blackmesaind

It's less about building something that is useful to many people, and more about selling something that is useful to many people. The fact that what they built was sold by others is a problem they should have thought about.

For example, I never went to college, but I can easily do calculus and science in my head. Some of us just naturally would exceed without needing to be lectured.

Because his name isn't Geoffrey Hinton

Yeah, you're right.

> No. Members of the public can own stock. The public does not own stock.

Members of the public own stock, so the public owns stock. Your distinction here is pedantic at best, but generally plain wrong.

> No. I have not purchased a Ferrari, so I do not own one.

It seems the concept of a metaphor struggles to take grasp. I'll leave progress in this area to those certified.

> This link does not talk about public ownership.

It's very literally the first line.

If you're going to be a pedant, be right.

The public have bought stock (a.k.a partial ownership of the company), so the public owns it.

You have bought a Ferrari, so you own it.

Having performed an "Initial Public Offering" (IPO) means explicitly that the public has purchased, at least in part, ownership of your company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector

I've never heard someone confuse private sector with privately owned. What do you think is being traded publicly? (Hint: it rhymes with blownership)

A false equivalency. Websites want to entice you to visit, stores do not want to entice you to steal gift cards.

As for whether you can make blocking ads an ethical imperative, I'd agree that without ads, there likely wouldn't be an incentive to provide helpful, free services. If anything, it's theft of the value that other ad-consenting visitors are providing.

Pointing the finger at another is often not a very compelling argument.

That "one weird trick" is probably 60-70% of why you would pass an interview. If you've gotten to an interview, they already believe you have the technical qualifications. The technical / white board interview is just due diligence. Having social skills requisite to make the interviewers like you is very literally the only thing they don't know about you, which is what they're testing for.

The hiring requirements for FAANG / MAGMA / F100 companies are higher than those for non-FAANG. Maybe smarter isn't the best term, knowledgeable or competent would work better. His point still stands though.

I've never once been banned from a subreddit, no matter the size nor the frequency of my posts. I assume it's because I don't participate in the divisive dialogue so pervasive on Reddit. You'll find weak people with great power anywhere, I suppose.

There's no general analytical method to solve for a material with specific properties, including superconductivity. The properties of materials are governed by the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons and their interactions with the crystal lattice. These interactions are typically described by the laws of solid-state physics, which involve solving complex quantum mechanical equations for the electrons in a crystalline structure.

For simple systems, such as some low-temperature superconductors and idealized models, researchers can sometimes make analytical approximations or derive simplified equations that describe the behavior of the material. But for most materials, the equations are too complex to solve analytically, and researchers rely on numerical methods, computational simulations, and empirical data to understand and predict material properties.

It's similar to the reason we can't find easy analytical solutions to other complex systems (like models trained via Machine Learning), there are just too many complex factors and interactions to take into account.

MIT posts their AI/ML Degree requirements online, as well as the courses, for free. Shouldn't take you more than a year to finish it and start reading research papers.