A "masters" is a weird in-between degree that can mean so many different things depending on the school, subject matter, and profession. It doesn't make sense to talk about the general job market for masters degrees when you are really talking about completely different markets. Various types include:

1) A consolation prize for Phd dropouts
2) Professional degrees (i.e. masters in accountancy)
3) Medical field specialists (i.e. speech pathology, physical therapy, specialized nursing)
4) "Find yourself" types (i.e. creative writing)
5) Prep for other grad school (i.e. pre-med programs for people who didn't get the pre-med requirements in undergrad)
6) MBAs (huge difference between M7 and degree mill programs)
7) Specialized post-grad school education (such as an LLM in law for already licensed lawyers)

Putting all of those different programs into a single pot for analysis is pointless. Cost can be anything from they pay you (i.e. Phd programs) to $100k/yr (MBA programs).

I don't think the statement was necessarily wrong. Computers were really expensive in 1993 relative to today, and a lot of people were playing Doom at the time with hardware way below the state of the art. I remember playing it on a then 5-year-old 386 machine that ran it at sub 10fps. A composer would have needed to consider how the music would sound on less advanced hardware.

That is nominal GDP based on a very weak currency.

In PPP terms, Iran's GDP is about $1.2T, about the same as that of Illinois or the Netherlands.

Then the future will belong to China.

Better start learning Mandarin.

If little Johnny can't read who is actually held accountable? Apparently it's no one's fault so why does anyone have any incentive to solve the problem? The parents don't care, the schools will just pass them through, and the students are too uneducated to be concerned with how screwed they are.

It's /., you don't have to have facts, just a pithy assertion about "companies bad, public spending good."

That said, I'm surprised NV Energy isn't bound by a contract or regulation to supply residential power. One year to find an alternate supply isn't a very long time if you're not positioned to install an alternate at your home. I'm quite sure many of the customers built or bought their homes assuming they had some guarantee that power would be delivered over the grid. It's an interesting legal question though, what sort of actionable legal right do they actually have?

They're increasingly doing exactly that, building on-site power. I just checked. First Google hit said there were something like 46 projects in the works with on-site power. I see a continuous stream of stories about data centers being planned with conventional natural gas generation. Data centers are frequently mentioned as a natural market for the small modular reactors people have been dorking around with for a decade or so.

They're paying customers like everyone else. That's not leeching, that's competing for a limited supply. If they can pay a more compelling rate than homeowners, perhaps this is how we pay for more infrastructure.

Under any sane system, the power companies would be building new capacity at a furious pace. You (the power company) don't maximize your profits by pissing off existing customers.

If they don't have enough capacity to service both their existing and new customers, perhaps we should look at why they're not building more generators.

Indeed. I pay $20 per month for Cursor, and it works great.

Why should I pay 15 times that much to be Elon's beta tester?

I saw some statements from Nvidia about how they want 1 MW racks. This would fit. At that power density you need liquid cooling, which I don't think this box has.

To get a 1 MW rack you need really interesting power distribution too. I think they wanted to go to 800 V DC to each rack. Care on the part of the maintenance techs is encouraged.

It's not that simple. Someone lives near anywhere you might want to build something. Even if you build in the remote reaches of Alaska, some busybody will get their undies in a twist that it destroys some aspect of the wilderness they personally value, even if that person has never been to Alaska and never intends to.

More practically, you want to build power plants near where the demand is because shipping power costs money and can cause other issues. You want data centers near people both to hire people working there, hiring people to build it, being close to transportation to haul gear in and out of the data center, and so on and so on.

We've been arguing about siting industrial facilities for probably 150 years now. This is not a new problem, it's just what people are hyped up about today.

What I think is ironic about your comment is clustering industry used to be one of the primary values of a city. You wanted all your factories and industry concentrated in one spot. Then people got all upset about how noxious industrial cities were so industry moved to the suburbs and exurbs. If we want to have a high GDP and wealthy standards of living, we're going to have to build industrial complexes somewhere and that somewhere can't always be "anywhere I can't see it."

Both eliminate some jobs and create others. You'd have a tough time convincing the people at Nvidia or TSMC that AI does nothing but eliminate jobs.

Thing is, you can say the same thing about any technical change or any change in consumer preferences. We don't pay attention to polls saying whether people would rather have a Kmart store or a fitness center in their neighborhood, and yet the 24 Hour Fitness gyms have taken over many failed department store locations. I don't see any particular reason we should pay this poll much mind either.

Talk is cheap. If only we had a way to determine what people actually prefer based on their revealed preferences. Oh, wait, we do, it's the free market. Let's use it.

I've been driving EVs since I first got a used Tesla S (2014 P85D). I have a 2020 Chevy Bolt EV I use as my daily driver right now. I recently rented a 2025 Toyota Camry Hybrid, which seems to be in high demand and very highly rated/recommended out there.

My experience was ... disappointing. Now granted, it delivered on the fuel economy part. I drove it several hundred miles over a few days' time and when I went to refuel it before the rental return, it only needed 6 gallons of gas to fill it back up. But the whole driving experience felt like a big step back from any EV I'd driven. You had the constant sensation of a gas engine turning on and off at various times, and a constant reminder the battery pack in the vehicle was tiny and only a part of a more complicated system. (You could put the car in "EV mode" to make it drive only on battery, but it would only allow it at very low speeds, like driving around parking lots.) Ultimately, it was just a car lugging around all the things required for an internal combustion engine AND electric vehicle parts at the same time. Double the complexity and a rolling compromise. (Better interior than I'm used to seeing w/Toyota though.)

I'm kind of confused w/Honda. Their "EV strategy" seemed to me like it was basically about trying to sell that Prologue which was really a GM designed car getting rebranded as a Honda product + hand-waving that they'd do cooler stuff soon.

Truthfully? I think one of the big challenges with EVs across the board is trying to mask the high cost of the battery pack, motors and other electronics involved. You can "do it right" by not caring and slapping a high price tag on it. Then you get an EV that still maintains people's expectations for "fit and finish", a nice interior, and really good handling. The BMW i4 eDrive 40 is a great example here, or even the Porsche Taycan EV. But most people just want a cheap car that's reliable, avoids the need for gas fill-ups and oil changes, while still handling well and feeling like corners weren't cut on the build quality, interior and exterior. That doesn't really seem to be doable, yet? Tesla sure doesn't. They just design vehicles that few people think look great on the outside. but "wow" them with all the infotainment / computer capabilities on the inside. Keep the interior really bare-bones but put that big touch-screen front and center to distract them. Spend enough on the seats so they're really comfortable, but use a real basic "skateboard" suspension and frame across the whole product line. It goes fast enough in a straight line so they'll ignore other handling issues.

Don't get me wrong. I like Tesla vehicles. I'm just being real about what one is and isn't. I don't think an established brand like Honda is comfortable making all those compromises, and they're just not seeing a profit margin in converting what they build now into a full EV?

I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for the students. What I'm saying is that rational actors in the marketplace will not choose Harvard over the alternative if the alternative offers them a better deal.

For better or worse, the people who go to Harvard want to do better than "just fine".

I'm talking about what Harvard has actually proposed: putting a cap on As. You do not know how many B grades would have been As but for the cap. This is especially true in subject that have heavy qualitative components to grading.

Again, I'm talking about the types of jobs that people go to Harvard for. Top-end consulting, investment banking, private equity, etc. type jobs do look at grades. The problem with saying that it's only about your "first job" is that your resume from your first job is what leads to your second. If your first job is at Goldman Sachs, that tends to lead to a very different career trajectory than if your first job is a "management trainee" at a rental car company. You get access to a completely different set of experiences early in your career coming from a top-end employer than you do from a middling one.

Do people leap the career latter or fall off it regardless? Of course. Many people flame out at Goldman and people fly up from the bottom even from mediocre first positions. But the main reason someone pays the big bucks for Harvard over State U. is jobs like Goldman are far more open to you from Harvard. The type of person who gets into Harvard in the first place has already gotten there in-part through careful grade and credential optimization. There's no reason to think that process will suddenly stop.