I would guess that when you are training you are still doing activities that are not as safe as just traveling from point A to B: flying low, pointing the nose at the ground, landing a helicopter in a less than ideal spot (it seems like half of those are helicopters), etc. That hypothesis doesn't really apply well to transport planes or B52s though. Military pilots probably spend a higher overall fraction of their flying career as trainees?
It's usually not that different from just amount * marginal market value, such that its not generally worth worrying about the distinction. The main reasons you can't dump 1 trillion dollars of stock at once is it would be difficult to find enough buyer capital quickly, and announcing your intention to do that is going to drop the price as you're implying an overvaluation.
Both of those problems can be solved if you just do it slowly in a pre-announced manner. A trillion is a thousand billions, so you could cash out 1 billion dollars annually until the 30th century assuming zero growth/inflation. So unless you're really worried about the optics of selling 0.1% of your holdings, or plan to spend more than 1 billion a year outside your business, you're not really constrained.
Everything is liquid in a long enough time horizon. It just depends on what you mean by liquidating. Like do I have to sell my house today? In a week? Months? More flexibility = more value.
For Musk the situation is definitely more extreme though. Since a significant part of that valuation is attached to him owning it, he would definitely take an abnormal level of haircut. Probably an unknowable investor sentiment question though.
I think it was a pretty common pre-modern (not by any means extinct today) academic view that the arc of history was generally towards the decline of civilizations. Like our ancestors were great and amazing and we're just kindof pale imitations of them. It probably doesn't hurt that when the two most important sources of authority in your society are noble title/blood and religion, your ancestors are much closer connected to the source of those.
Modern fantasy picks up this trope, where the most powerful magic and the greatest structures etc are always in the past, only being rediscovered by people in the now.
In particular: *all the knowledge that AI has of nuclear weapons is freely available on the internet*. It's not superhuman, and there's no secret sauce data. If you just study the same PDFs and blog posts it has, you will acquire the same abilities. I cannot imagine anyone with the intent and immense financial and political resources to actually build a weapon would say that some study time is the only thing stopping them from detonating a nuke.
It is pretty convenient for the labs to frame the conversation around this though, since it is easy to address, very few paying customers are rejected, and sounds scary (so surely the less scary sounding stuff must be solved right?)
Yeah they can probably be almost entirely depreciated within 2-3 years, and pretty substantially front-loaded within that. Like, the expensive part of being a CPU company is making new ones, but Intel can't exactly just rest on their laurels and sell Pentiums for the rest of time.
Wow, the parks police, the secret service, and the national guard. They must have consulted with the department of government efficiency on how to cost effectively investigate dead grass.
You realize that the library is not like a portal right? It's just a building that happens to be on the invisible line. If you wanted to cross the border you could just travel to any point along the countless miles of uninhabited wilderness outside the town and walk across.
Part of it is just expectations btw. If the value of money is jumping up and down rapidly it is bad for business. Like if I'm going to sell you a 30 year fixed rate mortgage we require an accurate expectation of future inflation for one of us not to effectively lose their shirt on the deal. Imagine shops shuffling their prices up and down constantly, unions renegotiating contracts all the time, you sign up for 12 months of netflix but the price implicitly assumes that money will be worth N% less by month 12, etc. (imo a lot of these things should already be pegged, but people don't like doing that) It's basically just much more annoying to transact using a currency whose future value is unpredictable. So given that 2% is the stated target, which expectations are presumably largely built around, significant deviation is a failure to manage that process.
The dollars going into your account are worth less than before. The ultimate destiny of all money is to be spent on goods/services eventually, and the amount of goods/services your salary can purchase is net (5-3)% less than the year before. Invested, spent, willed, donated, it doesn't matter, the money is already worth 2% less when it enters your hands. (Worth noting that CoL increase is not exactly equal to inflation, you could experience a local CoL increase without inflation if say your town becomes a popular destination which raises rents)
Yeah, suppose a self-driving car is say twice as likely to crash as the average human (which could already be considered unfair since that includes like drunk humans and people who should've already lost their license). That means to monitor it's driving you will need to wait 25,000 hours until an accident occurs. That's ~ 12 straight years of a 9-5 spent sitting, doing absolutely nothing, just watching in a state of theoretical vigilance.
Even if you limit yourself to the 48 states, it's hard to believe there's 0 counties happy to take you. Just about anywhere terrestrial is cheaper to transport to than riding a giant bottle of explosives at $1500/kg. Politicians are generally pretty cheap actually, and so far they've been willing to make some pretty generous tax concessions to attract data centers.
I don't think you will achieve much that way. Suppose you pair me with a plumber, an area I know almost nothing about. The plumber is not able to finish anything 'trickier' because they have an ignoramus looking over their shoulder. Maybe I can learn some things by watching, having things explained to me as they work. On the other hand if I just walk away there's no way to tell from the final product. You gotta learn the fundamentals to at least a comparable level to be able to contribute. Same reason you couldn't just google everything on your phone in calculus.
Many times I have seen people's answers to this question be a factor in which projects they are targeted for by the way. Not every question is necessarily a 'filter' per se. That said I think in truth a lot of this genre of questions fulfill a similar kind of purpose to the 'waiter rule' of dating. Anybody who can't spin together 30s of polite smalltalk about how they're interested in the role to get a job may be very difficult to work with.
My Intel MBP would noticeably raise the whole room's temperature, while the fans ran so loud. We had some corporate security software that would occasionally go haywire and lock up 100% of a core until you rebooted. If you got that at the same time as a video call it would become too physically painful to touch any part of the metal body with bare skin.
> Karsnitz dismissed the lawsuit from Delaware’s Superior Court, citing “the principle of one person/entity/one vote.”
What? The principle is "one person, one vote". I'd like to cite the principle of "one person, one vote, unless they're named recursivecaveat in which case 1 trillion votes" to assert my rights in the Fenwick island elections please.
Smart home seems to suffer from the old-school AI curse in that it stops getting the name as soon as it works. Roomba, thermostat automation and remote control, casting content between devices, the video door bells, siri (to say nothing of dishwasher, rice cookers, laundry machine, etc). Anything that works gets bundled into an appliance and becomes normal. Smart home only means stuff that's at the edge of working, plus maybe some stuff that requires gluing multiple discrete appliances together (ie unlikely to work easily). In particular lighting for the latter, which has stiff competition against light switches.
Ah, but "who uses the most tokens" is a number, a number generated by a computer no less. Questions like who delivers lots of high quality work require you to do research and make judgements, which is work.
While looking into "sewer service" I found an extremely foul supreme court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotkiske_v._Klemm Knowingly serve somebody at the wrong address, acquire default judgement, statute of limitations expires before they even become aware of it.
I always thought it was a perfectly fine service for lookup. Asking a question though required a very specific confluence of circumstances to actually be a useful thing to do, so I only did that like 1-2 times in many years of reading it from google.
How good do you think you are at verbalizing while interviewing? Even if you can't get question X actually finished/correct, you can get a lot of credit by having an easy-to-follow thought process that shows some directional correctness or creative problem solving.
I think it's as simple as people generally believe that electricity is good for the world, and AI is bad for it. In the former case you're kindof taking-one-for-the-team. Even places that have nasty nasty stuff like tailings ponds generally have a kind of civic pride that coal mining or whatever was a necessity and the sacrifice of their local environment made a lot of other people's comfy lives possible. Data-centers are just not going to inspire that sentiment lol.
If it saves time that you would otherwise spend deliberately exercising the comparison can be quite favorable really. +45m of commute but 120m of exercise 'saved'.
The most common interview types to prepare for are the leetcode, systems design, and behavioural. Sounds like you're already working on the 1st, but at least a little time rehearsing the latter 2 will improve your performance there a lot.
In my experience if you've been a paid developer using language or technology X nobody is really going to explicitly question your knowledge of that. So I don't think it's a great use of time to dive deeper there. I would focus on expanding your toolbox and the pool of jobs you can apply for. Languages that are popular and/or you've worked with tangentially in the past. This demonstrates some flexibility and independence too even if you don't land on one of these imo.
This is all premised on his windows user account name being identifying no? I have a hard time believing that to be the case for someone who was clearly extremely painstaking about privacy. Even I set mine to some nonsense because I know I'll accidentally leak it.
Everything in space is so big, spaceships have to be so fast to get anywhere in a TV-friendly amount of time. I feel like spending an appreciable amount of time inside visual range would be like 2 enemy fighter jets pulling up next to each other so the pilots could sword fight. It really needs the deliberate cooperation of both parties. If anybody even breathes on their control stick they'll drop out of range instantaneously. Not that I'm complaining lol, I like to be able to see things in my TV shows.
Since the strength is represented by the slope of the sheet (not the depth), it should still line up. Underneath the ball at the very center the sheet will be level, to match as you say, that the field strength is 0 there. The exact shape will probably be wrong though since it's mostly determined by the shape of the bottom of the object.
Same argument about distributions cuts both ways to me imo. Like you taught 400 students and you couldn't get a single one over the line? I think the immediate suspicion would fall on the common factor of the teacher. For a crazy event like that it seems much more likely that the instruction or assessment was flawed.
Mostly though I was just chuckling in my head about an old curmudgeonly professor of mine who was literally retiring at the end of that semester. We were all actually quite scared he would go out with a bang given his disdain for us. We weren't like 100% Fs or anything, but I think it was obvious we thought the material was pretty phooey and the lectures interminable.
It's kind of curve grading I guess? There's no limit on A- and below, so you could have 20%(+4) A students and 80% A- if you really wanted. Or 100% Fs if you want to retire from teaching immediately. I wouldn't say I'm a curving advocate, but it seems to me 400 Calc 1 students or whatever is a large enough sample that statistically curving will not do any great injustice.