adsfgiodsnrio

Do you think a Philosopher's Stone might have some value, too? I think Y Combinator should look into it. Maybe an Elixir of Immortality?

An automatically parallelizing compiler that works in general is one of the holy grails of computer science. They have been extensively researched for decades and we have little to show for it. If anyone managed to make one it would instantly render the entire computer industry obsolete.

We have systems that work in specialized cases with a whole lot of manual intervention. Even then, the executable is often less efficient than the serial version.

"OK, securities exchange, you can continue operating as long as you shut down the securities exchange."

I suppose they can keep the office cafeteria open.

And the SEC is also saying "you don't get to ignore the rules just because you don't like them". Whatever the rules should be, it's clear Coinbase is on the wrong side of what they are now.

There is nothing in the law that explicitly prevents the registration of a cryptocurrency. The problem is that the people making them are not able to answer the kinds of questions the SEC asks. How many cryptocurrency companies do you know of that could pass an audit? Even when ICOs aren't out-and-out scams I have never encountered one transparent enough for me to want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Why should the SEC bend over backwards to create new rules that allow exactly the sort of opaque, unaccountable offerings it is their job to prevent?

Everything about this screams "system working as designed to protect the public".

Would you kindly point out a company that tried and failed to register an ICO? I have done a little research and been unable to find any that even went through the motions. Perhaps the specifics matter.

>[2] lists the following threats:

Oops, you forgot one:

- Predation by nonnative and/or nuisance species

>And yes, after all of the above, cats may also present a threat.

You seem to think it's very important this bullet point is last, but there is nothing in the source that suggests items are listed in order of importance. Even if there were the order is not consistent in all parts of the report.

Why are you reading tea leaves when the authors say, explicitly and repeatedly, that cats are a serious threat?

>how? You know this?

California seems to think so.

>Beta testing with relatively untrained people on public roads seems necessary for either strategy though.

Then why is Tesla the only company doing it?

Mercedes has an L3 system shipping today and they didn't see any need to endanger my life to build it.

Tesla's system can be used to achieve nothing in actual operation. It makes constant mistakes and requires an ever-vigilant human to take over in a fraction of a second when it does. There is no advantage over manual driving, let alone manual driving with modern driver assistance.

We know Tesla cannot match Mercedes. We don't know whether or not Mercedes can match Tesla. Mercedes isn't reckless enough to let untrained fanboys play with defective software in two-ton vehicles on public roads.

So, in the absolute best-case scenario cherry-picked from thousands of videos, Tesla's system is capable of going twenty-five miles without making dangerous mistakes.

I agree the comparison is laughable.

As I said, this doesn't make sense even within the modern American right. Bud Light has been loudly supporting trans rights for years now with no backlash I can remember. Why did associating with a transgender person for a single video result in more outrage than years of deliberate political activism?

It's a random social media outburst. People latched on to one trivial event because that's what happens on the Internet. There is no rational explanation.

"Supervised" does not mean the models need babysitting; it refers to the fundamental way the systems learn. Our most successful machine learning models all require some answers to be provided to them in order to infer the rules. Without being given explicit feedback they can't learn anything at all.

Humans also do best with supervised learning. This is why we have schools. But humans are capable of unsupervised learning and use it all the time. A human can learn patterns even in completely unstructured information. A human is also able to create their own feedback by testing their beliefs against the world.

The customer base was alienated because Bud Light made one (1) custom can of beer. Not one kind of custom can, literally only one can.

Strangely, Bud Light has made special cans for pride month for years now and no one much cared. Strangely, people are boycotting Bud Light specifically and Anheuser-Busch is largely ignored. Strangely, major beer companies have had much more prominent partnerships with trans people with no similarly hysterical reaction.

This is not a story that makes sense. Even from the perspective of the modern American right it doesn't make sense. It's just a herd of people freaking out for no reason.

>The third Skywalker trilogy started off with a bang in late 2015 with The Force Awakens, only to end with a whimper four years later as fans deserted the franchise.

The Rise of Skywalker grossed over a billion dollars at the box office. The current crop of TV shows are some of the most popular things on TV. That isn't what I'd call "desertion". Disney can milk Star Wars for years to come.

It wouldn't surprise me if they've already made back their investment. The five Disney Star Wars movies have made over $4 billion gross. That's not accounting for the parks or merchandising.

I don't see any doom and gloom here for Disney. Things are bad for the moviegoing public, sure, but Disney is doing fine.

Cats are ferocious predators of mice and birds and other small animals. Maybe management is helpful, but even supposedly indolent cats do a lot of hunting.

They aren't good at hunting rats in particular. Rats are big and cats are scared to fight them.

I wondered about this myself. Cats don't often attack rats, but rats apparently change their behavior dramatically when cats are around. Just making rats afraid to come out of hiding would surely make them less efficient scavengers and would reduce their population.

You are badly misrepresenting the content of your sources.

[1] says:

>The owls are endangered from many sides. One of the biggest threats uses the Shoreline golf course. A bleak Mountain View report three months ago noted there have been deaths “due to direct contact between golf balls and burrowing owls.”

They do not blame only cats. They discuss cats in particular but do mention there are other threats. I will grant that this one confusingly-worded paragraph is not enough background.

They also do not call for the killing of all cats. The article mostly criticizes the practice of feeding cats, not TNR or adoption.

[2] says:

>Feral cats are supreme predators and actively prey upon burrowing owls. One study in Florida found owl mortality by cats accounted for 30 percent of deaths (Millsap and Bear, 1988). Cats also impact burrowing owls indirectly by decimating small bird and rodent populations, reducing the available food supply for burrowing owls.

One suggested solution is to:

>Proactively discourage all feeding of cats in Shoreline

It is exactly the same message as the NYT article.

[3] calls out the threat of cats first and foremost.

>There are many factors that could explain the low numbers. The owls are ground-nesting, living in holes hollowed out by squirrels. That can leave them vulnerable to a long list of predators, including foxes, skunks and raccoons. Feral cats are considered the worst of the lot, preying on owls as well as the small birds and rodents that make up the owls' main food supply. In fact, a released cat last year ended up mauling one prolific male owl, Kleinhaus said.

>In the aftermath of the shutdown, the local feral cat population predictably exploded[8], and the burrowing owl population at Shoreline Park went down to zero[9].

You seem to acknowledge that the large cat population was in fact a threat to owls, but still object to the NYT story.

Not as far as I can tell. My dealer is still getting them in.

>Bolt has been discontinued, so it's not a great example vehicle.

No, it will be discontinued. That's not the same.

No surprise; Chevy dislikes making good cars.

>Congress, not the SEC should be defining what a security (or commodity etc) is.

It's defined by the courts. The Howey Test, which is the modern definition of a security, was drafted by the Supreme Court in 1946.

>Especially as they were so cool with everything pre-FTX...

The feds move slowly. If they are bringing a case now, they've been working on it for years.

Do you think they're below the law? The fact that the business is so illegal that it's impossible to bring it into compliance just goes to prove the SEC's case. The only

Scams like pump-and-dumps and wash trading are rampant in cryptocurrency. The markets for cryptocurrencies are unfair by design. The fact that these securities can't be registered is the system working as intended.

>There isn't, and the SEC has already been sued about their failure to provide it.

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. The feds, however, almost never lose.

I think the feds use a different definition of "good at the job" than you do. They are slow, but they are inexorable. They very rarely lose once they bring charges.

Perhaps this should change. I can understand taking a while to decide to bring charges against Coinbase, but ten years?

I'm not sure. Coinbase is an American company, so the executives won't need to be extradited. There's a chance they'll actually do some prison time.

You can hear it straight from the horse's mouth:

>Rather than initiate new rulemaking, Chair Gensler has repeatedly stated through speeches and testimony that the vast majority of digital tokens are securities, and has asked issuers and exchanges that offer, sell, and trade them to come in and register. We disagree that the majority of digital assets are securities. For those digital assets that are securities, registration under the current rules is, for many market participants, either not possible or not economically viable given the associated and unnecessary compliance burdens. Additionally, when existing regulations are unworkable, some market participants may be less willing to invest the resources necessary to follow the rules. Failure to resolve these shortcomings leaves investors unprotected due to a lack of regulatory clarity, prevents market participants from leveraging the efficiencies new technology can offer, and materially impairs capital formation in the blockchain technologies that underlie digital assets. This is wholly inconsistent with the SEC’s mission.

https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/5NRidtW8lvwVEfSHpn...

The SEC has been clear that most cryptocurrencies are securities and must be registered. Coinbase was well aware of this. There is no confusion and no lack of clarity. Coinbase just doesn't like the rules.

This is a pretty weird headline. Why single out one car at random, and not even the car with the most impressive discount? Even after these rebates the Model 3 is still kind of pricey. The Chevy Bolt goes for $11,500 if the customer can claim the full rebate, which is a ridiculously low price for any new car.

The easiest solution is to avoid trading any futures and then ignore the CFTC as they only have jurisdiction over futures trading.

This is not a new problem, nor a difficult one.

Winning lottery tickets are a good investment. Losing tickets are a bad one.

You capitalized the wrong word. The CFTC is the Commodities FUTURES Trading Commission. After all, a commodity is defined as anything traded with a futures contract (except for onions and movie tickets)!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...

A whole lot of things that aren't commodities in common parlance are within the jurisdiction of the CFTC because they are traded with futures contracts. This includes some securities. A whole lot of things that are commodities in common parlance are not within its jurisdiction, as the CFTC only deals with futures contracts.

Orange juice concentrate is a commodity by any definition. The CFTC regulates futures contracts on orange juice concentrate. It does not regulate its production, sale, transportation, or anything else unrelated to futures contracts. That is the job of the USDA, FDA, DoT, and so forth.

Stocks are securities. As they are traded with futures contracts, they are also commodities. The CFTC regulates futures contracts on securities jointly with the SEC. It does not regulate any trading of securities that does not involve futures contracts. That is the job of the SEC. The fact that people trade stocks with futures has never hampered the SEC's efforts to regulate them.

https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/ContractsProducts/Sec...

They have no obligation to give legal advice, free or otherwise. It is the job of a company to keep in compliance, not the job of the SEC to be their outside counsel. Write to your senator if you think this should change.

This is all hypothetical, since the SEC has given clear guidance for years. Coinbase ignored this guidance because they didn't like it.

A "prosumer" desktop is just plain not up to the job. The Mac Studio is comparable to a high-end gaming PC. It is not really a workstation and definitely isn't a server. Its 16 performance cores and 192 GiB of non-ECC memory cannot compete with nearly 200 cores and multiple terabytes. Its GPU compute and memory bandwidth are many times less than what Nvidia can build at the high end.

The Studio would run large workload many times slower than a high-end server, if it could run them at all.

Leaving aside the legality, I find it tacky to use the names of dead people in advertisements. Grace Hopper did not endorse this product. We have no idea what she would have thought of Nvidia. Yet the lawyers are now fighting over the right to use her name and legacy to "create shareholder value".

The worst offender is Tesla, because I'm pretty sure he would have hated that company.