Are you arguing with your own post and asking yourself to elaborate?
Please elaborate.
133 karma · joined July 15, 2017
Please elaborate.
To be fair, the article does not assume that: it analyzes potential next moves and concludes that a certain outcome is inevitable.
To harp on the chess metaphor, most games are conceded when the result becomes obvious, before reaching literal checkmate.
Whether the analysis is accurate is a separate conversation.
Whether they did or not is almost irrelevant: information doesn't reach humans instantaneously, it takes time to propagate through channels with varying latency, it gets amplified/muted depending on media bias, people generally have things going on in life other than staying glued to new sources, etc.
If you take a cross sample you're guaranteed to observe contradictory "parallel" information even if the source is serially consistent.
When I'm drinking my coffee I focus on enjoying the palate, when I'm reading I am laser-focused on processing and retaining information.
Multitasking prevents me from attaining the full benefits of these exquisite activities. If need a mindless task while I'm sipping my morning brew I can always count primes backwards or stare at the other hipster in the coffee shop.
Can you explain the magical supply chain adjustment that will lower prices after a year?
I don't see how this can be blamed on DOGE. If anything it shows that DOGE employees are closely monitored, and their access is minimized and audited.
https://www.zetter-zeroday.com/court-documents-shed-new-ligh...
... the federal award, approved in September 2022, had initially listed a total value of $8 billion. But on Jan. 22 this year, that figure was updated to $8 million.
DOGE involvement aside, that right there is not exactly the exculpatory evidence NY Times thinks it is.
I vote for Bob from QA, he's always around.
Priority matters, and picking Google as the first high profile target is bizarre.
Sailors are giving up a lot more in terms of personal life, fixating on internet access as a dealbreaker is such an odd take.
You should try to think ahead though
They can't even perform basic arithmetic (which is not surprising since they operate at the syntactic level, oblivious to any semantic rules), yet people seem to think offloading more complex tasks with strict correctness requirements is a good idea. Boggles the mind tbh.
And that will raise the cost of all services and goods, including the cost of having someone's basic needs met. Then we're back to square one, now what?
Do you have any evidence for the latter?
They would be dodging a bullet.