He is self-funding Mars via making businesses like SpaceX which sell products like any other company. If you think there shouldn't be tax incentives for things like electrification, co2 reduction, or whatever other subsidy the government offers then your problem is with your governments management, not the businesses using government programs.
It's a full self driving 'beta' though, it's literally in the name that it isn't final and doesn't have the bugs worked out. You also have to opt in to it.
As oppose to zero support now though. They only really need a queue. People would accept it if support got to their ticket in like a month from when they put it in. Hell they could even charge for customer support like $50 per hour or whatever and people would gladly pay it.
The amount of mistakes is what matters. I've seen videos where lawyer's go crazy because the judges supposedly doesn't understand basic law. Either he judge or the lawyer is way wrong in those cases - and I suspect sometimes both are very wrong and even agree on the wrong opinion. It's like self-driving - it just has to make less mistakes than humans. I think a ChatGPT lawyer is actually very close and could be created even today if that is where it's engineers put the focus. ChatGPT is trained on a wide variety of data and right now, is essentially acting like Google so it can answer nearly any question imaginable - but it doesn't need to have such a vague set of data to draw from. All it takes is training it on a very specific set of cleaned, accurate, and up to date data to make it an expert on a single specific topic.
This isn't exactly accurate. It's not creating one word at a time, that's the illusion given by the way it illustrates the text on the screen. Doing that would be impossible to create code that compiles for example.
ChatGPT is not like other chat bots which operate like a calculator and that is exactly why it is popular. You can put random inputs like "write a short story with 900 words with a bear and wolf about driving to the casino where they win big but can't spend the money" and it will output something total unique based on those inputs.
1. You could literally just input stack overflows data and it would be able to answer the same questions. ChatGPT is running on years old data and isn't even connected to the internet right now, the future will be way better.
2. Again Google is also wrong in subtle and even not so subtle ways. I've seen highlighted answers that are just dead wrong thanks to the SEO takeover. In Google clicks = right answer very often. It's essentially a popularity contest and try finding anything obscure on Google.
3. It's not going to write entire programs but it's amazing for simple one module tasks, but sometimes that is all you need to build into something bigger. You can even ask it tell you how to program and continually ask 'and how do I do that' and find the answer (similar to google which you'll be also be lucky to find anything useful on your first search or first link). It's more like an instructor than Google because with Google you don't know what you don't know. Most programmers are actually just good at searching for answers and this is a short cut. You can get 10 ways to program the same thing if you ask the question slightly differently. Just like I was talking about art, you get 100 solutions if you want and just choose the best. It's not replacing programmers but it sure as hell makes the job easier.
What is revolutionary is that ChatGPT is indistinguishable from a real person's writing and intelligence on a subject - and not just in text, but in coding. Before ChatGPT any similar program's responses were so obvious bots that you would look at and say "oh that's cool" but it was still garbage you would never use. Now, I've heard people using ChatGPT for self (ai) therapy, asking it what to do, and how to do something. It's a planner, a worker, a designer, an idea machine. It's like Google but actually gets you to the answers you want without the incredible about of garbage that came when SEO websites took over Google. Then you've got the symbiosis with humans, it's not "look at this AI art." It's artists using AI tools to 'produce' 1000 versions of art a day and pick the best one they find most personal. AI art was already entered into a human contest by someone cheating in which it won. Before iPhone there was plenty of similar products but none that put all the pieces together the way an iPhone did. There is a tipping point to AI and ChatGPT is the iPhone of AI.
Phone was stolen while traveling and I needed to log into my account to get my flight information. Google wouldn't let me log in from a new computer even though I don't have 2 factor setup. I had to use my 'recovery e-mail' to confirm an e-mail just to login, and that other e-mail address also required a 'recovery e-mail' to login. Luckily my 3rd e-mail down the line of recovery e-mails was at a website that didn't require a recovery e-mail, e-mail. The steps it took to just log into my account without 2 factor enabled was insane. It was a miracle I was able to do anything at all after having my phone stolen.
Edit: note I luckily had memorized all three passwords to the different e-mail addresses or I would have been up a creek.
That's just some dummy language in the deed and not the actual transfer of value. Almost every deed is for around $1 even if the sale price says millions. In the U.S. at least it doesn't matter what you put on the deed, either way they will tax you based on the actual value of the transfer.
Yep, literally every company that ever buys another company look to streamline it. In every single case where they say 'no layoffs planned,' just means they are waiting until they actually own the company and do the research to decide when layoffs will be.
It's not just noise reduction but the sharpening of the photos is really crazy. I took a picture of my carpet and it looks nothing like it does in person or up close. Like my carpet is just fuzzy and bland colored, not deep grand canyon crevasses with lots of contrast that show in the iPhone photo.
It is. I recall seeing some documentary about Facebook for the exact same thing - that it was cheaper to buy new hard drives and inactivate old content than it is to try to permanently scrub old content, and that was probably 10 years ago.
A $1M house would cost someone about $5,800 per month just to pay a 30 year mortgage at current rates without a down payment and that excludes property taxes, insurance, utilities, repairs, and all the other minor costs that go along with ownership. How can anyone possibly expect to be profitable in the slightest building that housing. Not even luxury housing would be doable at that price. The only return these investors get is from hoping the cost of the property goes up in 10, 20, 30 years, not from the income generated from rent. Companies actually refuse to build in California because what happens when the anti-landlord, anti-profit government decides they don't even deserve enough in rent to stay afloat until they reach those breakeven years 20 years later. The government implements rent control, decides that tenants don't have to pay, decides that tenants can't be evicted if they don't pay, and decides you are the bad guy for being a landlord, or that you are gentrifying the area. There is this assumption some government grant or combination of 5 of them should be the incentive to build there. Why not just allow those properties to actually be profitable an build there - then they would build more housing? Housing built to be affordable housing and those built to be luxury aren't even that different in building costs but you only get incentives if you build the affordable housing. 1000 new units at the top end still increasing overall housing by 1000 units. Instead they incentivize building 1000 units at the bottom end. Why not have the developers actually be the good guys, the hero's that are coming to build housing, sure at their profit but refusing to allow people to become profitable landlords is like saying we don't want more doctors in the world because doctors make too much money. There is an obvious need right now and they sacrifice the entire housing market in order to 'help the poor' but in the end it's a sacrifice. any economist knows that implement pricing controls (like affordable housing) only causes shortages. You have reduced supply because no one wants to build anymore, You have increased demand because everyone wants to pay that lower price. Pricing controls are the biggest disaster in the country and have probably caused more homelessness in their desire to lower prices.
The pandemic had "paycheck protection program" or PPP and a second round of this called PPP2 also. This program payed out billions to employers to keep employees, rather than let them go on unemployment, which would have been less productive to the country and maybe even cost the government more in those $600 per week in unemployment, per person. I seriously doubt any startup could otherwise have kept their employees thanks to their 'war chest.' Normally startups don't have a war chest at all.
I'm mistook that you were. You said pretty much he needs to do some math on how he spend his own time because he was wasting it in your opinion and from my read it was an implication that this was a bad decision for employees and the company. Maybe employees prefer having fun, being on the bleeding edge of tech, being part of a profitable company an d job security, and earning higher wages over the convenience of being allowed to work from home. I'm not saying every does or doesn't but this doesn't feel like an everything else be damned scenario just requiring most employees to show up.
No offense but it is impossible for you or I to estimate how they should run their company and whether this decision is good or bad as to their bottom line. We have almost zero knowledge about their internal workings of nearly what 100,000 people do and what projects should get cut and how hard employees are working or should be working and we can only opine on whether you or I prefer or don't prefer to work remote ourselves. If you had data that people were less productive from home, would you change your mind on your personal business? It's odd to assume that he would not have that data before making this decision.
I think Uber is in a great position already with the dramatic increase in cost of new and used vehicles and people's ability to work from home multiple days a week or permanently. It may already be more cost effective to Uber over having a car. Obviously bussing is an option but Uber matches the flexibility of a car much better. I'm going to generalize here but you might spend $700/month on a car. A monthly payment of $400 for the car (or equivalent purchase price/useful life), $100/mo for insurance, and $200/mo on gas. In a given month there might be 20 to 25 business days. For $700/month you could instead spend $28 per business day on Uber and break even, and if you work from home Uber comes out cheaper. This is without including parking costs in metropolitan area's, repairs, license fees, tows, and of course the insurance deductibles as well when an accident eventually does happen. Plus you get the comfort of not driving and ability to get things done on the trips. If we are drinking we end up Ubering anyways as well so we don't have to drive home.
I agree upon the success of your parents. It only makes sense that say a 'rich' or 'successful' parent that knows how to budget, had a better education, a strong will to persevere, and/or is extremely kind will pass on those skills of success to their children. Does that kid deserve to have the advantage? I'd say yes because it was the parents who created the life of their kid and what the parents want to do with their money and time, if that's support and educate the life they created then should be able to do that. In U.S. with public education, financial aid, and grants it is about as equal as possible monetarily but if a good blacksmith makes the best swords their son has a teacher around 24/7 that can teach them and make their son the next best blacksmith - but that applies to every single profession, but in general just budgeting or the skills I mentioned above would be enough to succeed in almost any profession, and bonus points if they have multiple of those skills.
Isn't that kind of the point of open source software? I doubt they would use it going forward because of the BS the mastodon developers already tried to pull on a closed alpha site because they disagreed with the users. I get it, there's some people you let the little things slide because you like them and others you act strict as hell because you don't like them. It's odd to use an open source software when you feel the developers are actively trying to catch you slip up to bring you down permanently.
I feel like the general use of accuracy assumes no false positives. When I hear "accuracy" in general conversation I assume it's 99% percent chance of a true positive and a 1% chance of false negative and ignore chance of a false positive and true negative when considering accuracy. Of course everyone already mentioned the various ratios that scientifically actually make up accuracy.
Debt is just a result of poor education. People literally not realizing what is happening with credit card debt is 100% an education problem. I've had girlfriends who build up credit card debt like they were going for a high score until I tell them what it's doing and how much they could save. They literally don't understand that buying something they want because its on sale at a 20% discount on the credit card is not a discount when you end up paying 20% on that money every single year going forward. They just saved $20 on some purse and because they carry a big running balance on their card, it will be 5 years until they even get close to paying down that purchase. That $100 purchase that was discount to $80 actually costs them around $200 in 5 years, when actually it will be much longer than that for them than 5 years to pay off with the balances they have. I've seen people who make $40/hour being a waiter or waitress after tips at a nice restaurant but they just purely live beyond their means. They often just eat out, every single day for lunch and dinner, not realizing if they look at their charges that they just spent $2K on food this month, and $400 was given straight to Uber just for convenience. Then you also have the people that are just going through hard times and want to survive using debt but I've found again, an education problem, not as simple as simple not understanding interest, but a problem none the less. No budgeting, no planning, no sacrifices. The amount of people that could move each other out of poverty by simply getting a roommate is insane. On another note, there's a hotel nearby, it's not the best but it is the cheapest and the homeless will spend $60/night together to stay there as a group of 4 people, only about $15/day per person more than they make panhandling in a day. They are almost there with their thinking in sharing but again have made a critical mistake. $60 a night is also equal to about $1,800 per month - the same cost it would have been to get maybe a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment. Sure they would have to actually trust the people they live with, but on literally $15 per day, they could have permanent shelter. Of course drugs and everything else complicates that, but in our society it really isn't that bad to simply get food and shelter, but people always live beyond their means and make poor decisions due to poor education.
The free market applies at every level, but it does take time to find it's level. Is the problem that people won't just raise the wages, like the other poster described? Absolutely not. The location that doesn't raise it wages will end up losing in the end if there truly is a labor supply problem. They may refuse to raise their wages, but they will get the lower quality applicants, lower quality workers, and maybe not any workers at all if they don't raise it enough. The fact is it takes time for market to adjust and those that don't follow the market get left behind. The businesses that aren't efficient enough to run on fewer employees will get left behind. Companies don't go bankrupt overnight but they do go bankrupt eventually if they aren't as efficient as other companies. Those that make bad decisions, that raise wages to much, will get hurt, and those that don't raise them enough will get hurt. The fact is wages are only one factor and in a free market it will always find the correct level over time.
Saying we need to pay them more doesn't change the laws of supply and demand. Besides, as of right now none of the careers you mentioned pay poorly, they are in very high demand and most live very comfortable lives. Are they getting Google software engineer type salaries? No, unless they branch off and start their own business. You can't just say "these people deserve more" because it's just not true. If the path to a STEM job was just as easy as becoming a plumber then literally everyone would do it just for the pay. They don't because it is actually harder to become an expert and you don't have a secure base of customers. Plumbers are needed in every single building and for every person to live. Tech is mostly non necessary and you literally have to improve upon those before you to make it. It is actually much much more difficult to succeed to tech.
People give consent all the time when it is still bad for them. It is a moral question in the end, the same way, we can say people consent to selling their body for sex, but have made it illegal, or say people consent to gambling knowing the odds put them at a disadvantage every single bet, or how people consent to credit card debt at insane rates not knowing just how much they are being taken advantage of. Consent matters, but in the end it's what we all believe should be tolerated from an ethical standpoint. Personally I see many issues with data collection and data sharing, even if not malicious, but that give the opportunity to be abused by others with a grudge or agenda I might not support. Not just banking information, but location data, purchasing history, and more. I'm not saying every has enemies out there but if anyone wanted to cause harm with that information they could.
Exactly. Lets assume Trump was completely the leader of January 6th and giving direct orders to go into the building and those people were his army. The only death by violence was one person and on a causality on his side. In Ukraine literally thousands are dying. There are people who literally attempted assassinations getting bail and keeping their online accounts.