evoke4908

Because insurance would then just lowball the cost of everything.

They do. Many, many billable items are priced to the limit that insurance will pay. Insurance and providers have agreements on the prices they can charge for certain procedures or supplies.

It used to be the norm that insurance would pay their maximum and leave the rest to you. Sometimes the provider would waive the difference, sometimes it was billed to you.

The cost of healthcare is 100% an artefact of insurance price fixing and absolutely nothing else.

If you're launching a fleet of drones, discretion is probably not a major concern.

A coded sonic pulse could have exceptionally long range. Sure your enemies would detect it, about half a second before they detect the drones.

A more practical concern is simply temperature and how long the drone's power supply can survive in the cold ocean.

Your main challenge will probably be measuring the distance between neighboring drones as accurately as possible. AIUI you could recover signal from unevenly spaced receptors IFF you know precisely where each receptor is.

After that it's just a standard computational problem which is (IMO) far less interesting.

Or they can't afford to sell the cards at consumer prices. If they take a loss in the consumer segmet, they can recoup by overcharging the datacenter customers.

That's how this scheme works. The card is most likely not profitable at consumer price points. Without this segmentation, consumer cards would trail many years behind the performance of datacenter cards.

I made that choice several years ago. All new PCs I buy/build are AMD only.

The hardware is a bit finnicky, but honestly I prefer a thing to just be broken and tricky as opposed to nvidia intentionally making my life hard.

I have the freedom to read what I want. You're telling me I don't

You don't. This is not a legally protected right in any US jurisdiction. Period.

This isn't about freedom of speech

Correct, because this isn't speech and "freedom of speech" does not mean what you think it does. The right to freedom of speech enumerated in the US constitution is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot punish its citizens for speaking out against the government. That's really all you're guaranteed. This has nothing to do with censorship, and in fact censorship in general is quite accepted in US law. You quite plainly do not have the right to unrestricted access to any information you want. No law even suggests that. Just for starters, we regularly ban books at the state level. In some places, you can be arrested for possessing certain materials. Perfectly constitutional.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or print anything with no consequences. See libel.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can read or posses any information you want. See classified materials, state secrets, illegal materials such as CSAM.

Freedom of speech means that the government can't put three generations of your family in a concentration camp because you tweeted once that the president sucks.

They just read the title, not the article, then confabluate an entire world view from three words that are entirely untethered from the actual constitutional meaning.

Counterpoint: being useful to a more successful species is a staggeringly effective evolutionary strategy. Nature is chock full of symbiotic relationships and it's a perfectly valid ecological niche. Symbionts exist whether or not the host is capable of feeling bad about it.

By becoming attached to such a successful species as humans, any symbiont species has an extremely good chance of surviving for as long as the host species. Including long after they'd have gone extinct naturally.

Most species that humans like or find useful will eventually end up colonizing entire star systems along with us. Those species will continue to live on in their evolutionary descendants long after the sun exapnds and earth becomes inhospitable.

Personally I call that a successful species.

Or we could just leave the worms alone and let them be hunted to extinction by predators or die out in natural climate or ecological shifts over time. I guess that's nicer than species continuity into galactic time scales.

Please feel free to point out which parts of the comment are incorrect.

It's been 25 years.

I thought this was just default with XFCE in general

C# is the first thing to come to mind. If you so choose you can more or less inline C and trample all over memory, or you can write very strict, statically typed, safe code.

Your assertion seems to be that Google's location service must be the best, and there's no way a trivial method can outperform it.

Have you considered that google might just perform poorly compared to other methods?

He executed a man who has murdered unknown thousands of innocent people. How many of his victims had children?

the term carcinogen is very broad

No, it is very much not. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carcinogen

I think you just mean the bad ones can cause harm

There are no "good" carcinogens. They're all bad. They all cause harm and cancer because that's the one and only meaning of that term.

Claiming that text is fiction does not change the fact that it contains illegal and potentially harmful advice presented as truth.

As a legal defense, this is on par with "copyright not intended"

That's how American law works. The law as written has very little to do with the law as practiced. Everything comes down to how courts interpret the letter of the law as it relates to the messy reality of meatspace.

Writing the law is like writing code. You can attempt to reason through each instruction and apply all sorts of static analysis, but you can't actually be certain it will work until you try to run it in production. The courts are the debugger for legal code. Courts attempt to interpret what the letter of the law means and how it applies to the very specific scenario in front of them.

Consider a law that simply states carrying a sword in public is illegal. Without common law, this rule applies in 100% of scenarios unless explicitly stated otherwise. If a foreign dignitary comes and expects officers with ceremonial swords, they all go to jail. We interpret law because the ideal vacuum universe in which the law was written does not have unforseen circumstances. A court applies an interpretation to circumstances to come to the judgement that diplomats are allowed to have ceremonial sabers in their entourage.

Think about it some more and ask yourself how a society could function in the long term without the ability to reinterpret law to fit particular circumstances. Every law rigidly applied exactly as written forever into the future. The only option to revise a law is by passing a new one.

Forget about the particles for a second. This is about fundamental quantum fields. The fields can randomly fluctuate from the vacuum state into a more ordered state where virtual particles are created.

The conjecture here is that a given volume of space must, at some point, randomly evolve into the quantum state you're interested. When the quantum fields align into the same state that a bunch of particles would represent, those particles appear out of the vacuum.

The trick that makes this work is that conservation laws don't apply on very small time scales. That's how virtual particles work after all. The energy can only be temporarily borrowed from the vacuum, unless you pay the energy cost to make that particle 'real' by destroying its virtual pair (see Hawking radiation).

You might imagine TV static, just random visual noise. There's no real reason the randomness can't line up to produce one single coherent frame before decohering. Just imagine that in 3 (or 11) dimensions.

I don't think an antiparticle pair is a strict requirement for virtual particles either. As long as energy is conserved on macro timescales, the universe doesn't really care what state the quantum fields are in.

Sounds like a layperson's poor understanding of an explanation from someone else who also doesn't really get it.

My CEO has been letting the AWS bill go unpaid, apparently not understanding that our entire business and all of our IP will simply vanish if our S3 bucket gets deleted. Zero backups of any kind

I manually pulled a backup of everything but jeez, not good.

That CEO didn't seem to have any qualms about killing people

I'm real interested in how a trial goes. Can you even find enough people in America who haven't been bent over by insurance to form an unbiased jury? I find it hard to imagine any jury would convict him.

As bad ideas go, this has to be one of the best.

By amounts so small as to be effectively zero even over the span of centuries. The article admits that tidal forces from the moon slow earth's spin by orders of magnitude more.

Big, steaming, juicy nothingburger

Doesn't a PLA just boil down to a truth table that you can dump the same way? Or am I thinking of the other kind of programmable logic chip used for this purpose? GAL, I think?

We've been using RS232 since 1960. I have 100% confidence that in a thousand years there will still be engineering terminals in starships emulating a VT100

Someone's about to learn about the Streisand effect

It's really very extremely simple.

You're in charge of a safety-critical business.

You make decisions that trade safety for profit.

People die.

You are charged with murder and go to jail for a very long time, just like any regular citizen.

This really should not be controversial or complicated. If you kill people, there are consequences. That's how the world works for 99.9999% of the human race. The same standard should be applied to CEOs as the proxy for the corporate entity that they are.

To argue anything else is to argue that so long as you have enough money, it's perfectly acceptable to kill as many people as you want in as gruesome a fashion as you'd like.

The price of being a scumsucking robber baron murdering thousands of people for profit should be extreme. The profits gained from such behavior should be clawed back with the full force of government from any source even remotely related. The company should be gutted and auctioned off, or nationalized if they're "too big to fail". Investors immediately and irrevocably lose all stakes, no exceptions. All recovered moneys should be distributed to victims and families.

Boeing never should have happened and it should never happen again. But this behavior and exploitation and mass murder will not stop so long as it's profitable and murderers just walk away with zero repercussions and keep their billions in blood money.

Boeing is not a case of incompetence. This is a case of pure and simple greed. They've ignored safety reports and FAA guidance. They even rigged the FAA inspection process to let them rubber-stamp things in-house (while ignoring failing reports). This has been a long decline and they've made the worst decisions the entire time.

Even if it were incompetence or ignorance, it absolutely does not matter. If you run over a kid because you were texting or simply not paying attention to the road, you go to jail. If your incompetence leads to hundreds and thousands of deaths, you should be just as culpable.

Stop making excuses for billionaire mass murders. Drag them to the gallows instead.

How is it any different from ordinary parallel compilation? Make will happily use dozens of CPU cores for compilation, even if linking and other operations must be synchronous.

Even if a GPU core is slower than a CPU core, you have vastly more of them. If you have a project with more TUs than you have CPU cores, I don't see how it couldn't be faster.

Hell, you can even trivially compile on different remote machines with distcc. If that's faster, how could a GPU be worse?

All of the screaming text on the site trying to explain to you why no one online trusts them but you definitely should is an enormous red flag that makes me very much not trust them one bit.