In Canada there's MyDoh, which is specifically a debit card you can give to kids including in that age range. One of the major Canadian banks runs this. Can only imagine that it's more advanced in Sweden.
That may be practical, but many kids I observe in my family etc like to collect the money and see it and are proud of their collection and about what they saved. That goes away with a card ... and I wonder how that impacts the "feeling" for it. Counting and making likes and plans about what to buy is a big part of learning to deal with it.
Like or not the world is a digital currency world for the most part these days. I want my kids to understand that those numbers on a computer screen have real world value. How many young adults get into trouble with their first credit card or debit card because the money isn't "real" to them? In the US it's quite a few.
I don't have a final answer to this. However in m observation with different families and kids is that some start relatively early, before the kid can do arithmetics or such, they can count till a pile got enough money for the sweets or toy they want and then count the other pile to see how much is left and if they can buy the other.
Doing this in a digital system requires first some computing device (be it phone or laptop or whatever) then check the account value, read it correctly, then do some arithmetics and then interpret the result. That's a year or two older.
I was trying to submit some feedback using your "Feedback" button on the top right, but got an error when trying to submit it :(
Anyway, the model used doesn't seem to be very good, it did not understand a basic "OR" criteria. I asked for a list of companies with an office in Toronto that are involved in hardware development such as custom silicon, robotics, satellites or drones. It completely misunderstood the "or" part (and the "such as" part). E.g. I see many robotics companies marked as a "Miss" because they only do robotics but not any of the other things on my list.
Overall though I love the idea, I would pay for your service (on a pay-as-you-go per-query basis) if the underlying model was smart enough for me to actually rely on the results.
There is a surprising amount of detailed childhood memories you may be able to retrieve by making a prolonged, conscious effort. I would guess that many people who say they don't have very many childhood memories have never taken e.g. 30 minutes of concentrated effort to really try to retrieve them. Here's what worked for me: imagine my childhood apartment, and mentally move along it, very very slowly, stopping in every part of every room, mentally examining every piece of furniture, etc. Of course it won't work for everyone, but for me memories associated with specific places just flooded in, I was very surprised at how many there were. I'm sure there are other methods as well. I think basically it involves trying a bunch of different "keys" that may be a match to "values" stored in memory.
Scenario B is amazing for the US. I don't see how it's clearly better for Japan. I don't know about you but I pay far more in income tax than sales tax. You spend money but you also consume government services and infrastructure while paying less in tax to Japan than a resident employed in Japan would.
But in scenario (B) you're spending money in Japan, basically you're directly injecting US money (your US salary) into the Japanese economy. Don't see why it's "amazing" for the US and not for Japan.
Because you're paying US income taxes while consuming next to no US government services or infrastructure.
> But in scenario (B) you're spending money in Japan
Anyone who lives and works in Japan spends money in Japan. What's great about that? Most of those people also pay taxes.
> basically you're directly injecting US money (your US salary) into the Japanese economy
Japan might say: if this US company doesn't mind someone working from Japan and paying them an American salary, why not a person who already lives there and pays taxes there? That's obviously better than someone new who doesn't pay taxes there.
I think you both are right in a way and what is maybe relevant is the duration.
If someone lives full time permanently in another country working remotely, they probably are already actually a tax resident of that country and would typically pay tax to that country.
What the country doesn't want is someone traveling and in the country for a few months and then taking a local job that could have been taken by a citizen while also not being a tax resident, which is what the work restrictions on visas are intended to prevent.
But if someone is traveling and in the country for a few months, and works remotely while there, it really makes little difference to the country compared to another tourist other than the fact that the visitor now has access to more funds to be spending in their country while there; but visas don't support this well.
Oh, I built something like this as a hobby project a few years ago! Still online (with a now-expired cert...), but very likely to go down with even a bit of usage : ) Still, here it is: https://fasterbadger.com
Hindenburg jokes aside, how do you ensure safety? Even if you only inspect infrastructure away from human habitation, there's still the risk of forest fires and such if there is an accident.
I've flown hydrogen balloons before (just because it was cheaper than helium--although you do need different fittings for the tank). I've also lit them on fire just to see what happend.
I don't think they're as dangerous as people think. If they ignite they go up in a whoosh, not a bang. The only debris is your payload, now falling. So as as your payload is not also made out of flammable material (as was the case with the Hindenburg) then I don't think it's any more of a fire threat than having power lines near trees is in the first place. Up is conveniently the right direction for a ball of flame.
Of course all of this goes out the window if you let it become entangled in a tree...
A bunch of friends and I wanted to get video of a balloon's flight as it approached outer space, popped, and descended. In violation of FAA rules, we used a cellphone which we had embedded in a styrofoam box with hand warmers in order to prevent the battery from freezing.
We lost contact with the payload almost immediately and never recovered it, but lost enthusiasm to try a second time.
We had bought two balloons just in case we needed a second. Waited for a rainy day and took the second one camping. I wish I had grabbed a video, but some among us were overly paranoid about creating evidence.
It was just a big blue orb and a whooshing sound. Presumably there were some flaming bits of rubber involved but we weren't able to recover them (we made the tether too long, out of fear for it being more dramatic than it was, that it was hard to get a good idea of what specifically went on).
Has there ever been a burning man effigy with a lighter-than-air component? That would be a good venue for exploring the dynamics of baloon fires (it could tethered such it wasn't above anybody when it went up).
Safety is the most important thing when it comes to aerial industry. We are working with people who are manufacturing their own H2 gas balloons that litterally fly with people in it. Check it out: https://balloonfiesta.com/Gordon-Bennett-2023
There are special materials and glue that ensure safety from electricity and fire hazards (antistatic material). The people building their balloons use that kind of materials and it works!
Most people don't realize that the paint they used to seal the shell of the Hindenburg is a popular solid rocket fuel. The hydrogen was the least of their problems during that crash.
For me, the intuitive way of understanding it is, "how badly would a gambler lose in the long term, if they keep betting on a game believing the probability distribution is X but it is in actual fact Y". It also explains why KL divergence is assymetric, and why it goes to infinity / undefined when the expected probability distribution has zeros where the true distribution has non-zeros. Suppose an urn can have red, blue and green balls. If the true distribution (X) is that there are no red balls at all, but the gambler believes (Y) that there is a small fraction of red balls, the gambler would lose a bit of money with every bet on red, but overall the loss is finite. But suppose the gambler beleives (Y) there are absolutely no red balls in the urn, but in actual fact (X) there is some small fraction of them. According to the gambler's beliefs it would be rational to gamble potentially infinite money on the ball not being red, so the loss is potentially infinite. There is a parallel here to data compression, transmission, etc (KL divergence between expected and actual distributions in information theory) - if you believe a certain bit sequence will never occur in the input sequence, you won't assign it a code, and so if it ever does actually occur you won't be able to transmit it at all ("infinite loss"). If you beleive it will occur very infrequently, you will assign it a very long code, and so if it actually occurs very frequently your output data will be very long (large loss, large KL divergence).
