Two-timing on women or jobs is very risky. Not a good way to get sleep. I knew of a guy who worked two full-time jobs (in the 90's) for two months until he got caught. He would say, "I'm going down to the lab" and then go out to his car and drive over to his other job, and vice-versa.

It's much easier to get hired if you already have a job, just like it's easier to get a girlfriend if you already have a girlfriend.

This is interesting and all, but they recovered the black box either a day or two after the crash. Won't that tell you what was going on with the engines? Everything else is speculation.

Some hackathons exist to generate new ideas quickly, and I could see this being useful. But most game dev hackathons also exist for devs to build skills. I don't think there's much skill building happening here. And I doubt you could apply this to larger codebases. A little bit you have to wonder why ChatGPT spits out source code. Why not just spit out compiled machine code? Aside from the ubiquity of source code online for training data, wouldn't it be more efficient to produce compiled binaries? If it can't do that... why not? Programming languages only exist for humans to comprehend.

If you want a fusion power reactor, by far the most viable fuel is D+T. You'd need orders of magnitude more tritium than is could ever be extracted from trace fission byproducts.

The idea to obtain this much tritium is to use the extra neutrons from the fusion reactor itself to breed it from lithium. This is supposedly a demonstration of that process.

The myocarditis risk is higher from catching COVID. Getting vaccinated is lower risk than catching the disease, for all age groups.

Getting vaccinated does not decrease your risk of catching the disease. It's only purported to lessen the severity.

So, if you're just as likely to catch COVID regardless of vaccination status, and the vaccine itself is known to sometimes cause myocarditis... follow me here... getting vaccinated increases the number of vectors by which you can get myocarditis.

Sorry, you've misunderstood me. Let me try to clarify. When I said "the goal of the US" I didn't mean the traditional republican politicians. I mean the majority of the political will in the US. The voters. The large number of people who first voted for Obama, then wanted Sanders, and then, probably begrudgingly, voted for Trump. These are working class folks who don't want to drive for Uber or work in an Amazon fulfillment center, and would rather have a good paying factory job like they hear some previous generation had back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. They want to shift the supply and demand economics of American labor. They want to shrink the supply by reducing immigration and increase the demand by adding manufacturing jobs, which they believe will make general laborer wages rise (relative to the rest of society).

I live in Canada. Every time you hear news about the dollar, it's bad news, whether it goes up or down. If it goes up the news reporters go and interview exporters who complain that this hurts their business, and when it goes down the reporters interview importers who explain how this is going to make all the products we buy more expensive. It's honestly very tiring. I mostly just ignore stories like this.

If a currency is functioning normally (not being manipulated) then it works to automatically balance trade. If Americans start buying more and more from overseas, then supply and demand in the currency market will cause the dollar's value to go down, which makes American products and investments more attractive to everyone else. You just have to understand that the US buys a lot of cheap products from overseas, but mostly exports expensive high end products like aircraft parts and machinery. People around the world really like investing in US companies (and even T-bills) because the US market is large, profitable, and safe. Therefore the long term trend has been that Americans import a lot of cheap products in exchange for a lot of investment capital flowing into the US. This kept industry humming, but also had the effect of pushing up housing prices, as a lot of people invest in US real estate.

The dollar has traditionally been so high because the US was considered to be such a safe place to invest. Investors around the world wanted better returns, and foreign governments wanted a safe reserve currency, and for the most part the US government took advantage of this because it gave the US access to very cheap capital (borrowing) which allowed deficit spending, and it also gave the US enormous leverage over pretty much every other country in the world financially. For instance, the sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Russia are based on the fact that the global system of trade is mostly based on the US dollar.

The US dollar is falling because even though Americans are still buying lots of stuff from overseas, there's a notable concern about the stability of the US as both a safe place to invest, and as a good investment return. Now I personally think there's still a potential for high return on investment if I were to invest in the US, but I do also have concerns about any money I have in US investments because you just don't know if the US government would do something drastic like confiscate foreign investment, etc. I don't consider it likely, but it's not something I would have worried about 10 years ago, but it's at least a remote possibility now.

I think the goal of the US is to bring more manufacturing back onshore. I think this is a reasonable goal. There are always winners and losers in any change. Bringing back manufacturing jobs tends to help the working class, as does limiting the supply of cheap labor by deporting lots of people. Note that while this is probably a net benefit to the working class, corporations won't like it. They prefer a strong US dollar which makes borrowing cheap and they prefer low wages too, so they're generally pro-immigration. But that's the story of the last few years... the working class has now gained political influence, not just in the US but across the western world, and the right-wing political parties have embraced them, which is a bit surprising because the right-wing parties have traditionally been the party of big business.

Big business now finds itself politically homeless, or certainly far less influential than they used to be. I suspect they're just hoping to ride this out. I'm not convinced this is a temporary situation. I believe that Trump has proven that the working class is now in play politically, and both parties will bend themselves towards catering to their interests. We even saw this in Canada with the liberal party running a guy who's very moderate, perhaps even right-of-center in some ways, and reduced immigration significantly even before the election earlier this year. I think this is just the new political reality. That doesn't mean the democrats won't win again, but they certainly won't win if they don't start adopting some of the populist rhetoric ("working class vs. the elites") that has worked so well for Trump. People clearly wanted Sanders to win the democratic primary, but the democratic party has super-delegates and wouldn't let Bernie win because the party itself (the people running it) are very much against populism. The republican party doesn't have super-delegates, which is why a populist like Trump was able to win the primary in that party.

So it's interesting to see this story trying to paint a low US dollar as a bad thing. It's bad for big business, but not for the working class. I find it surprising because I wouldn't normally think of msmash as a pro-big-business editor. But here we are.

I don't understand how you can make two video games, where the first received critical acclaim, and the sequel was widely panned due to the story, and then when you adapted that into a TV show, you turned the second game into the second season without thinking, "hmm, the fans really hated this story... maybe we should change it?" It's just mindboggling.

Indie game companies make and sell new offline games every day.

And online games can have their server code released when the publisher's servers shut down. I'm not even going to insist that it be provided for free. Doesn't guarantee that the game will keep going but it at least makes it possible.

So, specifically, from which scientific fields will we lose all of this talent, and to which countries will these people be moving? Further, in what ways will the NSF counterparts in these supposed other countries benefit R&D by foreign researchers?

*Takes quick perusal of the article* Ah, it's DEI bullshit that's being cut here. And, the likelihood of any of this research being funded by another country (other than Canada) is highly dubious. Therefore, the entire premise of this article is laughable. No scientific talent will be "lost to overseas competitors".

Dude, my claim isn't over some unknowable information lost to time; you can look at old game catalogues and gaming magazines and they have the prices right there.

Here's SSI's 1984 catalogue:
https://archive.org/details/Re...

Look at the price list for EA and all its companies from 1987:
https://archive.org/details/Re...

 

When reading statements or listening to interviews, always keep the speaker's motivations in mind. What would the CEO of Ford be trying to accomplish by what they're saying? The typical motivations are to reassure investors. How does saying that half the white collar jobs are going to be gone in the coming years reassure investors? It says, "this new technology is going to allow Ford to cut half of a very large expense."

Is it realistic? No. But it supports his goal: you should invest in Ford because we can already see how to use this new technology to drastically decrease costs.

Another goal he has is to keep workers fearing for their jobs. This is an implied threat to a bunch of Ford workers... you're lucky to have a job, so keep your head down and don't make a fuss. Cuts are coming.

430 ppm? That seems high. We should do something about that. Has anyone considered getting all the countries in the world together to agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Other than graphic designers, is AI actually displacing workers anywhere, or are companies just cutting back on their workforce, making everyone who's left do more work, and using "replaced by AI" as an excuse to deflect the blame?