In this analogy, the dogs understand how their leashes, fences, etc. work better than their owners. And you need only take a trip to the park to see how many owners let their dogs walk around without a leash.
An example of a past technology that there was substantial motivation to control would be napster. It changed overtime, and you could never really control online privacy. Once local models are good enough, I don't really see how you can control that.
Not saying you're wrong. But maybe there's a reason Tiktok got so popular. Maybe for many people this way of communicating information is more effective and doesn't feel as boring/tedious.
> you then also make it so that it can't be workers, what's left?
What was the core reason that readers gave donations? Probably most donors want employees treated well and to ideally keep their jobs, and yet the main thing they probably had in mind was the existence and continuation of the service itself.
> or when they’re so bad that people might actually die
Care to elaborate? Am I understanding correctly that the implication here is that there is some condition for which a software engineer having a union agreement could prevent that worker from dying?
The screen time crowds out time they could be interacting with the real world, engaging with all of their senses, and interacting with people. Two hours per day adds up over a critical time of their life that their peers are beginning to learn how to accurately learn to model the world and communicate.
At one years old, 2 hours is massive percentage of their "awake and aware" time, considering how much time they sleep and eat at this age.
The hot path goes: parents choose "long" version of name. Everyone calls them the "short" name. The short name is their name for the majority of life. They have to deal with administrative-type friction and confusion every time their long name is needed. Therefore, you make their life less frustrating by making their inevitable shorter name equal to their real name.
I have similar questions about public service unions as well. The reason why it makes sense to me for private for-profit companies is because stakeholders have a profit incentive to exploit workers. If non-profit tech workers are especially vulnerable to exploitation, then I guess it makes sense too, but I'm having trouble finding evidence for that.
Isn't Wikimedia a non profit? Who exactly are the employers on the other side negotiating with the union here? They're higher on the hierarchical structure, but they're not actually stakeholders the same as there are in private for-profit companies.
Not by a mile, at least for pasta. When you compare the calorie density and glycemic index of pasta with other grains or grain-derived foods, it's really not bad. The dose makes the poison.
From what I'm reading, it was a big factor that children were walking to school in the dark. One stat I read was that since that time the percentage of kids walking/cycling to school went from almost 50% to now 10%. Maybe that could make the difference this time around.
I'm guessing that if it is a real tag, then consumers have a "know it when I see it" feeling for certain kinds of food that they'd describe as "healthy." As a word that could be consistently well-defined, it's garbage. But that doesn't mean it's not useful for real-world consumers to find what they believe they want.
I understand where you're coming from. But on the off chance something unrelated were to go wrong with the blood down the line, it could be shown that a false answer was knowingly given. You have to weigh this risk against keeping "the privilege to give blood". I guess it depends on your values and risk tolerance.
I looked into the return on investment of exercise in terms of hours spent exercising and expected hours of waking life you gain. In short, it's a good investment, especially if you do vigorous exercise (both cardio and resistance training). It's an even better time investment if you can do it at home and cut out the commute time to the gym. You don't actually need more than maybe a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment.
It's a fitted Bradley Terry model, scaled to familiar Elo scores, anchored to wins against Mixtral-8x7B at 1114 (at least last time I looked at it). When you fit the model against historical data, and then you add another month of time that contains newer models, the relative strength of a given model might decline even if its absolute ability remained fixed.
It's kind of an illusion when you think about it. "Whose turn it is" is an inseparable part of the game state. If any move makes the game state worse this turn, then the game state was already bad before this turn.
Prediction markets have realized that they will lose potential customers if they don't prevent insider trading. Kalshi already has a policy banning politicians from trading. Presumably they understand this, so while I'm glad to see the rule, I wouldn't say it's that self-sacrificing.
It's not a perfect analogy because of factors that affect individual policies, such as the replacement cost of the home, moving next to a fireworks store, moving into a flood zone, etc. You pay more when your home is more at risk.
Oversimplification. Businesses can exist when the the cost of a good is less than the price they can get. There are many possible prices that this might be true, and there is some price that maximizes net profit.
When an item's margin becomes large, the risk/reward equation becomes favorable for new competition to come in. That puts downward pressure on prices.
For a given good, let's say that tariffs increased the business's cost for that good. If that cost goes away and the price stays constant, then the margin increases. That triggers more competition.
> we also need to talk about the effects of cannabis use on neurodivergent folks.
"Neurodivergent" lacks a well-defined meaning. What is it about someone for whom you would define as neurodivergent that makes cannabis more harmful than someone someone for whom you wouldn't label as neurodivergent?
For a while I thought I really liked sci fi novels and short stories, and maybe that's somewhat true. But I've started wondering if maybe I just liked Asimov's writing in particular. Other writers in the genre are more hit or miss. Can anyone recommend other writers that are on his level?
And the liver creates cholesterol. It even senses and reduces cholesterol output when we have too much. Except saturated fats interfere with this process.