trident5000

I suppose. I have old friends who are pretty up there. One of them (a very best friend and childhood friend) in a family that’s very wealthy. Think Waltons.

Never once did I lever this relationship or any others I have. I think the network thing is overrated. Wealthy and connected people mostly want to be left alone and very rarely do favors for people not independently at their level.

Also I’m trying to think how many close friends I kept from college or even in contact with. I think maybe 5 and none of them were well off or connected.

But yes, that is part of what is sold as well. Or at least the idea of it. There’s no question about that.

I think colleges have purposefully positioned themselves as they are today as a business strategy, specifically ivy leagues or top tiers.

They know nearly all information is online now and taught even more effectively in many cases. And once inferior colleges and professors can also harness this and compete on near even footing on the knowledge front. That was not the case just 15 years ago.

So they now lean into an area that they think the internet and those who harness it cannot compete. They lace every discipline with philosophy and sell it as an ivy league education. But really they're just bamboozling people with an inferior education and destructive cognitive habits.

Ah yes I see that. Will be curious if it stays as just a dead zone service. Interesting the wireless providers would sign on for this which could ultimately challenge them in the future.

It seems to be traditional wireless providers from what Ive been hearing Musk say. I could be mistaken though.

Limited by what? Where is this limitation metric coming from? Is this from Starlink?

Where is this info from? Hard for me to fathom this. Surely digging up ground to lay wires with lots of labor and materials is more expensive...at least I would think.

Awesome. My wireless bill is too high and competition never hurt. I would think satellites are way cheaper than setting up ground based towers and therefore will offer cheaper service.

Testosterone, higher metabolism speeds up aging, protein intake/mtor pathway. Men are probably more likely to get debilitating injuries from the type of hands-on work they do. Just a few ideas (other than whats in the article) that could be wrong.

Doesnt sound snarky at all. "paying them to move" sure does though.

You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along party lines right down the middle). And theres no other company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this spot.

For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants you to believe. They can barely service what they have and the cost/benefit of laying 30 miles of wire to reach someone in the woods is never going to make sense.

I actually dont think this article/headline is that egregious. But in general anything having to do with Musk/Tesla is going to be put in a negative light. And I think we all know why. Election season, twitter ownership, etc etc.

These are future speed metrics, not current speed thresholds. And the performance metrics have been a constant shifting goalpost. You can read FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's letter on this matter here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf This is most likely political.

The NYT is more than capable of making a clear headline. These are not stupid people. But they do have goals.

Training based on a bunch of dull bickering humans on Reddit and elsewhere would produce that result.

Deliberately hiding evidence should should equate to hefty prison time for a prosecutor.

Yeah I've read about him. It sounds at face value that a lot of what hes doing cant hurt, but its really not a solution to aging. And he still looks old. This is really not equivalent to gene editing for radical body change.

It really is inspiring. Yeah I take the opposite side, ethically speaking. I think its cruel to not allow people to fix their bodies in the ways they want and in many cases need. Im in the max body-editing camp. Also this should resolve race issues once and for all which is fun to think about.

Any new product is going to start out as expensive and this likely isnt a market realized price. This is the first of its kind. It probably still wont be cheap but its not going to be this absurdly priced in the future considering even the insurance companies likely wont pay for this.

Pretty big news. I believe this is the first gene editing therapy approved by the FDA and theres a large backlog thats been in the works for many years. Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic.

Nobody will miss these jobs just like nobody misses picking cotton by hand in a hot field.

If you actually read the tweet and understand what its about and follow up tweets it is absolutely a stretch to call him antisemitic and theres a lot of truth in there as well. You're reacting to headlines like most people.

Sorry, I just find the perpetual meltdown from the left that they dont control twitter anymore to be fascinating, a bit hilarious and sort of pathetic. Just move on. The hyperbolic and seriously stretched stories of antisemitism just comes off as desperate.

People who dont like the new twitter/X keep having temper tantrums and posting stories like this. But I have news for you. X is less than 10% of Elon Musks net worth and he doesnt give a shit. When are people going to realize this. You're not going to pressure Musk with advertizing revenue to do what you want.

Oh boy, here we go. The endless excuses. Excuses instead of accountability just perpetuates situations like this and actually prevents any change.

Is that a counterpoint? Pointing to something unrelated from the conversation. Maybe both arnt great for you?

Theres a lot of people who are dumping caffeine for all sorts of reasons. Caffeine does indeed constrict blood vessels and thats probably not great tbh. But people (including myself) love their cup of coffee.

No, I mean nicotine as I clearly indicated in my comment. It's not harmless and its ridiculous to think a drug that constricts the vessels and blood flow in your body would be so.

Nicotine is just terrible for you. Smoking is linked to alzheimers and I watched my grandfather smoke his pipe and decline cognitively with that disease. Im not sure if its only proven from the toxins in smoke or the nicotine but I would assume constricting the blood vessels (with nicotine) leads to plaque buildup in the body and brain.

Because of the vessel constriction is stops healing in the body as well all the way to your bones dealing with microfractures and remodeling.

That said, Ill have the occasional cigar.

What a ridiculous take. There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). Then there are people to fill those positions (thats supply). You shift the demand/supply balance by expanding the supply pool. This is an extremely simple concept that you've somehow made complicated for yourself.

People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.

Its naive to think expanding the labor pool wouldnt reduce labor costs. Its supply and demand/economics 101. And obviously they (and every other company) is going to complain they cant fill positions locally in order to gain access to this cheaper pool.