732 karma · joined June 16, 2024
These, and other systems, helped prevent any one person from monopolizing power.
This is a good video on this: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q
The latter, as they're built by Russia currently, require a decent size facility to build en mass. It's not the kind of thing Hamas could build in their tunnel system, for example.
I agree with your second point that interceptors will become depleted though and this is a serious problem.
Doesn't this apply only to for-profit products? There's plenty of 501c3's with free "products".
That would be one way to implement his suggestion of getting rid of objective (if flawed) measures of a researcher's performance.
I agree that, inevitably, there will be a subjective human decision in there, but I argue that dropping all objective measures of performance and going just on vibes is kicking the door wide open for corruption, while it's merely cracked right now. And the exploit mentioned in this article is a very public and explicit one, which is why other researchers were so aware of it and it eventually caught up to him. If it all gets moved behind closed doors instead, it will be even harder to detect and prosecute this sort of behavior.
This video is a good summary of the main steps involved: https://youtu.be/xaKyDrWfHes
It's certainly not as powerful or universal as 3D printing and it might not even be "additive manufacturing" proper, but it is a lot more than just etching/subtractive manufacturing.
Our semiconductors have had features below 100 nm for a while (actual features, not just process node names), so that's been wildly successful.
Why nanofabrication hasn't been as commercially successful outside of semiconductors is a much harder question to answer.
Why would it be? I don't believe an IPO has to be dilutive, it can be done with already issued shares. I grant you that's not usually how they're done though.
Liquidity!= ability to liquidate or not, BTW, it's more of a continuous spectrum.
I agree it's not perfect but that's still several steps removed from "Billy is one of us, he should get that tenured position" and, as this article shows, it requires openly unethical behavior, which others can recognize and eventually prosecute (even if that isn't being done often enough).
It's almost like saying "well corruption happens anyways so why do we even criminalize it and have public hearings? Just skip those bits and openly auction votes instead".
Oh boy, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. When science was a hobby of the rich, there was no need to measure output. Only when "scientist" became a career and these scientists started demanding government funding (which only really crystallized in the 20th century), then we started needing a way to measure output.
You could try doing away with an objective measure of academic output and replace it with the "social fabric of researchers and institutes" (whatever the fuck that means) instead , but then all you'd have is a good ol' boys club funded by taxpayer money.
They absolutely might, I'm afraid.
"Expats" living in Europe? I ask because "expat" usually refers to someone who moved to a lower cost of living country that may also have significantly lower income tax compared to the EU.
> It looks like the Federal Tax Credit only covers up to $130,000 per year of income.
$130k/yr is absolute bank in Europe. From a quick Google search, that would put you well in the top 5% of earners in Berlin, just as an example. So, this shouldn't be much of an issue.
No, you don't. You still have to file but you get "Federal Tax Credits" for income tax paid abroad and seeing how a EU country's income tax will almost certainly be higher than the US', you'll end up paying nothing. There's also tax treaties to avoid double taxation in other ways.
You've instead changed the discussion to whether or not those incentives are "effective", which is a very different and subjective discussion. You also make the dubious assumption that we should halt all destruction of retail clothing when the truth is that a supply surplus is a good thing to prevent supply shocks for consumers and the unused surplus does not necessarily make sense to donate or reuse. So a complete prohibition on the destruction of retail clothing seems like a very blunt tool here.
But, to engage with your new point: I would argue that retail clothing waste is not unique and that a much fairer system would be to tax commercial/industrial waste in general. For that reason, this move by the EU seems more like a publicity stunt than a meaningful measure to me.
This is so obviously untrue. It's painfully obvious that the less they waste, the more profit they make, so there's plenty of incentive for them to order the right amount.
1) Samaritans and Judeans do not disagree on which God they worship (it's YHWH), they disagree on much more subtle points that are largely unique to the Israelite religion like the location of the temple mount, the correct version of the pentatuch, differences in how to practice some of the rituals, etc.
2) Zoroastrianism predates the Israelite religion and is usually considered monotheistic (although some scholars disagree). If you loosen your definition to allow henotheism then some eastern traditions were first by about a millennia.
3) WTF does monotheism have to do with trademark law? I'm sure you think it's a deep argument but it just came off as a total non sequitur to everyone else.
Meanwhile, between 60 and 77% of Americans report living paycheck to paycheck. Sure seems unlikely that your claim that most Trump voters trade commodities is even remotely close to true.
I think you meant "most retail gold and silver investors are Trump voters".
An online $100/$50 heads up match is probably equivalent to a $10k/$5k live game, in terms of the quality of pros you'll find grinding them.
What do you think represents the highest level of poker instead?
I agree with your post but I'd just like to nitpick that this first phrase is not true, the equilibrium point is independent of what your opponent does. I'm pretty sure you know this as you then go on to describe not a context where the equilibrium changes but where it becomes hard for humans to find the equilibrium.
So we agree, it's just a small nitpick of how you worded.
von Neuman proved it for 2 players in his classic "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior": https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.215284/page/n3...
Nash proved it for n-players: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1063129/pdf/pnas015...
> "GTO" is only possible against perfect play to begin with
This is a very common misconception, probably because GTO is usually explained as the equilibrium reached by 2 perfect players. The key insight of GTO is that you do not adjust your strategy to what your opponent is doing. If you play the equilibrium strategy and they don't, you're guaranteed to make money.
> And I also never claimed exploitative strategies guarantee everything, for the same reason "GTO" doesn't either. It's a game of incomplete information.
I didn't say you did, I was just making my own independent argument as to why intuitive play is dangerous and people often end up deceiving themselves into thinking they're winning players.
> And, there are pros that have been winning for long amounts of time knowing zero about GTO theory.
Which is why I said that, IMO, 90% of pro players fundamentally misunderstand poker (and that's not even counting the losing players who think they're "pro").
The players who study GTO instead of trying to win these meta mind games have proven to do very well in online heads up while the old-school mind games guys keep going boom and bust.
This is provably false.
You're absolutely right that GTO does not guarantee you'll win the maximum against a fish, but neither does exploitative play. In fact, exploitative play can't guarantee you anything, which is probably why old-school pro players are perennially going broke throughout their careers (that and bad bankroll management).
IMO, currently, over 90% of pro poker players (especially live and in the US) fundamentally do not understand how poker should be played (which is why they get so easily destroyed by the new generation in online heads up).