typewithrhythm

Not at all, a high end car will use an entirely different architecture to a mid/low end...

When you target a certain feature set it can make sense to use one big central processor, for lower end things it's more sensible to use limited smart sensors (from multiple vendors, for absolute cost minimums).

And it's generally not cost effective to move an old high trim platform down range due to changes in hardware and regulations.

This is only half the story, working for a major vendor, we sell both hardware and software, the whole way up to a full customisable well integrated platform. The manufacturers are deliberately choosing less capable systems, or taking thing piecemeal.

Most of our customers simply don't believe good interfaces are worth the money... They tend to either want either a set of features checked off (only for existence, not quality), or something along the lines of get as close to a rivian with thirty cents per unit more than we paid last year.

I'm guessing it's at least partially too high risk from a students perspective.

Much of the point of an established university is credentials, a new one cannot give the same recognition.

This means that to attract new students, and build a reputation, you have to have some other draw; either some world renowned experts, or cheap (even free or scholarships) tuition. Probably both.

And if you want your graduates to be outstanding, then you need to offer the best incoming candidates a reason to choose your school, because the truth is the school has less impact than the individual.

Like a train without the worst of the public, where any individual can choose their preferred spot for a station.

You can't argue your way into making a homogeneous population.

The reality is that the groups are distinct, and immediately changes the dynamic from "a facility used and maintained by the group who established it", to "a facility maintained by a third party, to be shared". These do not have equal value to an individual.

Desegregation coincided with the mass "multicultural" migration initiatives in the rest of the western world.

Unfortunately in reality there is a huge difference between a facility used by one group, and one shared between several. Many community facilities become unpleasant when they are anonymous.

The disconnect between observation and understanding is the whole point; without western ideas like trends, records, and measurement, you can have no better understanding than, "sometimes wet, sometimes not".

The only part in tune with nature is that in bad periods the population dies back.

It seems like that's an impossibility, since you would need to find something in the current era that has been abandoned, rather than decommissioned...

There are a few examples that might fit, some earthworks, (tunnels, breakwaters, dams) and navigation markers come to mind (costal, but we also put retro reflectors on the moon).

You can't really beat a jammer, sure you can compete for power output, but there is no real stopping it.

Aircraft and military positioning concepts are evolving towards more map and dead reckoning, lessening the benefit of GPS jamming.

Training data is always filtered, if you want a representative of the population you would need to include conspiracy theories about the Jews, and rants about per capita crime rates... But nobody really wants a model the returns that.

See I suspect that the problem is not taking any sort of capitalist return concept when implementing a socialist policy... Even if you assume that the government needs to create jobs, it's like nobody has ever done a cost benefit, at any stage. You see hundreds of thousands being spent on one individuals care needs, something that is essentially never going to have a positive return, while productive initiatives either lack funding, or have triple thier cost added by pointless additional steps (that nobody has ever done a cost benefit of either).

The problem is rarely "capitalism", since most of the most glaring issues are either in highly regulated systems, or cases where the person receiving a service is not the one paying for it.

I think the average english person fundamentally lacks the mindset for capitalism to work, there is little trust in an individual, and too great a desire to have daddy government come make it safe. It's the unquestioning faith in top down measures that has lead to the current system, and pulling things back to public ownership won't fix that.

No, we really did not have a history like that remotely. It's a bit alarming to see a historical fact states so completely incorrectly.

We had a hugely restrictive immigration policy, (have a look at the rate of growth over time) followed by multiple wars that meaningfully reduced the population... We were winning the Malthusian game, just by having lots of resources per person available.

The policies you have probably heard called "white Australia" were more accurately understood as immigration restriction policy. If you read anything published at the time, there was only slightly less animosity for white english migration as the rest of the world. This was the era of communism and workers rights, and the workers absolutely understood that their labour was being devalued.

Twitter was built long before it's headcount reached its peak.

It suffered through a fairly common problem where due to its value and revenue it tries to justify a huge headcount, usually due to managers getting paid based on headcount numbers. In reality it always should have had less numerous, better paid engineers, rather than management parasites.

Melbourne specifically is cooked by the rate of growth, and declining tax revenue per capita.

When we funded the majority of the big infrastructure pushes our rate of growth was lower, and gdppc (and revenue/PC) was exploding. This generally ended with the start of big multicultural Australia policy in the late 60's.

So in comparison, the amount of infrastructure we need to build is greater per capita, as it has to try to cover the future population predictions, it needs to be done over less years as well.

Then we can get into the migration policy that's causing a decline in gdppc.

Its more that if you don't know for sure if it's possible; and usually you don't. Then adding your expertise onto an ai system is never going to pay off compared to building out the ai compute infrastructure and training data.

This has the best chance of being functional in the long term, in the face of uncertainty.

If you already know it can work, then you can improve with specific expertise, but it's a fixed solution at that point.

Humans cannot reliably determine the difference in one degree c, even though it's bigger... Fahrenheit is too fine grained, and has no interesting points relative to the things I interact with. I freeze an boil water often, however

It's because we loosely understand that value based pricing is a scam.

An insulin shot at the right moment can be of unlimited value to the consumer. SaaS salesmen try to capture the entire value add a tool gives a user, but this seems to kill companies as the price a competitor can undercut by is huge (so much that the original price seems exploitative).

Basically any marketing based on the "value to me" I'm sceptical of.

An approach with transparency, that shows "this is what delivering an actually good product costs", might be possible...

I've heard people talking about diversity three ways;

The first is the idealistic one that employers would like to be the default interpretation: A global hiring pool allows for the best possible experts, with the widest experience. And you need an inclusive culture to ensure that the talent is happy to stay.

The second is the more realistic: A global hiring pool allows for cheaper labour: And you need a culture where speaking out against "inclusivity" is dangerous to the individual, in order to prevent unionist sentiment or political barriers to cheap labour emerging.

The third is a bit more cynical, it's similar to the second but considering a wider scale: If an employer with an easy problem can't access a low cost low skill workforce, then they have to compete in hiring from the high skill one. This means that development is tied up with the financial impact of the work. (You only hire someone if there is expected return). Access to a cheaper labour market makes the price of the work more tied to the difficulty, removing the perception that development is a high value activity.

The simple case I can think of is priority charging, with total load limiting. Since solar supply is variable you want to avoid drawing from the grid if possible, and you want batteries attached to things that will draw the most expensive power (by typical usage time) to fill first.

I'm starting to come to the idea that the rate of progress is more driven by the rate of adoption than by number of researchers.

It takes a whole lot of implementation and organisation to make any innovation tangible, so in some ways a bigger overall society slows things down as much as you gain from the total number of researchers.

Competition from foreign societies is also a part of this.

The reason everything is built on millions of layers is not because it is actually required, but because we have invested a whole lot of time in building frameworks so that mediocre programmers can get fast results.

I would call it a culture issue, where we are not able to seperate out places where this is fine, new interesting apps are great, I want as many as possible.

From places where it's destructive, I would be happy if none of the ways I interact with an os had changed since windows 7, but it had gotten faster, more secure, and resilient.

Commercial contracts generally don't work that way, they generally pay the market rate (the current most expensive producer).

It means there is no way for an individual consumers behaviour to drive (or be driven by) the green energy proportion, as if the collective demand is too high then you pay the market rate for coal anyway.

The issue is there is currently no mechanism for end consumers to moderate their behaviour based on energy related emissions.

Currently if users as a group demand more power than clean can provide, dirty gets turned on and everyone pays the highest cost.

We need a way for a consumer to be able to commit to only clean power, potentially at a lower cost but with limited supply.

It's not a resource problem; everyone inside the system has no real incentive to do anything innovative; improving something incrementally is more likely to be seen as extra work by your colleagues and be detrimental to the person who implemented it.

What's more likely is a significantly better system is introduced somewhere, NHS can't keep up and is rebuilt by an external. (Or more likely it becomes a inferior system of a lesser nation as the UK continues its decline).

The big issue with the implementations I have seen is because HR aims to minimise the number of checks they do, so they can appear efficient.

So most aim to do as much resume filtering as they can first, then short calls, then background checks.

And the filtering and the call are areas where domain knowledge is relevant.

Honestly this sounds like a successful "bad fit" signal (assuming that they work with go and payment systems mostly).

Language and domain experience are things id like to know after an interview process.

HR involvement is unavoidable at big companies; and basics like "years of experience for payband" can cause issues. They fundamentally do not understand the job, but somehow have to ensure its not a biased hiring process.

I have some insight into this, and it might be possible that with good intervention the ongoing costs are low... That being said, in our current system the cases that are severe enough to be in public housing easily cost 10 times that...

What's the alternative? Most cars have similar interfaces, and few are what I would want; but if you have already decided to buy a new "luxury van" (fill in your preferred type and trim), then you don't really get much of a choice.