No company retains ownership if the purchase doesn't go through. They could also simply require payment up front as part of the sale terms before transfer of the platform. They've had nearlt a year to arrange all of this.
The algorithm will spoonfeed you content that you perceive a certain way, whether that's true or not is a different story. Unfortunately for most people, all those hilarious situations that are not-so-obviously staged just fly over their heads as genuine. My wife is smart and well educated, but I even had to keep correcting her when she showed me videos that she believed were genuine.
The forced divestment is for national security reasons. Bytedance, as a Chinese company, is required by law (Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China) to provide full data access to the Chinese government on request, and they are compelled not to reveal when this occurs. Since this is done through legitimate channels (on Bytedance's side), this won't even be caught with an audit. So you have a situation where an app installed on half of America's phones shares all its data with China, along with any potential changes the government recommends for influencing the content.
It's not a ban, it's a forced divestment from Chinese ownership. The real question is why Bytedance isn't willing to take fair market value for Tiktok instead of just losing everything, since that makes no sense if this was just "business" and there weren't ulterior motives involved.
How so? Generally speaking, foreign entities do not have the same constitutional guarantees as domestic with regard to laws concerning national security. Mind you, if this was a domestically owned platform, they would have a very strong case.
Login credentials are more than just the email used, and should not be conflated with identity. To be honest I'm surprised google isn't using a uuid tied to the account for the identity given to others, especially since internally google knows and treats it as a separate account that just happens to have the same e-mail. The e-mail should only be used as metadata for contact info.
For a new factory with a new entry into the local market it makes perfect sense to bring in experienced workers for knowledge transfer. This is more an issue if a decade later this is still how things are done.
"The Stop WOKE Act, also known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act and redubbed the Individual Freedom Act, is a Florida state law which prohibited schools and businesses from teaching certain concepts related to race, gender, racism, and privilege. In addition to that, it prohibits Florida educational institutions and businesses from discussing whether race, gender, and systemic racism intersect with various social systems, including legal, healthcare, education, and so forth. Penalties would include disciplinary action, including job termination, and loss of public funding for state schools.[1][2]
After passing both chambers of the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature along party lines, it was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on April 22, 2022, and entered into effect on July 1.[3] Intended by DeSantis to "fight back" against "woke indoctrination" and critical race theory"
You may not have personally been impacted but this is a real occurring to our schools (and workplaces) under the scapegoat of "CRT" and being "Woke". The Stop Woke Act is just one of many examples.
To clarify, aren't these standards mostly relevant where heavy bicycle traffic exists? Do they still apply in areas with little to no bicycle traffic? I'm assuming you're mostly referring to this famous manual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROW_Design_Manual_for_Bicycle...
Learning about systematic racism has been relabeled as Critical Race Theory, and suddenly teaching about the Tulsa Race Massacre or how banks used to discriminate against minorities for lending is considered extremism and "woke". Growing up, learning this stuff in history books, was just normal and made sense in order for us to avoid repeating these mistakes.
To some degree yes. Funny enough, llamaimperative's book suggestion goes into detail on how television is where this really started ramp up and how the Age of Reason was likely the peak of rational argument, where the focal point of transfer of information was through the written word.
"He repeatedly states that the eighteenth century, the "Age of Reason", was the pinnacle for rational argument. Only in the printed word, he states, could complicated truths be rationally conveyed. Postman gives a striking example: many of the first fifteen U.S. presidents could probably have walked down the street without being recognized by the average citizen, yet all these men would have been quickly known by their written words. However, the reverse is true today. The names of presidents or even famous preachers, lawyers, and scientists call up visual images, typically television images, but few, if any, of their words come to mind. The few that do almost exclusively consist of carefully chosen soundbites. Postman mentions Ronald Reagan, and comments upon Reagan's abilities as an entertainer."
For people confused like me on what intensification means, it means maximizing the amount of attention and interaction that occurs. On Youtube this would be the metrics that drive engagement, including views, likes, comments, shares, and watch time. The issue is that the content focuses on driving engagement at the expense of communicating ideas with coherence and depth, for example by sensationalizing or oversimplifying a complex issue (especially for things like political discourse focused on sound bites and emotional appeals, or with virtue signaling and outrage culture). I think the above commentor is right, in my opinion, intensification shapes our world into being very reactionary, with only a superficial understanding of issues, and platforms like Youtube Shorts and Tiktok take this to its furthest possible level.
"All operations were done in floating point. On the GE-225 and GE-235, this produced a precision of about 30 bits (roughly ten digits) with a base-2 exponent range of -256 to +255.[49]"
Does XP and pair programming actually require two people to be simultaneously working together at the same time? My understanding is that this includes one person who codes while another person looks at the results and reviews them afterward. The two are still working closely together and exchanging feedback, just at different points in the process in an iterative loop.
It's an extremely complex mixture of many factors (which can vary wildly between two different productive engineers), and trying to make that into some magical formula ends up creating a system that can be gamed to superficially appear productive to managers.
During China's ASAT test, almost all of the debris remained in the same LEO orbit. The amount of energy needed to climb over 1000km to reach MEO or over 35000km to reach GEO is significant, and even then, to reach a stable orbit after the climb is very unlikely. Kessler Syndrome is always a consideration, but with Starlink it's still minimal, especially since Starlink's elevation is only 340km, while China's ASAT test targeted a satellite at 900km.
Similar to a developer who copy-pastes sections of code from StackOverflow and puts their faith in it being correct. The bigger issue with LLMs is that it's easier to be tricked into thinking you actually understand the code when your understanding may actually be quite superficial.
The human eyes are analog low pass filters, so beyond 60Hz is when things start to blur together, which is still desirable since that's what we see in real life. But there is a cutoff where even the blurring itself can no longer help increase fidelity. Also keep in mind that this benefit helps visuals even when the frame rate is beyond human response time.
The 5090's core increase (30%) is actually underwhelming compared to the 3090->4090 increase (60% more), but the real game changer is the memory improvements, both in size and bandwidth.
The leetcode grind is my biggest dread. I can do it and I do well, but I'll be damned if it isn't a lot of mindless rote memorization that immediately leaves my brain the second I land the job, never to be used again (even in my job) until the next time I apply around.
Consistency makes code predictable and reduces mental overhead. It doesn't mean you have to write it poorly like the rest of the codebase, but it does mean using the same general practices as the rest of the codebase. Think of it like using knockoff legos vs the real thing. They both work interchangeably which makes it easy to use them together, but you'd prefer to use the nicer lego pieces as much as possible in your builds because the material is higher quality, tighter tolerances, just overall works better even if it's the same shape as the knockoff pieces.
This is what we do. The kids don't get unlimited access to TV, but rather curated access to educational material, but we limit tv altogether on weekdays and they only get ipads at the restaurant. On the weekends they can watch a few fun movies in the afternoon.
That's because China has strongly failed to follow trade agreements under WTO, including the TRIPS agreement (which is an international agreement protecting IP rights), SCM agreement (which prohibits state subsidies of certain trade goods), the National Treatment Principle (which mandates equal treatment of imported and locally produced goods), National Treatment and Market Access commitments (China strongly restricts foreign ownership in certain sectors of their local market, including the tech industry), etc. Mind you most of these agreements were made in the 90s, so China has had plenty of time to comply. It's a bit pointless to keep using the WTO when a country isn't going to comply anyways.
I'm not saying the US is blameless either, but with China, it's nearly shameless. In the tech industry alone, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitch, Steam, LinkedIn, Dropbox, ChatGPT and Copilot, Github (partially), etc are all banned in China. Shoot, Google left a decade ago after they kept getting hacked by the Chinese government. When China was still quite poor and developing, this behavior was overlooked, but as they become a rich world power on the global stage, that's not the situation anymore.
This has nothing to do with democracy, it's about trying to keep a level playing field. The US has been trying to open trade with China since the 70s, and until China stops doing this the US has to adjust trade policy to keep things fair. Free and open trade is a two way street, otherwise it's just charity to the bad faith actor.
If anything I'd expect performance to improve on a plane. Aside from the cabin itself, it's line of sight. What I'm really curious about is how well LTE over Starlink will work.
There's two decades worth of countless conversations on Reddit alone that would be buried into nothingness but instead ML has revived all that activity as useful data. ML is definitely a great way to bring back utility for a lot of old and unused data.
In spite of the rediculous level of precautions society had taken, over a million Americans still died to COVID. Keep in mind at the time the proper procedure to treat COVID was unknown, there was no vaccine which dramatically reduced the risk, and more aggressive and successful treatments such as using antibodies didn't exist either. COVID was without doubt dangerous in the early days of the pandemic.
Perhaps you have better insight into this, why do you think having the primary incentive for professors/researchers being quantity of papers published is appropriate? Or are you saying that it's simply unfixable and we must accept this? As far as I'm aware, quantity of papers published has no relevance to the value of the papers being published, with regard to contributing to the scientific record, and focusing on quantity is a very inappropriate and misleading metric to a researcher's actual contributions. And don't downplay that it isn't purely a numbers game for most people. Your average professor has their entire career tied to the quantity, from getting phd candidates through in a timely manner to acquiring grants. All of it hinging on quantity.