Disney requires specific channels to be at the basic tier of a multichannel video provider's offering, not a "sports" tier. Last I checked (today), multichannel IPTV provider Sling worked around this by offering two different basic plans: "Orange" with ESPN and other Disney properties and "Blue" with more channels but no Disney. Orange subscribers can add the extra Blue channels on a second "Orange & Blue" tier.
You obviously spent those days watching Pat Robertson because CBN was literally the only ad free channel on cable that anybody actually watched in the earlier days. And as far as I know, it's still ad free.
CBN operated from 1977 through 1997, showing ads starting in 1981 and taking the name The Family Channel in 1988. Beginning in 1997, CBN was reduced to a paid programming arrangement to show The 700 Club on what is now Disney's Freeform channel. There are, however, numerous other religious channels under a viewer donation arrangement like what you describe, such as EWTN. And in 2008, CBN started a second channel called CBN News, first online and then with a handful of broadcast affiliates.
She won $150K and donated it all.
She still has to pay income tax on $150K, given that the tax deduction on donations isn't 100%.
I'm guessing she does not have the free cash available to pay those taxes either.
She could've "donated it all" which also means "minus taxes". So she donated all her winnings net taxes owed. I think most of these lotteries already withhold 40% of the money and remit as taxes anyways so she probably just gave to charity what she got left.
The IRS takes their cut immediately, even if you're a foreigner. You then have to submit tons of paperwork showing whether or not your country has a tax treaty with the US, at which point they just withhold 25% for taxes. Then you have to submit even more paperwork if you want the last bit (because lottery winnings may be tax free in some countries, like Canada).
I would also guess that perhaps the lottery has the ability to donate a portion of your winnings to a charity of your choice to help bypass some of the paperwork regarding taxes, because it's not unusual for winners to donate a portion of their winnings.
Because that's where the money is.
Pretty much this.
Banks and payment processors are making money for doing next to nothing every time someone uses a card... other organisations, especially merchants want in on this as they're the ones paying (directly, you're still paying indirectly)
Sell gift cards for $x, pay out all but $0.44, but do it 800000000 times. you now have a gargantuan pile of cash that you can't touch, but can use as collateral. This is what Starbucks and every other company that sells gift cards does.
Does anyone actually do this? Sounds like an urban myth to me.
The benefit of gift cards to shops is that they encourage people to spend more precisely because people donâ(TM)t want to lose that 44p. So if you've a gift card for £20, you spend £21 and pay the rest in cash/card.
Humans do not want to use them.
Apparently I'm not human? I like hyphens, en dashes and em dashes. I understand what all of them mean and how to use them correctly, and I find it helpful when text that I'm reading uses the right one.
From the summary:
If the world's most valuable AI company has struggled with controlling something as simple as punctuation use after years of trying, perhaps what people call artificial general intelligence (AGI) is farther off than some in the industry claim.
That's not the right conclusion. It doesn't say much one way or the other about AGI. Plausibly, ChatGPT just likes correctly using em dashes — I certainly do — and chose to ignore the instruction. What this does demonstrate is what the X user wrote (also from the summary):
[this] says a lot about how little control you have over it, and your understanding of its inner workings
Many people are blithely confident that if we manage to create superintelligent AGI it'll be easy to make sure that it will do our bidding. Not true, not the way we're building it now anyway. Of course many other people blithely assume that we will never be able to create superintelligent AGI, or at least that we won't be able to do it in their lifetime. Those people are engaging in equally-foolish wishful thinking, just in a different direction.
The fact is that we have no idea how far we are from creating AGI, and won't until we either do it or construct a fully-developed theory of what exactly intelligence is and how it works. And the same lack of knowledge means that we will have no idea how to control AGI if we manage to create it. And if anyone feels like arguing that we'll never succeed at building AGI until we have the aforementioned fully-developed theory, please consider that random variation and selection managed to produce intelligence in nature, without any explanatory theory.
I'll go with NHTSA and NASA over the "Barr Group" ambulance chasers, thank you. Barr found that it's possible if you get like a cosmic ray to flip just the right bit you could stick the throttle on (but still not make it overpower the brakes). NHTSA and NASA investigated not just the software but the actual cases. In not a single actual case that they investigated did they find that it wasn't well explained by either stuck pedals or pedal misapplication (mainly the latter).
Oh hi, I remember chatting with you earlier
It was sane, post Brexit anything is possible.
I did test drive it, but that's the dealer, not the manufacturer. Due to GDPR they wouldn't be able to share it with the manufacturer, or retain it for longer than a few months (for speeding tickets etc to come in).
They could break the rules, but if it then leaked or I found out somehow, they would be in it pretty deep.
Need to get Drew Carey to narrate this.
"where everything is made up and the points don't matter."
Thanks. I try not to get my hopes up, but it does seem like I'm the last year or two we have moved closer on a number of treatments.
There's some fascinating new work on "inverse-vaccines". In the same way that antigens can be flagged as "foreign", they can also be flagged as "non-foreign" by attaching N-acetylgalactosamine (pGal) to them. The liver recognizes that tag and uses it to suppress immune activation against that antigen.
That's not the goal of a vaccine against a dormant virus (destroying B-cells), it's about developing a more capable immune reaction against the virus itself. See for example the shingles vaccine (targets dormant VZV, aka shingles / chickenpox). With a strong immune recognition of the virus, as soon as it tries to reactivate, it's immediately targeted, preventing it from becoming problematic.
Dormant viruses use a combination of (A) techniques to suppress immune recognition of them, and (B) low / no reproduction until your body's immune recognition of them has weakened. Vaccines help deal with both issues.
(BTW, if you're getting up there in age and haven't gotten your shingles vaccine, do so. It's one of the "rougher" vaccines, IMHO (both on my initial and followup doses I had "flu symptoms" for a day, when I normally have no reaction at all to vaccines), but that's *way* better than getting shingles)
We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"
