dasudasu

Besides, forgoing any investigation is a political statement and indeed the preferred outcome by one major political player.

It’s not about being pampered or shielded from the world. There is a difference between a) being challenged, being put into competitive environments, and having access to a wide range of experiences and b) having negative childhood events or trauma.

This is mostly wishful thinking. Advantages tend to accumulate in life. Those who had the easiest time growing up are often the most stable ones emotionally. Life doesn’t care about fairness, just like being and tall and attractive is correlated with intelligence, even though we might not prefer it this way.

I’m sure you’ve also seen they type: brillant PhD, liked by everyone, natural leader, accomplished on multiple levels, perfect family and relations. These are the people that have been selected to be astronauts. How often have you seen one have a breakdown during a mission?

You almost certainly do, they just keep silent.

It really isn’t. It’s just a fancy receipt that also happens to be particularly harmful to the environment. There is nothing preventing a shady charity from embezzling the funds. As with everything blockchain related, trust stops every time there needs to be an interaction with the real world.

As an "expert" in telecom, he should really know better. Nobody is under the illusion that regional telecom companies are some sort of tech hubs. Of course they're not. They don't have the economies of scale -- unless they become a gigantic monopoly such as AT&T and then get broken up anyway. Or, in the case of AT&T again, if they just helped create an entirely new industry so that they have to build everything themselves because there is nobody else to do it anyway. But this is just a historical curiosity. The telecom industry is obviously not in this state today.

What incentives does a small, geographically limited service provider has to spend so much on R&D? So that they can get try to make awkward licensing deals for their awesome tech if they strike gold and get to be the first to develop 5G? This makes very little sense. Telecom equipment vendors are an actual thing. They're just not that well known to public. For the optical backbone, you have the likes of Ciena, Juniper, Infinera, ADVA, etc. (More well-known Nokia and Cisco are also heavy players there.) These companies are all system integrators themselves, and have their own degree of vertical integration. There are component vendors which specialize even more, although they are increasingly getting gobbled up through consolidation in the sector. This is partly because people figured that it makes little sense to develop the same transceivers or modems at 10 different companies when you can instead merge them and combine the R&D budgets, patents, and manufacturing know-how. This is the same reason we don't have 20 CPU manufacturers. This is advanced stuff with high R&D costs. His argument seems to be that it'd be nice to just have more people work in this field at regional telecom companies, because then some areas like parts of Europe wouldn't be deprived of a tech sector. The reality is that we don't need a very large workforce to develop the most high-end stuff, and tech, especially the high-end non-consumer grade variety, really is a winner-takes-all market when it comes down to it.

There is nothing preventing a big telecom service providers from buying any of these system vendors. That would also be very expensive and subject to heavy regulatory scrutiny to ensure proper competition in the market (buying a system vendor and then blocking the sales or price gouging your competitors being a big no-no). But there again people figured out in the 80s and 90s that conglomerates are actually less, not more efficient. Everyone is better off specializing in their own thing. The tech inclined people end up joining those companies instead, and that's really for the best. Is he really arguing that innovation and tech doesn't exist in the field? Where does he think it comes from? Some unnamed office in Shenzhen? Besides Huawei or ZTE, not really.

Canadian diplomats were also affected in the case of Havana. They have good relationships with Cuba, send a good flow of tourists, and have no sanctions in place.

Execution can depend a lot on the amount of capital you have available in the first place.

Imagine a startup trying to develop a very expensive solid state LIDAR. They don't have the millions in funds to go to a fab and go into production. They do shitty prototypes. But they get some attention and are able to sell/license their patents. In this alternative universe where patent law is much weaker:

1. The big corp can choose to ignore you and not buy or license the patents. Their defense will be that you are a non-practising entity since you have no revenues or customers. There is a grace period? They make the bet that they can just wait you out.

2. You never patent the idea in the first place. There is no point as there is no way for you to profit from the idea. The world never get access to the tech.

So you're a small startup with no sales trying to build a prototype, but you patented your idea so that you get a priority date, and also because a patent is the first thing investors want to see to know that your idea won't just be copied by anyone else. Now you just get run over by the big boys?

Now you're in the same situation, but you sell your patent to another entity because you can't afford yourself to sue the big boys for damage. You or anyone else you delegate should have no recourse at all?

I think the point is that we're supposed to feel sad about this economic activity because it's emitting tons of CO2.

They don't prosecute for a random one off. It's always people that have done it multiple times, so they establish a pattern.

Pretty much, yeah. At my hardware-focused corp, we have specific supply chain people that will argue about price all day. It's just a different business world than retail.

The real game starts when people run infinite while/for loops that try to check out one as soon as it's available. Or run useless operations within the licensed software just so that that the license doesn't expire and return to the pool. I'm guilty of both, sadly. In an academic environment, additional resources aren't going to fall from the sky.

We don't quite reach a very high degree of practical math literacy even though everyone is taught from a young age. Calculus considered as "incredibly difficult" being an example.

Would you think the same about speculative social science? Some nerds find theoretical physics especially cool for its own sake, as opposed to say pure philosophy, but this is not most people's position. They think even space exploration, something much more concrete, is a waste of money. Your value judgment is right, and theirs wrong? They're the one having to clean the literal toilets. The thing also is that quantum mechanics was developed with a fraction of today's money being spent on physics.

What do they spend all that op ex on?

It’s not really surprising when anyone pushing crypto to you also happen to hold a lot of crypto. It’s self-serving advice 100% of the time. It’s pretty much a staple also to call every other crypto you don’t hold a fraud trying to steal the spotlight.

That's entirely possible and even likely, but that's still a huge market failure that should be corrected. You can't have a situation like this happening to some stocks exclusively.

Where were those increases in required DTC collaterals when TSLA/NIO/your favorite SPAC was going through the roof? The conspiracy just moves to whoever unilaterally decided to raise collateral requirements from 2% to 100% -- a 4900% increase, and nice and whole numbers that seem fully arbitrary. A situation in which people have settled in their accounts should not depend on some backdoor credit wizardry that ultimately damages retail investors.

If it's 2 million people with $250 willing to make a bet, it's manipulation, but if a rich hedge fund manager like Soros has the money upfront to do something like short the pound and induce a Black Wednesday event [1] all by himself, that's fine and not manipulation at all? Just taking this as a random example. Any fund with enough money can move a market. This is their basic modus operandi.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

No proof of that. Pure speculation. It’s also in their interest to spread such rumors.

A friend of mine sold his first generation Leaf and purchased a used Prius instead. He is an EV fanatic and that was his first car.

There is a private network of charging stations in our area. He has a few stories about them.

One time he arrives at a station that disconnects him after 5 seconds. He calls them. Customer service says it's functional and nothing is wrong with it. He asks them to look up the previous charges. They all disconnected after 5 seconds. Coincidence!

He goes to another broken station. He calls them. Apparently they're not aware of it being down right now, but tell him it's a recurrent problem with this one. Nothing else is done.

He breaks his own rules and takes his chances on a charging station without having enough charge to go to another one in case this one fails. Sure enough, it's broken. He call them. He has to get towed to the next station, and they will pay for it, but that doesn't include his own transport. He has to pay for a cab himself.

He gets to another non-functional charging station. He calls them. They tell him it's a compatibility issue with his car despite him having used the same ones for the past 5 years. There is nothing else they can do for him. He asks to speak to someone higher up and to pass on his complaint. He never hears back.

He wasn't even discouraged by the long recharge times. In the end, it's because he was tired of being late to appointments and having to worry about this crap all the time.

>A vision of the future, perhaps, in a post-peak world: smaller populations crowding ever more tightly into urban centres. And outside, beyond the city limits, the wild animals prowling.

That seems inevitably tied to the increasing specialization and efficiency of agriculture. What was the original reason for humans to spread out in rural area, if not to get some farming land for yourself? Economic activity isn't much tied to land use anymore. It's seems hard to fathom any reason why would humans just go back to rural areas if not for some unforeseen technology to make this sensible, considering all the advantages living close to large metropolitan areas provide – and no, WFH isn't it.

You have the democrats calling for "trillions" in stimulus: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-08/biden-cal...

You have Jerome Powell telling you that "stocks are not that high" considering that the risk free rate just collapsed: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/powell-says-stock-prices-are...

If they want to go by history, they just have to look back at the last decade to see what this does to a stock market. There is no alternative.

Doesn't account for distributions. Current yield is quoted as 4%. Still, they look to have been wrecked in 2008 and 2014-16 (a global downturn that barely made a blip in the US).

According to whom? NIH says 600 IU for a normal adult (https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona...) and recommends a maximum daily intake of 4000 IU (https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-Consumer/).

I have done 1000 IU for a few months with no impact on chronic insomnia.

This is from a country that lets its state officials run wild with claims that it was imported from the US army into Wuhan, while keeping a tight enough leash to disappear any citizen when they cross arbitrary lines, and whose official line is now that it came to Wuhan through imported frozen seafood. We'll never know the origins, realistically.

So the perfect distraction?

It could be argued that #5 is just another form of distraction. Any form of "rich life" is mostly keeping the death anxiety at bay.

Pay at a FAANG is often significantly higher, even in remote satellite offices, compared to the local market. Also, working at a FAANG early in your career, especially in an area where this is uncommon, is a very clear boost to your CV. You don't have to spend your entire career there. People don't give enough credit to new grads to know where the market is.