Infinity315

Try to model this happening as if you were an actuary trying to price the premiums and payout of insurance.

What odds would you give me of something like this happening over the course of next ten or even hundred of years? That scenario in which people are bartering for resources is a scenario in which power has been lost for multiple weeks in the United States? The odds you should be giving me is on the order of millions or tens of millions, at least.

> Are you saying that you would not give anyone else food?

Imagine the point at which my neighbour is willing to riot for food. That means his neighbour is also likely willing to riot for food and so on and so forth. This also means I'm likely willing to riot for food. I am not trading my last couple of meals of which I don't know when I'll get for a thousands or even hundreds of thousands dollars.

The point is if it gets bad enough that people immediate needs are not met, cash or money means very little. No matter how much of it you have, if you are at the point where you're rioting for food, there is likely not enough food for you or your neighbour who also doesn't know when they'll get their next meal.

Do you think there will exist a point at which a person would much prefer food in their hand than even larger sums of cash? My point is that when a food riot occurs is when cash becomes worth less than food.

Yes, but remember in this scenario people are desperate enough to riot for food. In this scenario, this is not just bad weather it's bad enough that it has become nearly logistically impossible for a developed nation to transfer enough resources to the people living in this region.

In this scenario, why would I trade the food which I need now for cash? I don't care about a potentially large payoff in the future when my immediate needs are not met.

> Everyone with a IQ above double figures can see it's one power outage away from food riots.

In this scenario where people are desperate to do a food riot, a power outage has occurred for multiple consecutive days if not at least a week. In which case, something truly apocalyptic is happening, in which case I doubt people would be civilized enough to bargain for food for useless cash or shavings of gold, in that scenario resources are the only useful 'cash'. In this scenario, it's likely it'd be some sort of national emergency and I'd imagine most people have enough food in their pantries to tide them over until the government provides food or restores power.

Modern power infrastructure is incredibly resilient and outages are usually localized to regions and power is restored within hours. I understand the idea of using cash for privacy reasons or keeping few hundred just in case, but keeping with cash just in case a food riot happens is wholly unconvincing.

An intuitive explaination is imagine a nearly diagonal matrix where the values along the diagonal are much larger than values on the off diagonal. We know the eigenvalues of a diagonal matrix is simply the values on the diagonal, so for nearly diagonal matrices you can be pretty sure that the true eigenvalues are going to be pretty close to those diagonal entries, but a natural question to ask is how far we'd deviate from those diagonal entries.

The answer to the above question is Gerschgorin disks and it's closely related cousin Brauer's Oval of Cassini.

For matrices with real eigenvalues it's moreso along the real number line, only for cases where the eigenvalues are imaginary do we imagine disks.

See also Brauer's oval of Cassini which give an equivalent or even better approximation of the eigenvalues of a matrix.

The target audience is not you. It seems to be aimed mostly at C-level execs with less technical knowhow which have less than a CS undergrad's understanding of these issues.

Single data points are not statistics. Fact is, the number of 20 something developers today far exceeds the number of developers of the 1990s.

No, pay corresponds with the skillset and how replaceable you are (moreso how replaceable). Walmart truck drivers are highly compensated because trucking is a lonely and relatively uninteresting job to do. Doing that for many hours requires a certain type of person and would mentally wear down most people.

Walmart requires a consistent level of output which they hope can be maintained by keeping truck drivers happy with high pay. Other trucking companies can afford to have some drivers leaves and thus pay them less because they have some leniency for delays which Walmart cannot/will not tolerate

There's zero reason why the US can't both support Ukraine and help solve homelessness. Homelessness is a product of a restrictive construction policies (namely, many US cities forbid or highly restrict construction of high-density low-cost housing), not a lack of funds.

In addition the age demographics of Japan lean significantly older. Burglary is predominantly done by people under the age of 25.

Each tile can take on 3 states, x, o, and the empty state. 3^9 = 19683. Of course, this is also counting many invalid states where a player would have won and symmetries of the board.

That's fine for hardware issues, which really wouldn't require the personal drive at all to fix. The issue arises for when a software-related issue occurs and the person who could do what you just described could probably also fix it themselves.

AI generated images of tragedies is such a stupid thing to do, especially when there are real and actual tragedies recorded. It destroys the credibility of your side. It's just such a short-sighted thing to do.

> They cannot sell, offer you services, etc. ...unless you agree to something else, usually hidden in theirs reward program contracts.

The narrative is that the WEF is in kahoots with world leaders, since world leaders attend the WEF. Making this a moot point.

> All that is gone the second you move to using apple et al instead of a card issuing company.

Apple themselves state that they don't keep track of your information. Presumably, whatever authority that prosecutes credit card companies for using your info would also prosecute Apple. From what I found online, Samsung Pay and Google Wallet also refrain from using your transaction info.

Assuming you use credit cards and debit cards over cash.

An E-wallet offers no more control over you than standard debit and credit cards. If this nebulous WEF really wanted to screw you over and had control over these E-wallets what makes you think they wouldn't have control over payment processors or credit card companies? The vast majority of transactions are already digital, all this initiative does really is allow to you handle it via your phone instead of reaching for you wallet.

It might make tracking you more easy, but the technology already exists and is employed to track you. Credit Card companies and payment processors keep track of your transactions and it is trivial for them to trace it to a single individual.

> It only works when the vaccine has no side effects long or short term. ... Now, we can name the drug. Let's call it Thalidomide. Is it worth causing, for example, horrendous birth defects to preserve herd immunity?

Which is why I specified side-effects which are similar to the COVID vaccine.

> What happens if the pharma companies make exactly one mistake? ... Let's call it Thalidomide.

Do you think existing modern medical regulations would permit such an incident? Can you name a more modern example?

> We skip all the normal trials (through cutting them short, whatever) and begin issuing it.

Suppose we impose the same requirements as vaccines on the past. I.e. trials go through normally.

> I think it's naive to think that there won't be any effect.

Can you name examples in which side effects were demonstrated in vaccines up to past a year? Vaccines are metabolized, the effects are only apparent as long as the vaccines contents are within the body.

> Such as, barring from PRIVATE non-tax-funded establishments. But bodily autonomy should go unquestioned. No matter which way you cut it vaccine mandates are a strike against civil rights.

Do you agree that bodily autonomy only extends up to the point at which harm could befall another individual?

To further examine your beliefs, suppose we create a simulation which can perfectly replicate the effects of a drug or vaccine on the human body. We can prove demonstratively that a drug will have no negative side-effects and that it will stop virus X. Are you still against vaccine mandates in this case?

> Unprotected individuals aren't undoing the protection vaccines provide to the people who get vaccinated.

This was never the main argument pro-mandate people had. The argument for mandates was that herd immunity would be compromised if a sufficient number of people chose to not to vaccinate thus risking the population which would not be able to get vaccinated such as the immunocompromised.

> Personal choice and body autonomy should be something we all support.

I think this is true up to a point, where that point is is what should be argued. I think if a disease were sufficiently deadly and had a long incubation period such that it would allow itself to spread rapidly, we'd all argue that vaccine mandates should be enforced.

For example, consider the following hypothetical. Suppose a reliable vaccine existed for virus X with similar side-effects to current COVID vaccines. Virus X has 95% mortality for children and is as infectious as COVID, i.e. very infectious. In this scenario, would you still be opposed to vaccine mandates? Even if it had a 100% mortality rate for children and/or were even more infectious?

> simple question : have you encountered an anti-cheat mechanism that works to stop cheaters?

Anti-cheat works to reduce the number and frequency of cheaters, not to eliminate cheating completely. It means the difference between meeting cheaters every single game vs meeting cheaters once every 20 games. One means your game is mostly playable and the other means the game is completely unplayable.

This is reasoning of yours is like: "Why use vaccines at all?" "Why use anti-virus programs at all?" "Why use seat belts at all?"

None of these completely eliminate infection, being hacked, and fatalities in motor accidents. But they vastly reduce the number of them occurring.

The vast majority of interactions with police are peaceful and relatively mundane. Your view of police seems to be only informed by videos you see online.

The only interactions you see with police online are either extremely wholesome or extremely hostile. The mundane and boring interactions with police don't get seen, because they are boring and not at all noteworthy because it is standard.

How do we think it works currently?

1.2% of subs does not imply that 1.2% of the user base is gone. A lot of those 500k subs have less than 5k subscribers. Only a small portion of subreddits contribute to the vast amount of content on reddit.

I don't know what's a reasonable rate per API call. But it costs reddit to provide this API for free, not only are these apps not serving reddit's ads but they are actively taking up server resources.

First off, I doubt that. Second of all, that in of and itself is not a reason to discount everything and anything Google.

If Google created a way to end world hunger and did it for free would you automatically discount that because they removed 'don't be evil' from their code of conduct?

Most people don't own commodities in physical form for long, usually they buy some stock or ETF which tracks the price of the commodity, typically the ETF or stock issuer carry the physical commodity, so each stock is backed by the physical commodity. This mostly circumvents the issues of moving a lot of it around and the liquidity issue, albeit you pay a management fee which is fractions of a percent typically. Doing it this way is probably cheaper than the alternative of buying and selling the commodities yourself depending on the quantities you're buying as the firm managing it benefits from economies of scale.

Stronger legislation. Prevent the operation and sale of products which violate GPL and fines which equal the revenue generated from the violation.

AI (I'm mostly talking about ChatGPT here) is told to only report things that are factual or as close to it like what the current scientific consensus is and is fed currently what is believed to be the most accurate scientific models. Many political positions are contingent on the belief that these scientific models are incorrect.

Telling AI not to say falsehoods is implicitly injecting bias in its responses.

> Satellites are highly predictable and things can be tucked neatly away when they’re known to be overhead.

And the same can't be said for a balloon which flies wherever the wind takes it? Does China think NORAD is a joke or that we're incapable of modelling weather patterns?

Probably more than likely it's not generalizable to real world conditions.

Benchmarks are meant to be reproducible, meaning perfectly predictable. CPUs have things called branch predictors which try to predict what the software is going to do and try to do the calculation ahead of time resulting in (hopefully, if it predicted right) faster execution time. If you know which 'branches' a benchmark goes down, you can make a program which can coax the branch predictor to always make the right guesses for a given benchmark.

A program branches whenever you encounter some sort of conditional if-else statement.

During a stock buy back they just buy stocks on the open market. They reduce the number of outstanding shares, i.e. number of shares that can be purchased. The value of a single stock is determined by (company value / number of outstanding shares). By reducing the number of outstanding shares, each individual share goes up in value.