iabacu

One thing that you overlook is something that even Xi points out as an issue: right now, China needs more quality than quantity.

For example, in semiconductors, Taiwan, with a much smaller population (and arriving late in the game) beat the US, Japan and Korea. China, with 600k STEM graduates per year, is still trying to catch up.

On covid vaccines, even Russia has their own vaccine that reach mRNA levels of protection, but China is still stuck with the Covid Zero policy.

Quantity was definitively an asset for Chinese growth based on cheap labor. That source of growth is almost running dry (to the point where they are resorting to labor camps). But at some point, quantity becomes more of a liability.

An animal sample from the wet market that was shut down. (I spooned they were all bagged).

If they were all destroyed, then go get a sample from their natural reservoir (wherever those animals came from)

This is not about children, though, it's about investors.

If Nike makes a material claim to investors (e.g. that children labor is not used), but the claim is revealed to be knowingly false, then that's securities fraud.

Even if the guess is reasonable and is eventually true, like "we'll need to scale, so might as well prepare for 100x capacity now", it's still frequently a mistake to over engineer.

The architecture to support something that is not needed tends to introduce rigidity into the codebase, adding a tax to future changes in order to maintain those features.

If the over-engineering is in the wrong dimension (one that the project doesn't need), then the cost will be double: adding the over-engineering and then detangling from it.

The problem is there are too many dimensions a given project can be over-engineered if the future is uncertain. So even an educated guess has a good chance of being wrong.

Why stop at scanning photos in your phone?

With lower power sensors, head-mounted devices with always-on-sensors, and whatnot, why not sample real-time hashes that can tip LEO about potential crimes happening?

Then why sacrifice recall in order to achieve high accuracy?

Err on the side of uploading more hashes. Then feed it all into a ML so it can use other data to filter out potential false positives.

Then if in a distance future, any LEO wants to investigate you for whatever reason, the set of potential hashes associated with your account will provide sufficient evidence for any court to authorize further non-hashed data access (it doesn't matter if they were all false positives)

The argument about POW energy is overblown.

There's an exponential decay of rewards of mining BTC (50% every 4 years).

Do you think the price of BTC will increase exponentially, faster than the decay over the long term? I don't think so.

This implies that the energy consumption of bitcoin mining will eventually decay exponentially too.

This is bizarre.

If the intern did steal code, the CEO only wants the project to be taken down?

Any IP agreement worth their salt would require Replit to send a formal/legal request asking the intern to destroy and return any stolen IP.

So I call bullshit on the CEO, and the intern should probably sue Replit for slander.

The difference between what Amjad tweets publicly and what Amjad threatens the ex-intern privately is jarring.

That makes me think that either the tweets are empty virtue signaling; or Amjad is legit worried that an intern open-source project can accidentally outcompete his company!

That was not a direct quote on anyone here or elsewhere, more like a sentiment that was around last year.

https://twitter.com/shortthebanks/status/1133735039596994560

https://twitter.com/Joe_wants_BTC/status/1316044080690929666

Dropping X% in 24h sounds bad, but without putting it in the context of the asset's historical volatility, sharpe ratio, overall portfolio construction, etc; it looks like a very superficial reading (perhaps just good enough for a headline)

Last year people would jokingly say that the headline this year would be "bitcoin crashes to 30k", and that was dismissed as stupidly bullish.

It's amazing to me that the real answer on how to make renewable energy economical (while avoiding the ecological toxicity of building utility-scale batteries) are getting downvoted.

By the way.

If one thinks about tracking the carbon cost of a mined BTC (based on the energy source used to mine it) such that a carbon tax can be accurately exacted, the usage of blockchain to track carbon offsets and cost is a pretty obvious thing that comes to mind.

> This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof of work cryptocurrencies.

That's not only radical, but a grotesque knee jerk reaction.

If you think about renewable energy, there's a problem of mismatched production with consumption and transmission. This causes wasted energy (or energy that is very low value), which makes renewable energy projects less viable.

Sure, one obvious way to address that is to add batteries to store such energy. Now, go mine (and refine) enough lithium to build utility-scale batteries. That's a huge environmental issue that no one wants to talk about, specially Tesla/Elon.

What's a competitor to energy batteries? Proof-of-work mining of bitcoin: it make renewable energy projects economically viable, because the energy of low-usage times can be used to mine bitcoin, which can pay for energy of high-usage times.

If there's an environmental/carbon cost to BTC mining, then attach a carbon tax to it (or something like that).

I think you’re making cash a bigger deal than it is.

If you have collateral that can also be transferred in real-time, can’t that back a cash loan immediately with extremely low interest costs?

Not quite.

Users who complained about things being slower were hinted that perhaps the new models would be faster.

It was not a communication issue that damaged Apple; but the contrary, it helped sell more units. The only "bad" thing is that it got a lot of scrutiny.

Sure, then freeze the software of older devices and only release security fixes.

No revamp of look-and-feel and other random software features that only makes sense for the new models.

To clarify, since I think this is not obvious to the other commenters here.

(1) The company ships software updates that happens to be near the launch of a new model. It's not by accident, there are often major software changes to take advantage of the new hardware that is soon to be released.

(2) Users start complaining that they are seeing regressions: everything seems a bit more slow, or it's less reliable (things crash or freeze more often), other bugs requiring the device to be rebooted, etc.

(3) After the product launch, some of the users try the new model, and that runs very well compared to the older device with the degraded software (because the software was just optimized to it and extensively tested)

(4) Executives get reports about the user complains on older models. Some internally wonder if better software practices or better QA would avoid such regressions on older devices. Others quickly point out that doing so would be bad in two ways: it costs more; and it reduces revenue by removing an incentive for users to buy newer models.

I think it's clear Apple intentionally* degrades software quality on older iphone/mac models in order to drive purchase of newer hardware.

I've been considering switching away from Apple hardware, not because of hardware quality, but because of software.

* By pushing software updates optimized to new hardware with obvious regressions on older models.

It’s not a that discriminative in terms of reproductive rights if you consider the one child policy that applied for a long time to a lot of people (mostly of Han ethnicity).

While the policy doesn’t exist anymore, it’s not about the policy, but who has the right to decide whether you’re allowed to have children.

Xi Jinping and the CCP’s official goal is for the Chinese people and everyone else to have a common destiny.

Interpret these how you wish, because they are interpreting these how they wish.

Sometimes the source of the problem is political: one trying to make a more general framework to deprecate another team, or to avoid being deprecated by generalizing in a slightly different direction.

How do people “defend” that in big Corp?

Boat the technical roadmap and requirements with fantasy future features, so they can say “well that framework doesn’t support X, and our framework will support X”. It doesn’t matter whether X is useful in practice or not, since the managers don’t always have the power to make that call.

400K to 600K is still qualitatively significant.

For example, it can mean whether your spouse has the option to stay home to spend more quality time with the children, without having to sacrifice expenses due to income reduction; or it can mean how well (or not) you can take care of aging parents.

Your current company will promote (and compensate) you based on your performance in the past cycles.

Your new company will offer you a level (and compensation) based on your expected performance in future cycles.

If you're on a growth trajectory, jumping jobs will usually give you a bump because your new company treats you differently than your current company. And it doesn't matter much whether you're coming from company A to B, or from B to A!

For store of value, that's fine. You don't need fast transactions. It's way more convenient than gold and real-state.

You should market this to insurance companies, not individual doctors.

At their scale, they can use the data to drive their costs down, and can build a business case for paying you something.

Go try something more risky, with a big (but uncertain) upside.

You choose what the upside is, it does not have to be financial.

Just use means of communicating outside of the Corp network already.

Personal email list, slack, discord, blind, etc.

> If the next generation is rebellious - and they end up being like the last rebellious generation - we are looking at 22 years of deep technological developments that will lead to the next big things in two generations from now.

Or quite the opposite. They’ll be anti-tech, like: let’s break up and impose limits to tech companies and research.

delete the whole code (or just throw away the keys) and all the debt is paid.