"A technology can create value by reducing uncertainty, improving coordination, avoiding mistakes, increasing resilience, or expanding opportunities. Those benefits do not necessarily show up as higher output per worker."

This makes zero sense. What good are these things if they do not increase output? If you reduce uncertainty, you cut the time needed to make a decision, thus less wasted time and more output. If you avoid mistakes, that should increase output. If you increase resilience, that means less slowdowns and downtime which should increase output. Expanding opportunities should also increase output unless you are already at capacity. The whole point of these things is to make things more streamlined and increase output.

1) Does anyone really think this will happen? I would put as much faith in this as I do Trump's $5000 checks in the GOP wins the midterms.
2) Does anyone really think he is going to give away his personal shares? Most likely, if it happens, they would issue 73 millions additional shares (or less as he will find some way to send them to only certain people), thus devalueing not only these new shares, but all the shares.
3) Even if he did give his own shares, that is still a time amount of his wealth. Does anyone really think he would ever even notice this change in wealth? This just shows how incredibly out of touch the uber rich are with regular people. This is about 1% of his net worth. He could give away 50% and it would never be noticed. But because it is a big number, people think this is rich people doing good when it is them doing the minimum for good press.

Yes, they did need the money for themselves. But one thing you seem to not understand about poor people is that they are much more likely to actually help people they see and know that are doing worse than them. The rich like to talk a lot about charity and giving, but they generally give less as a percentage of their income and wealth than poor people. Because these people know what it is like to be broke, they are more willing to give even the little extra they have to someone who needs it more than they do.

I also lean pretty hard left, but this is long overdue. Right choice for the wrong reason, but still a good thing. I lived in Redmond for several years, and a huge chunk of that city is H1Bs, while American workers are getting laid off. And afaik, the understanding is the HR programs that fill spots favor H1Bs because they're ultimately cheaper, so bigger bonuses.

Jesus, not this shit again. You know why colleges are 58-61% women? Because 55-60% of the application submitted are from women. Now, with us acknowledging that more women are in college (and graduating college) now look at something like amount of women CEOs. Or the general pay gap. Or even the pay gap in the same job (much smaller, but still exists). If women are getting more college degrees, shouldn't that mean they also earn more and get higher positions since people with college degrees earn more? So why isn't this happening? Care to explain how that with your anti-male bias BS?

They won't ban human drivers. One day you'll just discover that self-driving cars will have much cheaper premiums.

You might also discover a new insurance company has appeared that only insures self-driving cars. That insurance company won't actually be new, it'll just be a separately-branded subsidiary of one of the major players.

In the end, it might be that the self-driving cohort with their lower payout rate subsidises the "manual" drivers to some extent.

> It otherwise seems like a kind of weird time to do it.

It's for AI. Of course it is. Microsoft is busy cramming LLM's into everything they can.

Instead of (ugh) having the LLM manually cycle through a row or column of cells to get or set the data required, all the data is in one handy object in a single cell that can be trivially pumped in and out of whatever LLM-du-jour takes your fancy.

I don't think rpi has been PoP since the B; pi4 and 5 are definitely not PoP, but your other points are all valid.

My school, despite getting a Gates grant, had a class in Claris works. That was a worthwhile use of my learning time...

I remember being in school in the early 2000s, and the teachers were all regularly given macs that they absolutely did not need, given the most complicated thing most of them were doing was spreadsheets. Then, after the teachers had gotten used to using macs, Apple stopped donating the units to schools. This stuff has been going on forever, and it's just one of many, many ways corporations screw around with schools.

I expect to see a bunch of foreign power companies staying at Trump properties, playing golf at Trump resorts, and buying a ton of Trump coin followed shortly by their equipment being said to be "safe" and allowed to be imported. We NEED this equipment because we don't make most of it here and definitely not enough of it, so it will have to be allowed in. This is just a way for Trump to get paid by them to be allowed in.

"could appear to violate our obligation to conduct our analysis in a technologically neutral manner."

What you are doing is exactly violating that. You set the goals based on where you want to be, not what you think the technology can do. That is what "technologically neutral" means. You are taking into account the technology when setting goals, which means you are not neutral at all. But what else would I expect from this band of asshats?

I'm not gambling, I am just trying to predict whether this slot machine will give me three cherries when I spin the wheel.

Except tuition is basically free for Mexican citizens while the travel and accommodation certainly will not be. This isn't the US where all schools are outrageously expensive.

I don't have much more to say about it, except that if I was a billion-dollar AI company I wouldn't try and pass off my flaws as brilliance.