Seconded. And a quick note that this course is based on the book "The Elements of Computing Systems: Building a Modern Computer from First Principles (The MIT Press)"
2,688 karma · joined June 6, 2012
(For younger viewers: Amazon used to just sell books)
Oh, hang on, it's suddenly occurred to me that you're being so defensive because you're in a similar situation and hoping for the best?
No son, don't rely on "recommendations" or "positive meetings". If it's not in writing, it's worth nothing. Get it written down and fuck the "rising stars" bullshit. If it's worth anything, it's in the contract.
You can thank me later, kid.
They were never going to get equity. Life is not fair.
Well, exactly. And you don't think they earned that wealth, I presume? You think they took it from the ordinary working person. So why are you arguing that this exact same behaviour is acceptable under a Capitalist system?
Your other points are worth addressing and you argue well, but there are too many for one post. I don't like the funneling of wealth that happens with Copyright either, so I'd like to see it abolished, if that answers some of your later stuff.
The real reason to not give you equity is because they don't have to, so more for them.
When I say "structurally enforces", I mean that it amplifies the natural urge to have more, or do better, than someone else.
For example, we might say that someone with $100,000 is fairly comfortable. And perhaps someone who's more ambitious might have 10x their wealth. Or, let's be more generous: let's say 100x or even 1000x. That last would give you someone at $100,000,000 which most folk would agree is pretty wealthy.
Bit it's a bit much when you end up with someone who has 10,000,000x the comfortable persons wealth. That's not human nature: that's a structure set up to funnel the wealth that ordinary people have created, to a tiny number of individuals. And I see that as a problem even if you don't.
But I understand your point that perhaps these are not necessarily inherent to Capitalism. I believe they are, as Capitalism structurally enforces inequality which inevitably leads to these things.
Cornwell certainly has an anti Christian bent, but he at least tries to compensate with some relatable characters (Leofric for example).
Clearly this doesn't apply to everyone, but I reckon it applies to most.
The UK Conservative government as currently run by Boris Johnson? Well, yes, of course they do! It's hardly a secret. They literally boasted that they'd got rid of Freedom of Movement as their first achievement of Brexit (under Theresa May at the time).
It was all over the news. How did you miss it?
Of course they can, and already do in some countries.
> We have data[1].
Or at least a TED talk. Checking it out...
1:26 "From 36% to 31%": Well, it certainly dropped, but it doesn't look from a quick scan as if that trend is continuing after 2010. Looks like it goes up after 2013. And, indeed if I check the source he used, the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, it has figures now up to 2019, which show we're at 37% so the trend has reversed in the right direction. Also, that talk was given in 2016, so why are the figures only up to 2013? I was able to get last year...
Moving on...no, wait, that graph looked a bit weird. That "arrow" was meant to look like a trend line, but it's actually just hovering above two points. What're the rest of the data for, decoration? That's just two cherry picked points! That isn't statistics, it's join-the-dots.
We're less than 2 minutes in and it's not looking good for the "we have data" video.
2:07: "There's just a lot of poor countries that are still using wood and dung and charcoal as their main source of energy": ironically, these are carbon neutral, but at any rate, these are not the countries that have the highest CO2 emissions, so why are we trying to suggest it's their fault?
2:44: "Barely makes up half": not true anymore; renewables have overtaken nuclear and as mentioned, have reduced the usage of fossil fuels already.
2:50: "Let's take a closer look in the United States." - This seems a bit like talking about how to get to the Superbowl and suggesting we take a closer look at the Cleveland Browns. Would it not be a good idea to look at countries who're actually good at renewables?
3:15: "People think of California as a clean energy and climate leader": Heh, no, I think of countries and states with >80% electricity from renewables as leaders. California doesn't qualify.
3:21: "What about Germany?": Ah, lets move on from Cleveland and talk about the Detroit Lions...Why is it that the nuclear fanboys always want to talk about Germany, rather than the other countries in Europe who have far more renewable energy.
3:21: "and there's really not anybody who's going to tell you that they're going to meet their climate commitments in 2020.":
Narrator: "They met their targets."
3:36: "Solar and wind provide power about 10 to 20 percent of the time": Genuinely baffled by this one. This guy thinks there's only daylight 20% of the time? He thinks that wind turbines are built in areas that only have wind 20% of the time? Is he a complete idiot?
I think I'll stop here. I've just one more point to add: this guy says he's been travelling and researching this himself, yet his actual graphs came from the BP report I mentioned earlier. Why did the data come from an oil company if they compiled it themselves? I get the feeling that the real push for nuclear is simply a stalling tactic being pushed by fossil fuel interests, because they know that if countries simply rolled out wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal etc today, they couldn't possibly compete and they'd be finished.
What do you reckon?
You can buy a Thinkpad P15 with 128GB of RAM today, so I'd expect more like multi-TB RAM by 2030.
What you're saying is the 9 is pretty close to 34 (60% effectiveness). No, it isn't. You'd need to quadruple the number of vaccinated cases to get there. Even if you double them, you're still at 80% so I'd take that as the realistic worst case.
Edit: Also, this is BioNTech's vaccine, not Pfizer's. They partnered with Pfizer as they have the facilities and scale for a massive rollout, but it was developed by BioNTech. I wish they were getting more credit in the US & UK coverage.
This is not a hypothetical; it's the reality fishermen have been dealing with for decades.
Are you sure you've thought this out?