Ilverin

Suppose you are ethically allowed to do A (show ads), and are ethically allowed to do B (not show ads). Then you are ethically allowed to run an experiment in which the only thing you do is A or B.

You can definitely argue that showing ads (or certain ads) is ethically bad. You can also argue that there should be legal requirements for ethics reviews on all research (which is not currently the law).

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13923/the-amd-radeon-vii-revi...

(Also yield decrease per transistor added is nonlinear, so going from a 331 square mm to say 495 square mm would probably decrease yields by roughly half, even though number of transistors would be less than doubled).

So AMD can save money by putting extra memory rather than gpu silicon because the memory costs less than gpu silicon.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/07/amd-radeon-vii-review-vi...

The reason guaranteed small-scale trade orders are valuable is because they are a way to avoid 'salami tactics' which involve slowly building up to a large order. By the end of a larger order the price will have moved, and the earlier 'sliced' traders will be disappointed.

In reality, the Saudis have no realistic plan to win in Yemen, so helping them will not end the war anytime soon. In the meantime, Yemen has the worst famine in the last 100 years.

Alternative: You can believe that circumstances dictate if the military is doing good or bad things. If the military is doing bad things, it is a reasonable argument to oppose them. Clearest example is Yemen.

A less clear and debateable example is: the excessive size of the US military may cause other countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to build up their own militaries to defend themselves when they would otherwise reduce their military spending. In some cases, mutual disarmament can work, however, it hasn't been tried sufficiently hard (e.g. USA hasn't ever proposed reducing its number of aircraft carriers by treaty, so carriers require asymmetrical warfare capability in order to deter aggression from USA).

In Case A, google wins the bid, they gain the ad space, but gain no revenue.

In Case B, google does not win the bid, they lose the ad space, but do gain revenue.

Revenue and ad space are mutually exclusive, each is the opportunity cost of the other. Yes, in both cases google wins, but that is because google is the reason the ad space exists in the first place.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/urban_legends/henry_fords...

Yes, the policies you describe do boost demand and that does cause inflation, but the supply side is not irrelevant. Less NIMBYism will help with housing costs, and maybe some reform could help with education supply. If demand is increasing (for example due to population growth and finance), ideally supply should also be able to increase.

Basically, for every unemployed worker in the USA, there's a Chinese worker who benefited. In addition there are new jobs in the USA (such as in entertainment or banking or information technology).

For this reason, both countries benefit in aggregate but if outcompeted workers fail to adjust to a different job, specific workers can suffer (like Mexican farmers suffered from NAFTA).

Economists favor free trade, but they also favor redistribution of some of the gains of trade to the losers (this redistribution hasn't been done historically).

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/china-us-trade

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with....

According to economists, over the "long term", profits tend to 0%. Wireline technologies are quite old, it seems the long term is here.

"Humanity seems to have a bright future, i.e., a non-trivial chance of expanding to fill the universe with lasting life. But the fact that space near us seems dead now tells us that any given piece of dead matter faces an astronomically low chance of begating such a future. There thus exists a great filter between death and expanding lasting life, and humanity faces the ominous question: how far along this filter are we?

"Combining standard stories of biologists, astronomers, physicists, and social scientists would lead us to expect a much smaller filter than we observe. Thus one of these stories must be wrong. To find out who is wrong, and to inform our choices, we should study and reconsider all these areas."

I'm not sure what Netflix's official stance is on net neutrality, but it's possible Mr. Cuban thinks this way.

Over the past centuries, human life expectancy has increased greatly and yet we have a much higher quality of life. It's an extraordinary claim to suggest that the continuance of this already-existing trend is 'almost guaranteed to be a disaster'.

The harpoons failed to deploy leading the lander to bounce off of its landing target and land in a crater where the solar panels intended to increase its battery life had limited sunlight. http://www.vox.com/2014/11/13/7214941/philae-comet-rosetta

)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans#Earliest...

My understanding is that the only way the treaty actually comes into effect for its main participant (the USA) is a vote in the Senate, which would make it a public treaty.

Or does the domain of 'secret treaty' include all treaties that were at one point secret (such as during the negotiations)? Doesn't this make the majority of significant treaties 'secret treaties'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Sum

In any case, the costs are going down, the number of cores are growing, and, more importantly, computing power is not restricted to CPUs (see GPUs/APUs).