mixdup

This kind of seems like a no-brainer. Instead of just letting a model have unfettered "physical" ability to do things and hope you can cognitively control it, why not let the AI do whatever it wants, but its access to the tools go through a hard-coded set of rules that is not subject to fuzzy interpretation

Of course that depends on having controls that can't be circumvented which is a big if

It's really easy to be profitable when you exclude all of your expenses

The CEO doesn't necessarily have to have the ideas. How many ideas do you think Tim Cook had regarding products at Apple?

I mean, there's only so much that a watch can do or that can be packed into it. Eventually all gadget categories fall into a lull of slow and steady progress, they can't all be absolute bangers year after year

Yeah, there is no way to back out consumers vs. revenue at basically any big company. They all report "ARPU" or average revenue per user, because there is always a spectrum of pricing, almost never a single price. Between bundle pricing with partners, promo pricing offered for new customers, customers on old plans that haven't upgraded or updates, depending on the type of service and how they manage it there can be hundreds of price points in play for any given customer

That isn't to say there's no way to audit for this kind of situation, they could definitely report out what every single customer is paying and just find the ones that = zero

I almost mentioned that situation in my reply, but that's kind of the exception that proves the rule. Even in that case, someone should need to physically intervene, especially with high profile people like politicians or celebrities

I'm not quite sure what immigration has to do with a national ID system in the US. Seems like you just wanted to bring that up to be able to say "man that'd be so much easier if you got rid of all the immigrants" which it would have no impact either way on this particular issue

Also on the rotating schedule thing, driver's licenses expire in the US, usually on a 5-10 year cadence. Replacing the physical cards was not even remotely close to the issue we had with getting REAL ID implemented, the cards themselves aren't special they just have an extra indicator on them. It was about putting in requirements around new documentation and proof of identity, citizenship, and residence and most states not being ready to handle that

For example my home state of Alabama issues licenses through the state department of public safety. That's who does the initial test to see if you're fit to drive, etc. But, once you have it you can then renew your license at a city or county office. These offices take a HUGE burden off the state, but they're not qualified to do the verification needed under federal law for REAL ID. So, to get a compliant ID you'd need to go to one of the very few state offices and they were overwhelmed

This is the type of issue with the system in the US, not the physical card, not the big scary illegal immigrant problem

People are against national IDs because of privacy, not racism like a previous comment in this thread suggested

People are against requiring certain types of IDs to vote as racism or other forms of voter suppression because it may cost money to get those IDs or be very very hard to do so, when there are other methods to authenticate a person for voting

Those are two separate issues and complaints.

The problem in the US is that the government doesn't necessarily have all of your details. Most people's ID is a driver's license, but you're not mandated to have one of those. The federal government doesn't control those databases (hi, REAL ID), and few people actually have passports. Your citizenship documents are just a birth certificate that is an image on file with a particular state's health department. A centralized identification system on that scale in the US would take generations to get up and running

I feel like that should require an in-person visit, as troublesome as that might be. A picture of an ID is not the same thing as presenting the actual ID

they probably haven't had the new elevator in operation for a whole year yet, so they're likely extrapolating. also, they won't really know the true usage of the elevator over the whole year so they're kind of guessing. they know per trip or per pound carried, but they don't know what that translates into actual real world on the power bill

You will still be making transmissions on the illegal frequencies even if there is no one on the other end of the connection

It's imperialist to own and control the thing you created?

If .gov had been an international TLD that was at some point available to everyone, or had been created by everyone, ok. But .gov was created as part of the work the US government did to build out the initial DNS structure. It probably wasn't even a given at the time that arpanet would be international in nature

Also, 301 redirects are not a DNS thing, that is an HTTP thing. Not sure how that would solve your problem since HTTP is intrinsically at the base of it tied to just A or AAAA records. DNS does a lot more than pointing to websites

>Cuban is saying they don't even do that - they don't track their costs on a surgery by surgey basis at all. And because they don't track any of that it's impossible to reason about it.

Then Cuban is wrong. I had a heart valve replacement surgery last year and I got a detailed to the penny to the mg of tylenol what they consumed and what they charged. It was not a big massive one line "heart surgery" on the invoice, there were dozens and dozens of line items. I think quite the contrary they know exactly what their inputs are to a surgery, it's just that is not the only cost you get billed.

>because you don't have any of the data on what the costs will be when person X needs a given surgery

This was exactly my point, and yes part of it is because of cross-subsidization, but it is also because my valve replacement almost certainly cost someone differently than the next guy having the same surgery the next day because of any number of factors

Also part of determining insurance costs is that you probably don't know which surgeries someone is going to need at the time the premiums are being set. Even if you knew perfectly how much every surgery in the system costs, you don't know how many of those surgeries you are going to have to pay for

This is why urgent care exists and is why if you don't have something that you think is life threatening, that's almost always better. If you need more than they can provide, they can and very much will forward you on to an ER

The ER vs. having a regular doctor is a big impact. It's partially why there are so many urgent care centers, but a lot of uninsured use the ER as their primary care as the ER has a duty under law (and ethics) to treat anyone who comes through the door for anything, regardless of whether they can pay or not, where a primary care physician can turn people away if they can't pay

there's more expensive equipment than just an x-ray machine and MRI machines, those were just examples. The building itself is expensive. Having the labor there ready to respond and service patients is expensive. Overall there is a ton of overhead with very expensive inputs that even if you come in and end up just getting a tylenol, you're going to pay for part of it

Because they are going to allocate as much as they can to that service that is actually using those advanced facilities. The stiches patient in the ER is carrying some load for the cardiac surgery suite just not as much as the person who actually has quadruple bypass. Plus that is just part of it. They're also covering uncompensated costs across the whole system

The thing is he'd find a lot of the "unnecessary overhead" is necessary to deal with the payers in the system. You need a massive billing organization to make sure insurance actually pays you. You need a massive compliance organization to make sure Medicare pays you (and that you don't kill your patients and get sued)

If you reformed the whole system you could trim a lot of hospital overhead, but it's a systemic problem. More overhead and waste is happening in the insurance companies which is what needs to be cleaned out first, then you can start dealing with providers' overhead that exists to serve the rest of the system

It's not even about inventory of individual items (like blood or enough scalpels) it's that they need to have every expensive machine. They need x-ray machines and MRI machines and proton beam cancer treatment and that stuff adds up very quickly. That's why a trip to the ER for stitches can cost five figures in the US, because a large amount of that bill is covering the hospital's cost to be ready not just for the stitches but also car crashes or mass shooting events or whatever

Another problem is that one hip replacement is not the same as another. Differences in patients, complications arise, it's really hard to say you're going to need exactly X syringes and Y feet of gauze and Z liters of blood and which and how much of certain drugs for anesthesia, not to mention with procedures that involve prosthetics you may need multiple on hand, the first one you pick may not fit so you need to go to the second one but you have burned that first one

Finance guys think you're going to turn hospitals into walmart and make it up on ruthless efficiency and volume but it's not that kind of business. There's so much unknown going into any one situation that it makes this "transparency" hard to do. Plus, people want the best and whatever they need to survive so the "consumer" doesn't want transparency

And then you layer on top the huge amount of uncompensated costs from uninsured and denied coverage. It's why a single national payer system actually makes sense, if you can keep the fraud from running amok. We really should just pay for outcomes and spread the actual cost over the entire system

Except the premise is that it was a failure. It wasn't, it accomplished exactly what they set out to do

only a 2.65% decline in a commercial real estate REIT is probably beating the market

The premise of that article is way off base. Darwin didn't fail, because the point wasn't to create a robust open source operating system along the lines of Linux. Apple got everything they needed from the OSS community while providing no more than they were required to. Apple got a bunch of tools, utilities, shells, etc as well as a view that this was a Real UNIX Operating System (TM) (they even got it certified) and that inarguably sold millions of machines

Their goal was never to build a community around Darwin or get a bunch of people outside the company using Darwin sans Mac OS X's proprietary bits, or to get a bunch of people outside the company contributing to Darwin

When the M6 Minis were announced I pre-ordered and Apple gave me $480 trade-in on my entry level M4 Mini that I paid $499 for about 14 months ago

how has that changed over the past 20 years? the proprietary parts of Mac OS X and now macOS have been proprietary from the beginning

>but we're not a fan of the ever-closing hardware and ecosystem

What has changed about Apple's ecosystem vis a vis openness, hardware, or the 'ecosystem'?

The macOS ecosystem is pretty much the same as it has been since 1997

No, you would sign the agreement before doing all the restructuring. Doing it first would be silly

Then what are the people voting to negotiate? They should just be presented with an in/out vote

Great, this is an actual answer and makes sense. I mean it's a little silly but 100% makes sense