Not to mention the millions spent on DEI hiring of marginal people based only on demographics.

He did, on the promise of the Biden CHIPs act money- the employees ballooned to 145,000 worldwide by October 2022.

Due to CHIPs act not coming through as planned, in December 2022 they started rounds of layoffs, which Lu Tan is continuing

Investment is a tricky one.

I'd say that learning how to learn is probably the single-most valuable part of any degree, and anything that has any business calling itself a degree will make this a key aspect. And that, alone, makes a degree a good investment, as most people simply don't know how. They don't know where to look, how to look, how to tell what's useful, how to connect disparate research into something that could be used in a specific application, etc.

The actual specifics tend to be less important, as degree courses are well-behind the cutting edge and are necessarily grossly simplified because it's still really only crude foundational knowledge at this point. Students at undergraduate level simply don't know enough to know the truly interesting stuff.

And this is where it gets tricky. Because an undergraduate 4-year degree is aimed at producing thinkers. Those who want to do just the truly depressingly stupid stuff can get away with the 2 year courses. You do 4 years if you are actually serious about understanding. And, in all honesty, very few companies want entry-level who are competent at the craft, they want people who are fast and mindless. Nobody puts in four years of network theory or (Valhalla forbid) statistics for the purpose of being mindless. Not unless the stats destroyed their brain - which, to be honest, does happen.

Humanities does not make things easier. There would be a LOT of benefit in technical documentation to be written by folk who had some sort of command of the language they were using. Half the time, I'd accept stuff written by people who are merely passing acquaintances of the language. Vague awareness of there being a language would sometimes be an improvement. But that requires that people take a 2x4 to the usual cultural bias that you cannot be good at STEM and arts at the same time. (It's a particularly odd cultural bias, too, given how much Leonardo is held in high esteem and how neoclassical universities are either top or near-top in every country.)

So, yes, I'll agree a lot of degrees are useless for gaining employment and a lot of degrees for actually doing the work, but the overlap between these two is vague at times.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.

If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.

But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.

They've associated changes in the civilization with the changing climate conditions, it's likely not 100% certain, but it looks like a pretty likely cause.

That is a very weird take. The bits we modified are the best land, temperate zones, river banks, grasslands. You really want to move to some of that "untamed land" in the Sahara, Siberia, or Greenland?

And honestly, that map looks like a massive underestimate. I'm seeing big black regions in what I know to be largely unbroken crop land.

If you don't want Alberta to pump oil then don't buy oil.

But if you are going to pump oil then build a pipeline because shipping it by truck or rail is a horrible solution.

I want the oil industry to die because we're moving onto other energy sources, not because we're shutting down the Albertan oil industry so other producers like the US and the Middle East can make more money.

The point is, its possible to drive on roads in NZ that are not maintained by the government, so the tax ostensibly being paid per mile in fuel tax isn't going to maintain the road you are necessarily on...

And when driving from the UK to France, the ICE drivers are using UK road-taxed fuel, so the counter-point is the same :)

It doesn't even have to be linked to the car tax.

NZ uses "Road User Charges" for diesel - it does not have the tax built in at the pump (petrol does), so all diesel cars have to buy blocks of kilometres as tax. The government get updated when your annual vehicle inspection is done, but between those inspections its up to you to make sure you have enough spare kilometres left for your trips. If you get stopped by police and they check, being too far out is considered to be tax evasion and a criminal offence.

Who are already required to record mileage on UK roads for other reasons, so thats a solved problem.

And in New Zealand you can easily drive miles and miles on private roads, which are not maintained by the government...

I do not know that Intel/AMD, Microsoft, and the OEM hardware makers all license the same patents.

Under the doctrine [patent exhaustion doctrine], once an authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder's exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are said to be "exhausted," and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

My understanding is that the hardware does not implement HEVC/H.265, but instead implements primitives which can be used to accelerate it.