This is certainly a factor with any investment, because they may only be able to effectively utilize a certain amount of assets. With that being said, I think that it is a reasonable expectation that investing into the area would inflate the values of the property in that area, which directly translates into increased tax revenue (profit). Obviously too much too quickly and you might run into the aforementioned limit of effective asset utilization, but that isn't what the author was suggesting.
That is pretty awesome. I've only worked remotely from a place where everybody is based in the same office, but I think your place addresses the big lack of social interactions that usually accompanies remote work.
On a side note, I'm also tangentially interested to see how VR can affect the remote workspace. I've used Bigscreen Beta (shared multiplayer lounge with virtual screens) with the Vive to work on a mutual side project with some friends and being able to see each other's screens by turning your head rather than by sharing with some program has also made the experience feel closer to in person work.
I don't mean to disagree with the entirety of your point, only that distribution is itself a problem to be solved. And even the organizations that you list are only designed to take it from willing donations to the desired causes. Each one of the customers not buying bottled water would need to separately perform the task of contacting one of these orgs and donating that money instead, every single time they would otherwise buy bottled water. That's also not counting any time or effort spent auditing potential donation targets for their ability to perform the stated goal.
The problem isn't total resources, it's effective resource allocation. Even if Americans spent $0 on bottled water next year, it still takes organization and effort to somehow divert all of those small bottled water purchases to a more noble task. That is why arguments about spending $X on one thing instead of another really only work if it is truly one entity spending that $X and could realistically divert it to a different goal.
Even if we accept the premise that he doesn't deserve any credit for his donations because it is his duty to society, I still find that it is more useful to admire and encourage this behavior from a practical standpoint. At the end of the day, after paying his taxes and nobody can legally lay claim to any of the money and wealth he possesses, he has no obligation to give any of that to anyone else or use it for any purpose whatsoever. So if admiring and applauding billionaires for donating even small portions of their wealth encourages billionaires to do so, that's a cost I'm sure society is willing to bear.
This completely sidesteps the fact that not donating all of his wealth immediately allows him to potentially grow his wealth in other ways while still donating an objectively large number of resources.
I'd be interested to know if it was the same people speaking on both occasions though, because it is entirely possible that different sentiments being expressed was a result of different people expressing sentiment, rather than the same people changing their sentiment.
In other words, the same people who disliked TPP before could dislike it today, but not be commenting in the threads talking about Trump's opposition to it and new people who didn't comment on it before could be expressing their opinion formed by recent events (or even harbored from before).
I definitely think an in depth study on internet group think would be interesting, I just think that examining closer to see who composes the group and how it's thinking is an important aspect of that study.
Wow, I really like this idea. It could open up entire new segments of products that improve with some occasional needs for cellular network capabilities. I've never been taken by the idea of getting a gadget that can use a cellular data connection because I already hate paying for the one I do have, I don't want another transaction for more data that I have to monitor and not buy too much of. I feel like that's part of the reason it never caught on with mobile gaming devices like the PS Vita etc.
I see the distinction you're making (I think), but I still don't see how that invalidates GP's analogy. Surely "running" a wavefunction is computationally cheaper than re-evaluating the particle's characteristics at every universal frame. Perhaps it's not so much about our own "watching" but rather "do not calculate when irrelevant". My own analogy might be an online map frame like google maps, where tiles outside the viewing box are not loaded. This is because we can tell what needs to be calculated by the bounding box of the viewer without needing all the other finer details. I see it more as a lazy eval.
I imagine that it is in part because it's easier to fret over the polling numbers than it is to convince someone supporting the opponent that they're wrong.
that's the thing, at the point that the computer is already that good, missing that one accident isn't optimal sure, but it's definitely better than the current state of vehicle operation.
Isn't this the case of any business? Strictly speaking, they're profit generating machines. That's the purpose of regulation is to offset this equation by some amount that makes the equation balanced where society collectively deems it reasonable. That's the intended purpose anyways.
But you can't have a doughnut in two dimensions either, the two sides would have to be separated by the hole or else it's not really a doughnut, it's just a circle without a digestive system.
An important point to be sure, although you don't exactly keep the max. It's more of a press-your-luck type of operation where you can't necessarily revert back to the max if you've already left it. Still a very valid point that you can switch jobs at any time you're unsatisfied.
I agree with you in theory about the utility of higher education, but it falls apart when you start to consider (at least in the US) the practical system in which it exists. People are taking on debt in order to go to college and the fact of the matter is that it's a terrible financial decision if you aren't expecting some vocational training that will help pay that debt back faster than never taking it at all. I agree that life shouldn't be all about money, but most people can't afford to expend thousands of dollars and 4 years of time and work for an enriching experience.
The big distinction that ends up causing all these arguments is that when people say it's a bad decision, they mean it's a bad financial decision when you go to college and take on debt to get a degree that won't lead to a well paying job. Of course everything is about context, so it might not be a bad life choice, but the debt certainly should not be ignored in evaluating that decision.
While I agree that I see no reason to forgive these loans as opposed to any other education loans, I just wanted to point out that the taxpayers would not be suffering twice in this case because the only "suffering" that the taxpayers endure is if loans are not paid back. If they are, the taxpayers get their money back plus interest (still in the hands of the government, but it's not "lost").
Hmm. Yeah, it does read from this analysis that it seems to be more of a fear rather than a confirmed fact. At this point they may be just being overly cautious I suppose. From the abstract they seem to rule out a lot of the posed threats and leave the rest as "Have not been accurately studied".
As far as I've read from this though, it doesn't apply to the use of actual antibiotics, which do cause strain resistance. That is the issue that I am definitely in support of, and it seems I wrongly correlated anti-bacterial soaps in that issue as a fact when it does not appear to be so.
That's true I suppose, laws are a lot harder to redact than to enact, so we should take care not to over-legislate. That being said, I think it's still an applicable scenario in this case due to the potentially society scale threat. In many other smaller-scale scenarios, I would tend to agree with your stance on it.
It's not necessarily unhealthy to an individual person, it's the effect that it has on the surviving bacteria. These soaps are dangerous to society as a whole because they become less effective the more widespread their usage is [0]. Thus, we don't need to use them for every single thing we get on our hands that we want off, we're not in mortal peril of those germs.
It's already proven that it's harmful. In the same that that overprescribing antibiotics is harmful. It artificially selects for bacteria resistant to these chemicals, which makes them less effective. So the ball was back in the maker's court, either show that this product is worth the risk or shut up and deal with the ban.
Well, the big one is that it's a joint effort as a society to not continually strengthen bacteria by selecting for strains that are resistant to these antimicrobials.
I presume email, and that GP misspoke when they said "model" and meant a file that the key could be modeled and printed from. That being said, that solution definitely skirts the intention of the puzzle, but would certainly work given the restrictions the puzzle did list.
Interestingly enough, I think you missed one of the more important points by focusing only on the stop signs. Red lights can't be red lights to everyone in a lot of places simply by the nature of their construction. It's why the dead red laws exist, and it's that very often red lights were constructed with solely cars in mind and have sensors that cannot detect bikers that signal a request to the light for a change. While this isn't the case at all lights, it highlights the fact that there are clear differences in the classes of vehicles and that the control structures on the roads were designed with cars in mind, not bikes. These laws are simply attempts to rectify this in light of an increasing interest in bikes as a transportation method.
I'm not so sure I agree. If you crank up the prices, a lot of users who are users because of those prices will just stop being users. You don't exactly have a good way to lock users into it, so this strategy doesn't seem as effective. I imagine that the most locked in user will be one that sold their car to solely ride uber, and they can just go get a car if the the cost analysis tips more in favor of the car. "Worst" case for this user is they need to buy a vehicle, slighly better but still bad case, they pay more, but less than owning a vehicle but still reaped years of low low prices.
I think the important part is that it "learned" to distinguish this concept of cat face without that being the direct intent provided through labeling. Given the set of images, it learned that "concept" which we can then retroactively label to make it useful in the typical human sense by associating it with cats. If we had to compose computer "knowledge" by training it in everything by manually specifying what it was training for, that process would surely be insurmountable in a general sense. Yet this seems to provide the possibility of automating this process.
A separate network of connections between "knowledge" bits could maybe be used to associate related knowledge like you talk about in terms of their relation to the world. This could also probably be formed in a similar manner giving the algorithm the ability to distinguish "important" concepts contained in the data. The thing I find most odd and interesting about this is that the network tends to identify different important concepts than humans do.
I had a similar experience where my 3rd grade teacher was pretty much solely responsible for getting me medicated. I took Adderall every day from 3rd grade to about Sophomore year of high school, when I convinced my parents that I was capable of managing myself without it. At the time, I detested it because it subdued my extroverted nature, for instance, I would read books at recess instead of playing kickball or talking with friends. After graduating undergrad just fine and landing a software engineering gig, I looked the medication again, and it's a lot more helpful than I remember giving it credit for. My personal hypothesis is that the dose I had as a kid was a bit too strong, but the one insight I gained from taking it after being off of it for so long is that I don't absolutely need it to function, but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier for me.
Obviously, this is just anecdotal, but my experience seemed similar enough to yours that I thought I might share a hypothetical answer to your question.
In a way, those can both be true simultaneously. Just from the assumptions that the "established powers" make more money by modifying the kid implies that even if modifying the kid's environment cost $0, it would "cost" them lost profits of modifying the kid.
Costs are relative, and I think the point remains that the kid's parents are relatively powerless to alter the kid's environment significantly enough to solve the adhd problem. Thus, the decision of the cost/benefit analysis of modifying the environment vs modifying the kid falls to the "established powers", also known as, collective society.
We obviously need some sort of line drawn. Expressing your view should definitely be okay, whether others agree with it or not. Mass harassment is entirely different. It's like how speech isn't protected when you're ordering somebody to kill someone, it's fundamentally different.
I'm inclined to believe that the "sucking" part of it is a consequence of new technology and capabilities. It's rarely the case that something that is done for the first time is even remotely comparable in quality to the mass marketed refined implementation of that thing.
No matter what our technological capabilities are at the time of doing so, I believe the first colonies on other planets will "suck" by the standards of living of that era.
The thing is, none of this is pioneered by the federal government because "it isn't their job/place" because we have the state governments that are supposed to pioneer these things. I don't think that is an argument on it's own. I will add though that I think the smaller state governments add benefit by allowing progressive changes like this to take hold and see how it turns out in a small "experiment".
I am not entirely sure how the calculations are done in order to determine the information contained in the genome of HIV, but my suspicion is that the reason this is more dense is due to the genome containing more than binary bits. I'm guessing that in the genome, for every atom that could be at a certain location in the genome, that would represent a different information state. So each location corresponds to more than a binary possibility (atom A, atom B, atom C, etc.). I think this is not the current goal as our purposes with memory storage have more constraints that merely density, what might increase density significantly could potentially decrease read/write speeds or maybe even energy required to perform read/write operations.
All of this is speculation and difficult for me to say for certain since I am not intimately knowledgeable on the topic, but that is my general guess.