Zoox has always been a stupid fucking idea. They blew BILLIONS of investment before Amazon bailed their failing accomplished nothing asses out. They have virtually nothing to show for it.
They got more self-driving cabs than Tesla, and Tesla is getting hundreds of billions in valuation from their "Robotaxi".
In either case, if they can scale this there's loads of money waiting. I think they're currently Waymo's only real competitor.
Kinda makes me wonder if they even have authority over this when it comes to streaming services. Can't they basically run whatever sort of ads they want since they're not using the airwaves? Of course, the whole point of the obnoxious ads isn't really to sell you things, it's to convince you it's worth moving up to the ad-free subscription tier.
You usually can't skip commercials via any type of streaming that has them. And some of the so-called "commercial free" streaming services changed their terms of service so that under certain conditions they can still show you some commercials. Paramount+ is one I remember that made that change.
He's not a singer either, per se...
You can't say he didn't boldly go.
Anthropic wouldn't have gotten into any trouble at all with this if they hadn't torrented a metric shit ton of books. If they had simply purchased a copy of each one second hand, they would have been clear training their models on those.
True, but it's a hell of a lot easier to upload a torrent of scanned books than purchased and scan them yourselves.
Plugging in your car while parked? Assuming there is an outlet near by, you have an extension cord, and your heater cable is in good shape?
I thought you didn't want any obstacles to using your vehicle.
When I buy a vehicle I don't want any obstacles to using it, even surmountable ones. That just means your 40k vehicle is a pain in your ass.
You know what else happens in -40C? Your oil turns to sludge and the weakened battery in your ICE vehicle is unable to get the engine running.
I'd rather an EV with reduced range than my ICE car not starting.
Why won’t Poilievre get his security clearance ?
I have to take him at his word that he does not believe a blanket and permanent muzzle serves the people well. I'm actually inclined to agree given secrecy under the guise of "national security" or "parliamentary privilege" seems to be a frequent cover for various malfeasance. You know what they say about sunlight being the best disinfectant. Good on him not joining the "not allowed to ever tell anyone anything" club, because it's permanent. They can revoke your clearance, but you are still bound by its terms forever.
Nah, that's BS. As far as I can tell PP refused the clearance so he would have an excuse to demand it be public (so he could see the report) at best, and at worst not seeing gave him more latitude to scaremonger.
The guy literally went into an election campaign willingly blindfolded about foreign attempts to infiltrate his party. That's damn close to disqualifying in my book.
EVs in Canada wouldn't seem to be a good fit given the winter temperatures of -40. Vancouver BC is warmer, but Edmonton certainly isn't.
I'm in the Edmonton area, -40 happens, but it's pretty rare (especially with global warming).
And cold does hurt the range, but it's not insurmountable.
If you go backpacking in the mountains it's not hard to get out of range of cell service, even if you're on fairly standard trails.
This wouldn't be a bad thing to have on a multi-day hike.
Neither Putin nor Xi are medial experts. They are uneducated fools discussing something they know very little about. They think they are knowledgeable but are not.
100% agree, but that's not what makes this exchange interesting.
They have a reputation for being technocrats. This shows that, at least in the medical domain, they're still just uneducated fools.
It's also telling that two old dictators are bonding over extending lifespans.
The research was done on 12,000 Brazilian civil servants. Some used artificial sweeteners, and some didn't. Those who didn't are the control.
It isn't a perfect "gold standard" double-blind experiment, but a 62% difference in cognitive decline between the two groups is hard to hand-wave away by nitpicking about methodology.
The association is real, but not necessarily the outcome. I couldn't see the full study but couldn't see any mention of BMI. Midlife obesity is associated with cognitive aging. If overweight civil servants were consuming artificial sweeteners in an attempt to lose weight then that could be the source of your associate right there.
It's sex with somebody you love.
If we could all be so lucky.
Then we also have cases of women being more picky these days. The search for perfection is one of the problems.
Is that really true though? I've seen men of all types with girlfriends. But for any woman with a few extra pounds, much less actual obesity, they're very often single.
It seems to be the problem isn't women being picky, it's the hordes of guys who don't want to settle for anything but a hot intelligent women with a great personality.
The key phrase there "to keep the lights on".
Where the hell do you think those people's paychecks come from? It's not all paying for rent an illumination. I have a hard time believing you are arguing in good faith--maybe you're young and don't understand how things really work when people have mortgages and kids to feed?
If you're running a business "keeping the lights on" includes salaries.
Of course, companies really don't want to downside, but the thing management really wants is big profits, which generics don't bring.
To the extent that US pharmas make beta blockers, if folks stop buying the workers would generally get reallocated to other projects.
"A billion here, a billion there--pretty soon, you're talking real money."
According to this study, about $18 of every $100 spent by consumers on generic drugs goes to the manufacturers' net margins. Moreover, a long chain of wholesalers, PBMs, pharmacies, etc. scoop up another $47 of net margins, all of which need volume to keep the lights on. So that's $1.8 billion to the manufacturers and another $4.7 billion to the middlemen (insurance aside). Again, you are not much of an economist if you didn't know this or try to verify it before posting. It took me about a minute to track this down.
$10 billion is a pretty big drop in the bucket: the worldwide pharmaceutical market is $1.6 trillion, so beta blockers represent 0.625% or 1 in 160 dollars spent. That's a lot more than a rounding error.
The key phrase there "to keep the lights on".
There's money in generics, and all the people involved in the supply line along the way, but the majority of that money is spent keeping the lights on.
They take a bit of profit, but if they take too much someone else just jumps in because that's how markets work.
Not to say they don't care about the market at all, but the generic manufacturers don't have a lot of sway.
If anything, the pharmas with actual influence might actually prefer that beta-blockers go away as a treatment. It doesn't make them much profit, and the more popular generics are out there the move volume there is to keep generic competitors in business.
So if beta blockers go away the generic competitors take the biggest hit and doctors might start prescribing much more profitable patented alternatives.
Real programs don't eat cache.
