dasimon

The split would likely be Douyin (TikTok China) vs. TikTok for the rest of the world. The business is already structured that way- ByteDance operates Douyin directly but TikTok operates through a subsidiary.

Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'."

tl;dr of the article:

- Autonomous vehicles drove fewer miles in the state of California in 2017, but maybe made up for that in miles driven elsewhere.

- The disengagement rate will probably need to improve considerably before AVs are ready for widespread deployment

- Waymo's disengagement rate barely improved year over year, but that may have been because they are placing the cars in more difficult scenarios (their blog post suggests that is indeed the case)

Well, Peter Thiel is on the board of Facebook...

While well-constructed C programs are as minimal and straightforward as programs come, the language is certainly full of pitfalls (just look at the underhanded C contest). Keep in mind that most computer science students in their first intro course have not yet developed the mental models that experienced programmers take for granted. Students will try doing all sorts of things which don't make much sense, and C is overly permissive of these things unless you introduce additional tooling, e.g. valgrind, which can become very overwhelming for intro-to-CS students who are still feeling lost.

I agree that C0 on its own is overly simplistic, but the way it is used at CMU is as 'C with training wheels' - strict type checking, no potentially-unsafe pointers to the stack, dynamic array bounds checking, etc. Then, two thirds into the semester, students transition to real C, and learn how to correctly manage those potential pitfalls.

This is how students at CMU have been learning C since 2010, and graduates don't seem to be any worse off for it.

Hello, I'm a TA for the intro course taught in C0.

C0-specific resources can be found at http://c0.typesafety.net

I am no expert, but it sounds to me like this headline is an oversimplification.

The abstract of the paper suggests that the authors intend to support the claim that "not all quantum systems can be simulated efficiently using classical computational resources". Essentially that it's impractical to simulate complex nondeterministic quantum behavior using deterministic algorithms.

But what about quantum computers? It would seem to me like their inherent nondeterministic behavior would be an ideal fit for simulating other nondeterministic quantum systems.

In any case, it doesn't sound like they found any real theoretical limitation, just a practical one.

A prior paper contributed to by Ms. Flack (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.7720.pdf) presents a framework for modeling the dynamics between individuals - I would assume that is the abstract "social coordinate space" to which she's referring, which places individuals within "Markovian, probabilistic, 'social' circuits" rather than into some Euclidean space.

And Ms. Flack, though her research interests extend beyond the realm of what is traditionally considered hard science, is most certainly a scientist - an evolutionary biologist specifically.

I assume you are linking to her LinkedIn profile to point out her "Doctor of Philosophy" degree? That's just the full, formal name for a PhD :P

The problem is not competition from traditional taxi companies (they do indeed replace taxi companies' management structure) but other ride sharing companies, ie Lyft. Uber has only managed to stay ahead of Lyft by undercutting Lyft's prices, incurring severe losses in the hope that as soon as they have self-driving cars they will be able to become profitable by eliminating one of their main expenses, the drivers themselves, while maintaining lower prices than Lyft.

Without self-driving cars, that strategy isn't sustainable, and so eventually Uber will find itself unable to maintain its advantage over Lyft.