Dark energy isn't a theory, it's just a name. A name for "something with these particular properties". My quibble is that those properties don't seem reasonable.
Does the ability to quantum tunnel seem like a "reasonable" property of protons? That they can pass through an impassable barrier because some tiny portion of their wavefunction seeps through to the other side of it?
Physics is weird, man.
I think "yes, they make those things up" is overstating the situation and contributes to the sort of complaining you describe.
Imagine a scenario where you're standing across the room from a small paper bag on a scale. Confusingly the paper bag, which you'd think would only weigh a few grams, in reality comes in at 10kg. I don't think it's fair to say that I'd be "making up" anything if I theorize that there are massive objects in the bag that I can't see, and based on things like the size of the bag put some constraints on what those objects might be. It's formulating an explanation for empirical data based on our understanding of the physical laws of the universe.
I think that's a reasonable analogue for the current understanding of dark matter. We haven't figured out how to "open the bag" and say what particles or mechanisms are responsible, but it's not just a fudge factor in the models either.
Disclaimer: I'm going on an undergraduate physics degree and a casual interest in the subject.
The problem occurs when the GPU is wrong. Try convincing a GPU that it's wrong.
If we don't trust the GPU in this hypothetical scenario I'm a little more concerned about the fact that it's also responsible for driving a car around other motorists and pedestrians.
That aside, you raise a different but not entirely new problem. Try convincing Uber that the driver is lying or mistaken when they accuse you of being the passenger who made a mess in the back of their car.
Cleanliness is usually the the big issue and all the GPUs and sensors in the world won't fix this.
Why not? Car takes a photo of its own interior before the ride. Car takes a photo of its interior after the ride. GPUs analyze images to determine if the car has been damaged or significantly dirtied. If so, fine the rider for the cleaning fee and for the time the car is out of service.
a hypothetical hiring manager I would be a bit nervous hiring someone who's never demonstrated that they can feed themselves, clothe themselves, and make it to scheduled appointments (ie, classes and meetings) without the oversight of mom and dad.
The military has been doing this for years. McDonalds hires kids still in high school on a regular basis. What planet are you on?
There's a reason the military is known to be a massive engine for social mobility, far beyond most (all?) private enterprises. They (well, the taxpayer) are willing to take that gamble.
Self-replying to include some more thoughts.
The military also has the advantage of being able to take a level of control over their "employees" lives that would be impossible or outright illegal for any other institution. If private businesses could throw you in jail for not showing up to work (going AWOL) or trying to quit before they're OK with it (desertion), and if they could control when/where you sleep, what/when you eat, and what you're allowed to do in your free time, I imagine a lot more companies would be open to taking their chances on a high school graduate.
a hypothetical hiring manager I would be a bit nervous hiring someone who's never demonstrated that they can feed themselves, clothe themselves, and make it to scheduled appointments (ie, classes and meetings) without the oversight of mom and dad.
The military has been doing this for years. McDonalds hires kids still in high school on a regular basis. What planet are you on?
There's a reason the military is known to be a massive engine for social mobility, far beyond most (all?) private enterprises. They (well, the taxpayer) are willing to take that gamble.
To restate my speculation from a comment further down in the thread, I'd assume it involves much more investment and therefore risk to onboard someone to the point that they're useful at Palantir than to train someone to take orders at McDonald's. It's much lower risk to McDonald's if their gamble on an untested employee doesn't pay off. (Unless the training involves maintaining the soft-serve machine, which apparently requires some sort of advanced engineering degree to keep operational.)
There's a strange form of the class divide here. You say you can't be sure that kid can't feed themselves away from mommy, hiring them for an office job. But if you call someone to build a garage, you won't think twice about that 18 year old helper.
I think it comes down to the amount you expect to invest in the employee. If I'm running a job site and my hourly 18yo helper no-shows, I 1) don't pay them and 2) immediately replace them with someone else who can haul building materials. I was certainly making an assumption that onboarding to an entry level job at a place like Palantir is going to involve investing significant time and effort into the employee before they start producing more than they consume.
But on reflection, that's probably not the case. They can pay rock-bottom wages given that they're hiring out of a demographic that no one else in the sector is touching, and their four-month seminar course probably serves as a cheap way to assess whether the employee can show up to work reliably and interact with others in a professional environment. Their execs confirm as much: "Palantir executives said they had a clear sense by the third or fourth week of which fellows were succeeding in the company environment."
Setting aside whether a college education itself provides value, as a hypothetical hiring manager I would be a bit nervous hiring someone who's never demonstrated that they can feed themselves, clothe themselves, and make it to scheduled appointments (ie, classes and meetings) without the oversight of mom and dad. Obviously having a college degree doesn't correlate perfectly with abilities in those areas, and you could demonstrate the same with a few years work experience. But hiring out of high school introduces a certain level of risk.
On the flip side, I expect that an 18 year old highschool grad is going to be even more susceptible to brainwashing with the corporate culture than a 22 year old with either a degree or work experience, so maybe there are pros and cons?
Where on earth is congress?
My understanding is that this is, unfortunately, probably technically allowed in the absence of a federal law saying that it's not. Or, at the very least, the current Supreme Court certainly wouldn't shut down the behavior. It seems like such a law would enjoy support from a wide enough cast of characters (the left, because "stick it to ICE" and the libertarian right because of the obvious infringement on personal liberty) that it should have enough support to pass.
If we don't see someone proposing legislation in the near future, it'll be one of the most obvious signs yet that lawmakers across the board have forgotten what they're meant to be doing.
I didn t think I needed to provide evidence for the fact that a drug won't make the underlying problems that cause obesity to magically go away.
Well, you should have. The current research indicates that ~half of patients keep the weight off, or even lose more weight, up to a year after stopping GLP-1s.
ChatGPT helped find a nice source: Many Patients Maintain Weight Loss a Year After Stopping Semaglutide and Liraglutide
Can you be more specific about what SpaceX funding you consider a "government handout"?
As far as I'm aware, all the money SpaceX has received from the US government has been payment for services: delivering cargo/astronauts to the ISS, putting military satellites in orbit, etc.
From a proliferation and environmental standpoint I think it is a shame... but from an engineering perspective it is necessary if we are going to continue to rely on the arsenal. The question is if it will be dick waving or fundamental engineering testing.
The arsenal is perfectly reliable as-is, and I don't need nuclear tests to prove it. It is very reliably making other nuclear powers think very hard before using a nuke because they know there's a chance that if they do so, we're all going down. Slight facetiousness aside, the only possible outcomes of testing are:
1) The nuke detonates as expected. We all get to see a cool explosion. Deterrent effect remains unchanged, but the taboo against nuclear testing in polite society is significantly weakened. If South Korea, Japan, Poland, or the Saudis want to develop weapons a significant obstacle is removed.
2) The nuke fails to detonate. Deterrent effect significantly weakened. Same weakening of the taboo against nuclear testing.
There is no upside here.
From the article:
According to Environment Agency data, crematoriums are the second-largest source of mercury emissions to air after fuel combustion. Power stations contribute about 846kg mercury emissions to air, followed by crematoria, with 593kg, road transport, 228kg, domestic combustion, 194kg and cement processes, 140kg.
Of the top emitters, cremating the fillings in people's teeth responsible for ~60% the mercury emissions of industry (power generation + cement). We should address those too, but this isn't something that's going to have "no effect on the actual problem". It'll make a meaningful dent.
I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister.
