (pulling over to the side of the road as it does so, if that doesn't put too much of a strain on the technology) in FAR LESS than 7 minutes.
Plus, for most plots of land you have a number of opportunities to find a 3x3m square named something memorable/apropos. For example, on the Apple campus there's burn.count.mint, stable.elite,hype, owners.lift.bronze, and so on.
This is how science is supposed to work; although, ideally, the errors are caught prior to publication - the process still worked correctly.
The problem isn't the science per se -- it's how hard it is to unring the bell outside the scientific community. The media, and therefore the public, got whipped into a hot lather over the initial study. Google "oceans warming faster than anticipated" (even in quotes) to see how pervasively it spread in both the press and social media.
I'm quite comfortable the retraction will not be trumpeted a fraction as loudly, and even if it were, that a large percentage of people who read the initial headlines and ran around screaming bloody murder would largely stay silent.
That's how the news cycle works (and it's well understood to work that way), and thus a supposedly reputable journal racing to publication with shoddy work like this is grossly negligent at best.
TFA is clear they're not offering the same service for less -- they're offering less service for less:
Netflix offers subscriptions at three price levels, and doesn’t plan to lower that of its cheapest tier. Instead, executives are formulating an alternate version of the service, or a fourth tier, that will have different features and cost less.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really hard to compete when people are willing to work for free just for the experience and a recommendation letter.
Or, he spent his own time and money to do something that he thought was important, but nobody else with money thought was important enough to do or pay someone to do.
Nobody owes you a job, and certainly nobody owes you a free 3D digitized map of anywhere on the face of the earth you desire. Stop whining on an anonymous internet discussion and go do something half as inspirational as this.
Approximately 420,000 federal employees continued to work through the shutdown. The handful of employees needed to handle this certainly could have been deemed "essential" as well under the circumstances.
This is just a cynical political decision to suspend a high-visibility, low-cost service to try to pressure the shutdown to end, exactly like the cynical political decision to barricade national monuments (and even disable the corresponding websites) during the 2013 shutdown.
We also need to get off this planet before we are wiped out by an asteroid or something.
I dunno -- somehow it seems a bit less comprehensively daunting to come up with a way to divert/destroy such an asteroid from our nice habitable planet than to solve the plethora of nearly intractable problems standing in our way of settling on a generally uninhabitable one.
FTFA -- it's not the best translation but doesn't feel like a translation issue:
Participants will receive unconditionally the amount from whatever sanctions they will be subject to by job centers (e.g.: by not responding to certain job offers or refusing to get suggested training actions); Sanktionsfrei will always try to recover the sanction money through legal action, and if it does, the participant will transfer the contested amount back to Sanktionsfrei. Otherwise, each participant gets, for the whole time period of the experiment, the full amount of their social security benefits, no questions asked.
I'm playing competitive FPS against people on high-end gaming machines and consoles and they don't notice except that I'm always just above them on the leader boards.
Ah, Jim -- I do have to credit you with adjusting your game and now generally constraining the tall tales to ones that are completely impervious to fact checking. Merry Christmas!
Most of the Dems don't really have a solution besides "consume less", which would be great if a) the vast majority of pollution was from consumers and not the companies they buy from
Careful, now... this is vying with your long-lived (and never documented) canard about broadband costing ISPs $9/month for the dubious honor of being one of the dumbest things you've ever said. In the real world the rest of us live in, companies don't keep steadfastly churning out the same volume of products regardless of long-term demand.
Companies trade at a multiple of cash-on-hand
The question isn't whether there's a greater fool in existence who's willing to buy stock at a multiple of a company's cash on hand (or a company's value, for that matter). The question is whether cash on hand increases the value of a company beyond the amount of cash on hand. Any basic textbook you care to pick up will readily confirm that it doesn't.
which will itself be a major driver of ongoing revenue
This is closer in that future cash flow is one factor that can be used to calculate enterprise value, but since Starlink has been in the pipeline for quite a while, whatever future cash flow it was projected to generate should have already been baked into the $27.5 billion valuation in October. And that's my point -- there's nothing new here to justify a $3B increase in valuation other than a $0.5B increase in cash on hand.
So its valuation earlier this year was externally estimated to be $26 billion and just two months ago was self-reported at 27.5 billion, and securing an additional half billion in funding suddenly pops it to $30.5?
Ali G would be jealous.
Where I live, the delivery guys ring the door bell, hands over the package, and takes my name and signature as proof of delivery.
Where I live, delivery services have to run throughout the day to get everything delivered, and not many people either work from home or sit around at their house all day waiting for deliveries.
I've read about a dozen articles now, and every single one talks about there being a final agreement (some say a "rulebook") and talks in broad contours about the contents, but not a single one suggests that anyone has a copy of what was actually negotiated/agreed upon. That's more than a bit interesting given the broad range of documents that routinely get leaked to the press and the stupefyingly broad worldwide implications of this particular document.
I don't think a lawyer can just sue on behalf of the government.
No, but a lawyer can sue on behalf of a bunch of farmers. That's the class action bit.
Cause it's the government that got screwed over, not the farmers. Or rather, the farmers got screwed, but they only violated the contract with the government.
If the ISPs violating the contract with the government screwed the farmers, that starts to sound an awful lot like the farmers were third-party beneficiaries under the contract. That could give them standing to sue.
we sue AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon for the $400 billion of public funding they already received for rural broadband and just pocketed
If the amount of money were even close to that level and the case for liability even close to that clear, any number of creative and enterprising class action lawyers would have swarmed over this a long time ago.
"Default Autopilot behavior, if there's no driver input, is to slow gradually to a stop & turn on hazard lights," Musk explained in the replies.
If that's even close to true, then why in the world did the Tesla in question (the one that supposedly prompted his response) continue to drive for over 7 minutes before essentially being corralled into a stop by police cars? Something doesn't add up.
Autopilot lanekeeping & collision-avoidance is now better on average at avoiding accidents than most human drivers.
This (along with the assumption that autopilot is always going to be operational and operate as intended) is clearly the assumption underlying your entire post, and I'd be surprised if you have any real data to back that. If you'd like to share some, I'd be happy to look at it. (Remember, it has to span a reasonable sample of all potential weather conditions, road conditions, and routes, not just a cherry-picked sandbox.)
A car stopped on the shoulder creates an active road hazard for everyone else.
Limited-access highways are designed with emergency breakdown lanes that put the car completely out of the travel lanes. The only reason a car outside the travel lanes would cause a hazard to people inside the travel lanes is if the people inside the travel lanes are driving unsafely.
Again, where's the data to show that keeping a 2018 semi-autonomous vehicle rolling down the highway without a conscious driver is safer in the aggregate than pulling that car to the side of the road?
Following lines & not colliding is easy.
Yeah. Just ask Joshua Brown.
This is what they've arrived at as the best balance between "encouraging people to actually use it" and "discouraging inattentive driving".
If Tesla deliberately programmed Autopilot to go more than 7 minutes (remember, the car STILL hadn't begun to stop on its own by then) without meaningful driver feedback because they were afraid people wouldn't use Autopilot if it had more frequent safety checks, it's just a matter of time before they get on the wrong side of a massive civil negligence suit. That's ridiculous, imprudent, and worst (as you point out), it's a deliberate crippling of safety checks that already existed in the past.
When a drunk passes out at the wheel, would you rather the car just crash?
Yet another one of your classic false choices. When a drunk passes out at the wheel (a sober person falls asleep, has a heart attack, etc.), I'd rather the car come to a controlled stop (pulling over to the side of the road as it does so, if that doesn't put too much of a strain on the technology) in FAR LESS than 7 minutes.
Plus, for most plots of land you have a number of opportunities to find a 3x3m square named something memorable/apropos. For example, on the Apple campus there's burn.count.mint, stable.elite,hype, owners.lift.bronze, and so on.
A lot of people in rural areas were hoping that Trump would help them as their industries declined, but it was false hope.
That's a very popular platitude, but the facts seem to be pointing in a different direction.
and even where action is possible it takes many years and long term policies
To the extent that's true, that's even more reason not to throw out words like "false hope" this early in the game.
It's certainly not been the real kind in my experience.
20 years from desktop to pocket sounds pretty impressive to me!!
Epic troll, dude. The first friggin' iPhone 10+ years ago had more processing power than a typical 1990s desktop. +5 insightful indeed.
Golf clap.
So much emotional capital wasted that could've been spent harassing his ex-wife.
What, did Sanja finally move on? That could explain why he's been extra cranky lately.
This is how science is supposed to work; although, ideally, the errors are caught prior to publication - the process still worked correctly.
The problem isn't the science per se -- it's how hard it is to unring the bell outside the scientific community. The media, and therefore the public, got whipped into a hot lather over the initial study. Google "oceans warming faster than anticipated" (even in quotes) to see how pervasively it spread in both the press and social media.
I'm quite comfortable the retraction will not be trumpeted a fraction as loudly, and even if it were, that a large percentage of people who read the initial headlines and ran around screaming bloody murder would largely stay silent.
That's how the news cycle works (and it's well understood to work that way), and thus a supposedly reputable journal racing to publication with shoddy work like this is grossly negligent at best.
And then there's the correlation between spending too much time on Slashdot and... whatever this is.
TFA is clear they're not offering the same service for less -- they're offering less service for less:
Netflix offers subscriptions at three price levels, and doesn’t plan to lower that of its cheapest tier. Instead, executives are formulating an alternate version of the service, or a fourth tier, that will have different features and cost less.
the illustrious position that chess holds over all other forms of game
Go called -- it wants its elitist snobbery back.