I sometimes use grok. But not much. Your confusion is strange. I never said the tech is a bubble(it can be used today, although in very limited manner, compared to how it is being sold to the public), just the financial aspect of it. If you'd be more educated in investing, economics or geopolitics you'd understand what is going on. I am not being hyperbolic here. Even Altman admitted AI is a bubble. It's really no secret to anyone. But bubbles will be ridden no matter what, all the way up, until they pop. So knowing it is a bubble does not change much. We just know what we can expect once it pops.
tl;dr I was merely answering the question the article proposes.
This is maybe kind of rude, and hopefully it doesn't come off this way, but where were you still getting the message that degree = job?
Not that a degree doesn't help, but I graduated 10 years ago and the message was already pretty clear across the media I interacted with that that was no longer the lived experience / that you needed to be thinking about your major and the future it might offer because just having a degree was not a magic ticket.
Literally nobody noticed because everyone had covid trauma the second time, so we had a "vibecession" where everyone felt like there was a recession because they wanted there to be one.
11 years later. I know the numbers say we recovered. It took so long I think people mostly forgot what pre 08 life was like
2008/9 was a change in the expectations of college degrees. Going into 2008, we all got the advice to get degrees and jobs will just show up. After the crash we never got back to that point. Common knowledge ever since 08 has been college doesn't ensure a job at the end and your stuck doing unpaid internships and dealing with a competitive job market
Not wrong! The degree was always the stepping stone, and even for me I was always told work experience would make the difference. But now having graduated college 2 years early, with 2 high quality internships under my belt, my options are slim. Thankfully, I love what I do and don’t plan to ever stop doing it, but I feel bad for the people that “did everything right” and still aren’t landing jobs.
~Or Apple could remove Google Search as a choice on Safari
It could remove Google as a choice for users of safari? That seems like an insane thing to present as an approach apple might take. They could stop making it the default, but I think making it in unselectable actually would upset users enough to cause issues, at least in the short term.
That's director or higher (and the upper end is at least a vp). I mean, there probably is a director involved, but they definitely aren't the one making the padding.
Don’t try to pretend that any more than 1% of the people at Google are actually doing anything that moves even the slightest needle, regardless of ‘rank’.
I don't get what's happening in this thread. This is a pretty clear statement: hacking isn't worse than the killing that the government is already allowed to do. It's a pretty straightforward argument which for some reason seems to be being misunderstood.
I'll gently push on the premise though: hacking isn't worse for the victims than death, obviously, but I think it's possible weaponizing of exploits does more total damage. Both collateral, due to the manufacturing of exploits which ultimately leak and harm a bunch of unrelated actors, and because the marginal hacking is lower cost, practically and politically. So a given attack is likely to be used against groups we'd recognize less clearly as "terrorists" / deserving of the harm / etc.
Thanks for the understanding.
I'll say that because of that we should make the price for using the device much higher. For example using it should require authorization by process that will involve a stiff political price/barrier. Maybe a bi-partisan committee. Something of that sort.
The upfront is about 50% higher for an EV, so if you catch that 50% up in 1 year then you'd pay back an entire new EV in 3 years if you scrapped the old ICE one. (figures for simplicity depending upon grid and how much you drive it could be 6 months or 18 months).
But generally we don't scrap old ones.
If you instead sell the old one to someone who drives an ICE car that gets worse mpg then that's a further benefit.
I think the naming on the split is a little disingenuous. It's "mandatory", but it's still just laws. I get that the funding is decided differently, and I'm not making any claim one way or the other regarding whether Medicare, ss, etc should be changed, but it isn't like there's some law of nature we can't adjust if we wanted.
If you think of the government like a business, Social Security and Medicare are like pensions. Should companies be allowed to include pensions in their operations budget, or should pension planning be entirely separate?
I can guarantee you that if companies were able to include the pension fund in their operations budget there would be a massive increase in pension shortfalls as their reserves get raided for operations expenses. The whole strategy of including "entitlement" spending in the budget conversation is a part of a conservative plot to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. That's why we shouldn't include it as part of the budget.
My experience is that most people don't understand statistics and can be pretty easily mislead. That includes myself, with my only defense being that I'm at least aware statistics don't intuitively make sense and either ignore arguments based on them or if absolutely necessary invest the extra time to properly understand.
Most people either don't realize this is necessary or don't have the background to do it even if they did, in my experience.
