In sone European countries long notice periods from the employee is common, 1-3 months. E.g. norway. And i have seen many employees stay during that period and its not weird etc. and they seem to perform. Its just a different norm. If the employee doesn't perform it could have repercussions: they will lose salary (and the other deal starts in X months) they will get a bad referral etc. If they don't show up it could even have legal repercussions cf liability for losses.

In Denmark you can be liable for the employers losses if you do that. This could include costs for quickly onboarding consultants, lost business opportunities etc. Further, you at a minimum have to pay half a month salary as compensation even if the employer can't demonstrate a specific loss (this is not advance salary being paid back, it really is for the liability of breaking the contract )

Yeah but back then your annual risk of dying of infections, being eaten by an animal or other accident was so high it was still unlikely you would make it to that age. Especially since you would likely be physically incapable of gathering food for yourself so you sould be wholly dependent on "welfare" that night not exist. It is entirely possible that people back then lived healthier and had a potential for longer lifespan than we do. We have immensely brought down the risk of early, accidental death but perhaps increased the risk of other long term problems.

So 1 in 80 of the whole world population is a developer... and with a GitHub account? And this is including all countries (developing and developed) and age groups (from newborn to old). It surprises me it is this high. Makes me wonder why so many developers are needed, considering that software is something that can be copied and hence should scale much slower than linearly with population.

They call it a shadow ledger etc. Everything suggests transfers etc on the chain is not based on any end user action or credentials, it's merely tracked in a blockchain too. Like 99 percent or cases It's a complete fake application of blockchain with no benefits over the DMV just writing this data in a database. They will also still need a site where people can look up the data and this site could be based equivalently on said database instead of the chain. I don't see how this combats the mentioned fraud scenarios because those scenarios were plain old fraud with bad cards... Not manipulation of data in the DMV database.

It's not secure against man in the middle. Even someone with the same equipment sits in between they will establish one key with one of the parties and another with the other. It's impossible to solve using physics. Just think about it how would nature "know" who is supposed to be able to communicatr? The only way it knows is by who is connected to each other. But if you trust those connections are made right, then you could apply this reasoning to non-quantum networks as well which we usually don't. Guess how most quantum networks solve this little problem (which would be considered an utter fail in any crypto system): using classic cryptography with pre-shared keys and/or certificates on top... And if you trust that then you didn't need the quantum networks to begin with. Then throw in you need point-to-point cables between the parties that are supposed to communicate, and it should be clear this is garbage. But it comes up every 5-10 years and those machines sure look cool.

There's essentially an infinite number if you count even the slower ways. I'm not an expert on matrix mul or optimizations so here's my native take: A 4x4 matrix has 16 entries. So you have two matrices each with 16 entries. In every operation there's a lot of choices: You can mul/add/subtract/divide both entries across matrices or within a matrix. That gives an intermediary result which you can then use when making the choice of the next calculation etc. Essentially you start out with 32 numbers on a list. In the next calculation you can pick an operation (add/sub/mul/divide) and two of the 32 entries in the list. That's 4 x 32 x 32 = 4096 possibilities. Then for the next op you have 4 x 33 x 33 possibilities etc. which you have to multiply on top. And that's just two steps. The method the AI found used 47 steps so that's a lot of numbers. Based on this way of thinking of it, the number of possible calculations i like: 4^47 * (((32 + 47)!)^2) / ( ( 46!)^2). Even if you ignore the growth in choice of operands you are looking at 4^47 * (32^47)^2 which is enormous. Hell, even just the 4^47 factor is enormous!

The strange things in all of this is that it all started when Carlsen lost a game to Hans. But the loss was due to his own major blunder early in the game. Unless Hans has mind control cheating devices he shouldn't be able to cause this. But of course it's possible that Hans is cheating also. But then we need some evidence of it... And losing a game due to your own blunder isn't a very convincing case to prove cheating.

Assignments can be handled by considering an evolving system state. So before the expression you have state "i". After the expression you have state "i+1" about which you know it is identical to state i for all variables besides X and that in state i+1 you have X being equak to the newly assigned value. So you have an evolving sequence of states just as you can have a sequence of numbers, partial sums etc.

Actually, programming is proof theory. Every computer program is a proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence). Intuitively while programming you are proving in your head (or are trying to) that it works. So it might improve logical thinking. Having said that most programming kids do (and also many professional programmers) is so simple that the math it touches is very shallow. That hard part is not the math but many other things related to programming.
Even if this wasn't so, it still wouldn't mean programming improves proves skills in other areas of math. Just as you can be good in set theory while not knowing much about calculus etc. Each math area is an enormous study in its own right. It's not enough to just learn the ZFC axioms even though most of mathematics can be contained in ZFC. One has to actually go in and escavate all of that math out which takes hard work.

No I don't. I'm an employee myself and I've never been a manager. But I know what make organizations tick. If all employees behaved as you seem to support then the organization would get nowhere. Perhaps routine tasks would be completed but all development and innovation would grind to a halt and soon there wouldn't be a job for anyone. To me it's important there's flexibility both ways. Employers shouldn't exploit their employees, they should allow people to leave early when the employee needs it and it's practical, they should focus more on results than "ass-in-seat"-time, they should give people a wage corresponding to their responsibility, accept people have bad days where their productivity is very low etc. etc. Likewise, employees needs to be flexible - take a break or some time off when possible, but don't do it just for spite and also be flexible in the other direction - if you have time, don't refuse tasks that fall outside your normal tasks as long as they are within your area. See it as a way to grow. Be proud you can do this as well and you have helped you and your colleagues AND your employer. Don't demand flexibility in one direction and then do "quiet quitting" in the other. Realize it's a trust-based relationship. If they can trust you to be reasonable you have more freedom in the end. If all you do is demand privileges and never give anything in return, you should fully expect and deserve a firing, and not a quiet one at that.

That sentence referred to a scenario where the employee was specifically hired to do X hours of work but had done everything much faster and then saw themselves entitled to slack the remaining time because "it's the results that counts". Here my point was that this is only reasonable in some situations. Let's say the reason it took a shorter time is because the employee worked hard to finish the task quickly (maybe calendar time was important to the company also)- in that case, it's reasonable to feel entitled to a breather. But if it's just because the boss thought the take would take longer it's not reasonable. For many tasks it's hard to say in advance how long it will take without actually doing it. And often the boss will rely on the assessment of the employee in estimating how long it will take. So perhaps finishing the task early was not due to any merit of the employee, apart from the employee themselves providing too high an estimate to begin with. That's certainly not a reason to shrink and say "oh but I did everything it's the result that count". Instead, the employee should inform the employer about the lack of work and offer to do new tasks. He should seek out other work in his ara to be done - maybe it's a good time to clean up their folders, reinstall that unstable program or whatever tasks could help them later. Point is, i's rare an employee really doesn't have any work to do (inside their own area), so it's unreasonable to feel entitled to shirk just because the employee happened to finish a specific task somewhat earlier. "it's the results that counts" can only be used if you really have done your job. Otherwise it will require many more employees just so they can all work less, and guess where that cost is going to come from: Higher prices. So we will all just be poorer. Maybe that's what you want, but it's not what everyone wants or is able to afford.

Some would say "Why is it unreasonable to just do the work you were hired to do", which has some truth to it - but it depends on how stringent you read "were hired to do". Most employees do many tasks that are not stated specifically in their job description and the job description often states that fact. In many roles, it's impossible to specify it all up front in detail since the nature of the work is dynamic and the employee has more of a broad role rather than a specific set of assigned tasks. Usually, there's also a tacit understanding the employee will himself seek out tasks that need to be done, help colleagues, get ideas for product improvements, etc. After all, they are getting paid and the money is only coming in because those tasks are being done. It would be unreasonable for an employee to do only the very basic things if there's a tacit understanding the job (and salary) is about more than what is exactly spelled out. That's probably one reason a contract often specifies a number of working hours. This means, just because you have done everything on your task list if you have only worked 10 hours that week your employer is free to give you other tasks within your area to fill up the work week. So there's an understanding about the total volume of work too even if it isn't fixed (in either direction). That's why it is in some sense meaningless when a worker says "Hey I will slack for a few days because I completed these tasks and it should be the results that count right?" because that can only be set IF the results are completely defined and measurable. So you could see the slack simply as a reflection that the employee was given too little work by the employer and now has a responsibility to report that to the employer and make his full work capacity available... it isn't a right to slack! But counting _just_ hours is meaningless too - people work in widely different ways. Some people like to focus intensively and "work hard" but then leave office early and maybe even work less than they are supposed to. Others take a more relaxed attitude, running around the office small talking even up to a deadline, meaning they have to sit during the evening etc. There's also more inherent differences in productivity tied to experience etc. It's trivial to make a task take longer to complete. By having some variance in amount of time worked in practice, there's also an incentive for the employee to be relatively more productive outside what differences there may be in raw salary.

They seem to define real/fake with respect to if there's actual economic activity as opposed to e.g. moving money between ones own wallet etc. I would argue the fake rate is much higher. How many real bitcoin trades do you know anyone has done? I would guess 95 percent are either completely fake or represent trading of bitcoins for cash i.e. trading bitcoin itself not some underlying economic value. Of the remaining 5 percent, almost all is money laundering and illegal activities. Less than 0.01 percent is what anyone would call real: buying star bucks coffee with bitcoins etc which are things that don't really exist except in newspapers headlines and in the heads of crypto kids and incompetent C-level executives.

Seems doubtful how this could change anything. As I read it, they carried out an experiment that gave results that were consistent with the physical theory of quantum mechanics. Since all interpretations of quantum mechanics are by definition consistent with this theory, this experiment cannot shed more light on the interpretational/philosophical questions (objective reality, measurement problem etc.) claimed. Only if the experiment had actually shown a deviation from quantum mechanics, say, if it showed a threshold where quantum effects disappear (and this not due to normal decoherence which all interpretations agree on) could this experiment help us enhance the theory and it could eliminate some (or all) suggested interpretations.