6,660 karma · joined November 30, 2020
This is clear from other other departments where they fired everyone they could.
"Coding error" is just a modern version of "the dog ate my homework". Lame but people will swallow it. They knew what they were doing, they just regret getting caught.
Sadly, once the firings, rehirings, refirings, court cases, and compensations are done, there won't be any money saved at all, probably more wasted.
That public servants do important work under less than ideal circumstances and funding is entirely ignored.
That's what's happening here.
Other presidents have done the same on occasion but no where near the scale that Trump has done.
The US already does this, I'm talking about payments for losses due to tariffs.
Those of us who complain about this highly targeted flagging just want to avoid censorship. I can't see how we need to reflect on this.
This is a fiction. The US manufactures more than it ever did, just not the same products and with less staff. The US is second only to China.
This is a normal process of seeking out better markets and ceding less profitable ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
Your point is basically Trump propaganda at this point. Tariffs have historically had unintended consequences. For instance the tariffs on LCD screens basically killed the laptop industry in the US.
Maybe, just maybe, after 20 years of tariffs it might come true, for a limited selection of products, but consumers would be paying higher prices in the meantime, which may destroy the market.
It illustrates the dynamics of strictures on global trade with a simple item that has several inputs and that China is the most likely to win out in these sorts of situations because of their low cost advantage.
Cars or something are probably a better example but there are so many complicating factors that would make it less illustrative.
Of course those who are politically favored, such as US farmers, will get a handout, everyone else gets to pound sand.
I think a US recession is a given at this point, the only question is if there will also be a global recession.
If Trump persists with the threatened tariffs, there will definitely be a reordering of US and global trade, but not in the way he thinks. The US will likely have lower growth and higher inflation, ie "stagflation" and the rest of the world will move to trading with itself and without the US. There will be less competition and a consequent lowering of quality and innovation in areas such as cars.
It's a recipe for long term US decline.
Not that long ago I had some idiot driving the wrong direction, in my lane, and speeding, and was about to have a head on at about 200 km/h. I credit my survival to pulling hard to the right while slamming on the brakes, with the ABS allowing me to steer freely. It put as much space between me and the idiot as possible.
My cheap car has electronic locks on all doors but the mechanical interior releases defeat them (but not on the rear doors).
A neat feature I noticed the other day is that operating the release once won't let the door actually open, it only partially unlatches it and to open the door you have to hold the lever open and push the door. Great safety design.
All you need to do is convince the credulous and greedy.
Indeed, they're buying into Musk's deep vaporware product line.
I think the robots really took the cake. He wasn't even trying anymore.
Suffering just happens to be a common element of that, but it's not essential. Maybe because it most commonly produces good or great art. People generally don't make art about how their love life is perfectly fine, instead they express their experience of devastating heartbreak.
Nike Cave is just one strand of the artistic experience. Contrast say Kraftwerk, whose expression is about feelings of affinity with machines, technology and even interaction with transport infrastructure.
He's taking his "set billions on fire" mistake and using it to extract money out of his AI vaporware venture.
Brilliant, I guess.
But trees et al also make a lot of sense as a default. If you need the performance to scale in a roughly linear manner you need to be smart about it. This is what sinks a lot of software, usability wise.
It's just another version of someone who is relativity incompetent but can produce something vaguely convincing.
> Any time you’re using a tree you’re ignoring an O(~1) hash algorithm for a more complicated O(log(N)) algorithm
This is incredibly misguided. The hashing approach is fine if your points are evenly distributed and you only really want to query an area relatively close to the fixed subdivisions you've chosen, otherwise your 0(1) is going to degenerate to O(n).
Trees are an informed representation when you don't know how your data is distributed.
Similar story for randomized algorithms. What happens when your search space is many trillions of items or possibilities? Or there are no heuristics to be had? If you can't brute force it and you can't use a clever algorithm then randomized algorithms are a savior.
Maybe these aren't needed for this specific application, but best to not make sweeping statements.
https://www.businessinsider.com/which-democrats-voted-agains...