natroniks

One point she makes is that these chips don't last forever and must be replaced every couple years at least. That there is a cycle. Nvidia is, imo, trying to replicate the iphione model, only with chips for enterprise rather than smart phones for consumers. For example, Nvidia went from a 2-year upgrade cycle to a 1 year, just like iPhones started as an every-other year upgrade cycle (with an S transitionary year) to annual upgrades. In fact, the iPhone gets at least a few new models each year, including regular, pro, and pro max. Nvidia is also trying to turn Cuda into the App Store of their platform. There's even the premium market parallel, ie, iPhone and Nvidia GPUs are the most expensive of their ilk. The way I conceive of Nvidia is, it's like the iPhone only on the enterprise side. Nvidia's sales will therefore be tied more to the business cycle than the consumer cycle; and this could mean more of a cyclical business that Apple ever achieved. However, it is also a much differenct business model than Cisco. It's almost like Apple's business model with Cisco's market segment.

I always imagined teams of 2 working the forge. One man to hold the reverse, or "punch," die; a second struck down a hammer. The obverse, or "anvil," die was set into the anvil. That's what I gathered from the denarius of Titus Carisius, for instance: one hammer and one set of tongs, so two workmen. Maybe I'm mistaken. One thing I've wondered is how many mint men were required to supply the whole Empire. There was some good info about the tens of thousands required to mine the metals that went into coins. But how about the size of the labor force required to physically hammer out these circles of metal? For the minting process itself, the inscriptional evidence might be our best evidence. 63 men are listed - were they all employed at once, then? Interestingly, 63 is divisible by 3. Did it take 21 teams? For such a far-reaching endeavor, 63 people isn't much at all. Then again, for such a high-stakes position, the steps taken to secure both the labor and materials must've given these guys a high bar to meet. Perhaps even a bit of clout, even if only within the ranks of the servi publici.

I can see how it has nothing to do with nitrogen bubbles exploding. But why are you so quick to dismiss the concept? If gravity affects how liquids flow, bone density, and various aspects of human physiology, it stands to reason that a sudden return to earth's gravity could cause internal issues. No?

Does anyone know:

If deep sea divers need to come back to the surface slowly so their bodies can reacclimate to standard pressure, do astronauts undergo a similar reacclimation process as it pertains to gravity?

If deep sea divers need to come back to the surface slowly so their bodies can reacclimate to standard pressure, do astronauts undergo a similar reacclimation process as it pertains to gravity?

The stocks are not down so much today (Thursday the 24th), not beyond the general jitters the market's had of late. But the fact is, this wasn't really the triggering of mutual self-destruction. More likely than not, Qualcomm will be able to negotiate somewhere between their higher and lower rates with the Nuvia chips providing the axis around which the debate will turn. Ultimately, I thing, the re-negotiated terms will benefit Qualcomm, as I don't see them getting worse. But how long the litigation will take and how hard ARM can negotiate with Qualcomm is anyone's guess. For something better than a wild guess, we can look at how Qualcomm handled their modem litigation with Apple. Qualcomm couldn't recognize a lot of revenue and therefore profits for many years due to Apple withholding payments https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/1/18525962/qualcomm-apple-se... In the end, Qualcommm received a multi-billion dollar lump sum payment AND Apple signed a long-term deal (this was back in 2019, so). Something Apple is still trying to get away from, by the way. I don't think ARM has the financial firepower to withstand a trial as long as Apple did, which took multiple years - but even that Qualcomm may deem temporary given where they are now. The negotiations have begun, I'm not sure I would read any further into this move by ARM. As for the reputational hit against ARM, well, that is hard to measure, for me at least. But it's an interesting thought. I feel like the relationship between ARM and its customers are something like TSMC's foundry business. I can't imagine TSMC even threatening to stop manufacturing the chips of Qualcomm. But TSMC's other customers prob wouldn't blink. And neither might ARM's.

I have formulated a dual analogy between antiquity and modern viewpoints: science:technology::religion:magic

Science today, like religion of old, had a centralized authority with strict qualifications to enter. Academia, like priesthoods, were often a blend of talent and nepotism. Meanwhile, technology today is like magic of old, in that in can be wielded by anyone who has the desire to learn. There is also the common refrain in today's tech world that things like the recently unveiled Meta's Project Orion are "like magic." Meanwhile, the Ivory Tower is not far removed from the college (a coincidental term I'm sure) of pontiffs at Rome.

Anyway, this is not to say the modern form has replaced the old, but it helps me conceive of how ancients may have understood the distinction between religion and magic, since both involved the gods, just as scient and technology are based on the same foundational principles and yet are applied in the real world in much different ways.

This is complete and utter bullshit. Whatever your personal experience, I have ridden taxis hundreds of times over the course of 2 decades and not once has a cab demanded I pay cash. I exclusively used credit cards and have been since roughly 2009

Reminds me of the South Park episode where agreeing to Apple's Terms and Conditions gives Steve Jobs the right to perform experimental surgery on you (inspired by the B horror flick Human Centipede). Just found the episode title, "HumancentiPad" S15 E1 from 2011

There was a recent article in the NYT on technology being developed to better deliver organs: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/health/organ-transplants-... "Perfusion, as its called, is changing every aspect of the organ transplant process, from the way surgeons operate, to the types of patients who can donate organs, to the outcomes for recipients." I don't know if the red tape described involving UNOs and OPTN will get in the way of more progress. But this seems like an area that could use a lot more attention.

I think Ancient art - visual and otherwise - was steeped in formulaic motifs. It's hard to judge the "passion" of the artist's hand with such low quality images, not to mention the damage wrought over thousands of years. I think it's worthwhile to be careful not to judge ancient art with a modern eye. They had different values. It's quite possible if not likely that frescoes were viewed as temporary, to be plaster-painted over every so often. We can see multiple layers of painted plaster in other parts of Pompeii, so it's not unlikely private homes would do the same. If then they viewed this art as fleeting, why should they pay for the best details when the overall effect is more important? Anyone who walked into this hall would have been familiar with the Trojan cycle. So as long as the characters were recognizable - hence the name labels - that was sufficient. I personally find these bright, full-bodied figures against a stark black background reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effect mastered by Caravaggio some 1500 years later using oil

When looking at frescoes I like to ask, why did the homeowner (r whomever made these decisions) choose these images/themes for this context? Not just the Trojan War generally, but these particular characters and relationship dynamics? Apollo and Cassandra; Paris and Helen; I think of them as 2 pairs of failed lovers. Failures not only because their romance didn't work out, but also because the fallout from their attempted relationship caused so much destruction. The Trojan Cycle is often thought of in terms of war, battles, death, destruction. But it really does involve a lot of romantic relationships (all of them doomed): Achilles and Patroclus, Achilles and Briseis, Helen and Paris, Apollo and Cassandra, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, Menelaus and Helen... The thought provoking nature of frescoes in a dining room was intentional, as it's the type of source material that could be used to inspire conversation at a dinner party. Can't wait to learn more about this room

There's also this funny/cheesy poem, quoted in full in the second Harold and Kumar movie:

“The Square Root of Three”(written by David Feinberg)

I’m sure that I will always be A lonely number like root three

The three is all that’s good and right, Why must my three keep out of sight Beneath the vicious square root sign, I wish instead I were a nine

For nine could thwart this evil trick, with just some quick arithmetic

I know I’ll never see the sun, as 1.7321 Such is my reality, a sad irrationality

When hark! What is this I see, Another square root of a three

As quietly co-waltzing by, Together now we multiply To form a number we prefer, Rejoicing as an integer

We break free from our mortal bonds With the wave of magic wands

Our square root signs become unglued Your love for me has been renewed

source: https://allpoetry.com/poem/4721391--The-Square-Root-of-Three...

Have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange? That, imho, is overflowing with pathos. If you do not feel moved by Alex's actions - sympathy, empathy, revulsion, and more - then I'd be curious to know what films do elicit an emotional response from you?

If you're trying to make a point about sacred writings being the first texts, you may want to consider Linear B and cuneiform, some of the oldest texts of the Mediterranean and which are almost exclusively inventory lists. While we have things like the epic of Gilgamesh preserved in baked tablets, this is the exception to the rule. For the vast majority of these most ancient texts, tabulation was the main use of writing: how many animals were sacrificed, how many sheaves of wheat were in storage, how much fruit a plot of land could produce, etc. As for sacred writings: Many religions were hesitant to commit their wisdom to writing - one reason why so much of Greco-Roman religion is unknown to us. The Oral Torah was supposedly passed on for centuries until the destruction of the temple and fragmentation of the Jews necessitated the writing down of this knowledge. Heck, Homeric poetry (the hymns as well as the epics) was not written down until centuries of oral development had gone on; not because writing had not been invented, but because it was not used for literary material.

Adding to other resources shared here, archaeologist Denise Schmandt-Besserat has written about the evolution of writing (not strictly the alphabet), and much is available online: https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing... The roots of writing seems to be in counting/tallying marks, i.e. accounting. Another great book, "Against the Grain" by James Scott, describes how both tallying and writing developed hand-in-hand with the state.

I've thought about this and read/listened to some insightful philosophers and classicists consider this very question. The most convincing rationale I've heard comes from the most eloquent, the most learned, most excellent Nathan Dufour Oglesby (https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY) He summarizes classical Stoicism in his catchy tune "Be a Stoic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE He also spoke recently about classical Stoicism's cosmic paradigm of a living universe: https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589 It's this last point that provides the basis, I think, for Stoicism's sort of renaissance. I say sort of because, as with the Bible, today's constituents often focus on only certain pieces of Stoicism. But it is rooted in this idea that just as various cells all function towards the same purpose of supporting our bodies, so all creatures are part of an interconnected, living universe. This conception leads to the idea that everyone, every station of living being just as with every cell in our body, is in service to a grander scheme. And once more this grander scheme can be used to excuse all sorts of unhelpful acts - so long as they are in pursuit of a greater good. I myself prefer Epicureanism (there's a catchy tune for that, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM). Unlike Epicureanism - true atheists - Stoicism had its own theological system, a cosmology bound up in the belief in a cosmic force, a fire they called numa/Dios/physos. Modern Stoicism focuses on 2 of 3 categories within Stoicism - ethics and logic. The third field is Physics, under which is included a theological and teleological system that provides a universal context entirely foreign to the teachings espoused by so many today. Here's a podcast I just stumbled upon that does a good job of detailing the critical role the divine force plays in the universe: https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoi... Lastly, the interviews in this podcast with Donald Robertson (Stoic) and John Vervaeke (Neo-Platonist) are really, really illuminating and Vervaeke's in particular addresses your precise question: why is stoicism going viral? https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-w... https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-goi...

Knowing about the corporate history of these mega-corporations is helpful to understand their ubiquity today. Mastercard came out of Bank of America's innovative "Master Charge" business. Visa was formed from a consortium of many banks. Kinda parallel to how Venmo is owned by one financial firm while Zelle is owned by a consortium (perhaps one day each spins out to become the next gen MA nad V). To this day, Visa stock has a 96% institutional ownership, far higher than the avg megacap. Mastercard has over 75% inst ownership. The structural importance of these companies today goes back to their respective origins in the banks themselves.

Great find, and fascinating given the talc cases I've seen are all US based. Maybe that's just a bias and more a reflection of the sources I read than fact. Going to the source you provided, I see they do undercut the obligation later on: > Johnson & Johnson will indemnify us for certain liabilities, including talc-related liabilities for products sold in the United States and Canada, but such indemnity may not be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities or Johnson & Johnson may be unable to satisfy its indemnification obligations.

Also, JNJ is going to maintain voting control of Kenvue such that changes to these obligations might be in JNJ's control anyway...

I'm not sure if JNJ liked including that clause, but by embracing this commitment and having the courts approve it with specific limitations to the Consumer Brands business, they may be able to save themselves in the end - or about 85% of themselves. > https://www.geneonline.com/soon-to-be-jj-spinoff-kenvue-file... The upcoming spinoff of Kenvue will be very interesting to say the least. Will JNJ be willing/able to sacrifice their consumer brands business altogether to protect the pharma/devices segments? Even the full $61.5B represents just about 15% of JNJ's current mkt cap; the rest of it basically represents drugs and equipment. If Kenvue takes on the entire commitment to LTL funding, then the real distinction isn't, as many say, Goodco (JNJ) and Badco (LTL). It's Goodco (JNJ), shield (Kenvue), Badco (LTL) - maybe? For JNJ, losing Kenvue would be a momentous, eye-watering loss, but it wouldn't bring down the entire mothership. For a look at how endless legal battles in one corner of a conglomerate can bring down the whole bloody thing, cf. 3M over the last like 10 years; they, too, are attempting a spinoff. >https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-penalizes-3m-bars-it-... > https://investors.3m.com/news/news-details/2022/3M-Announces...

Frankly, I just hope this legal wrangling doesn't somehow lead to even worse supply shortages in basic treatment (Tylenol, Motrin, etc). This winter was the first time I can recall heairng about shortages in cold medicine.

Thanks for your input. The main downside I could imagine is if the courts rule that JNJ must provide open-ended financial backing to LTL. JNJ initially provided $2B to LTL to cover liabilities, but made clear they wouldn't be shocked if it were somewhat more than $2B. What's not being judged here is whether LTL can ever declare bankruptcy. In a confusing turn, many comments (here and elsewhere) seem to be taking the next step and claiming that the court's decision today implies the courts will rule the whole Texas Two Step" structure is "in bad faith." As of now, the only "bad faith" move is LTL declaring bankruptcy while they're still solvent. Should there be enough judgments against LTL such that they run out of money, then they might indeed be able to declare bankruptcy and shield JNJ from further costs (though, as I state, there has been previous discussion of adding to the the initial $2B pot).

Can someone here clarify: Is today's ruling about the legitimacy of structuring JNJ's talc liabilities into LTL? Or is it saying that LTL can't file for bankruptcy AT THE MOMENT because the firm (LTL) is not yet in financial distress? I don't see this as a loss for JNJ's "Texas Two-Step" strategy, but rather the judges are saying "LTL can't declare bankruptcy preemptively, LTL needs to be under actual financial distress before declaring bankruptcy."

That's a bit Crass

You seem to talk about the Economy in your first line, but the US government in your second question. These are two separate issues that call for two distinct answers. Re: faith in the US gov. This sell-off is not a reflection on credit worthiness of the sovereign nations. Bear in mind, US credit was indeed downgraded in 2011 in the wake of the GFC (there were also European countries suffering such downgrades). A downgrade in credit rating would reflect a lack in trust, but we're not there at this time. On the other hand, the sell-off in bonds is a result of economic factors, which goes to your first question. Institutions (and that's what's driving this scale of selling) may sell bonds in order to raise cash to make debt payments. Given the dramatic increase in rates this year, and the fact that new debt will have interest payments much higher than recent, the need for cash is a fundamental factor. So, for one thing, selling bonds raises cash. There is also the fear-of-recession factor, wherein people would rather hold cash and lose as much as 5-10% by inflation, rather than hold bonds or equities which have lost 15-20+% this year. If anything, the move from bonds to cash is a reflection of investors' faith in the currency of sovereign states holding value vs the faith they have in their debt instruments holding value. So, I don't think the sell-off is a reflection of faith in the government; it is however a reflection of the economy, and may even be a logistical necessity given the much higher interest payments all debt-bearing institutions are now facing. Just as an example, the 1 year Treasury has increased in yield by a full 55x from last September to this September. That means interest payments on a 1 year debt instrument have increased 55 fold in a year. Likewise, a 10 year bond has doubled. Since most sovereign debt is long-term, the latter is more pertinent. But even so, doubling your interest payments will have huge effects and require, of course, twice the cash payments.

For all of the supposed training Spartans had, they held military domination for less than half a century (counting the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War in 404 BCE to their defeat at Leuctra in 371 BCE. The image of their training comes from non-Spartan sources centuries after their Golden Age. Athens maintained naval domination without such "training." Rome, too. But I digress. The real point of this is that the most rigorous training doesn't have to involve life-death situations based on infection, PEDs, or other incidents off-course. The article here doesn't seem to focus on deaths occurring in the midst of the course, ie, during the training program itself (eg, drowning or severing a spinal chord during action). I think there's debate for the merits of the training, but leaving that aside, the idea of monitoring these warriors when they're "at rest" (in quotes of course), when it's both feasible and does not interfere with the training itself, seems more than fair. Heck, between treating infections and suffering withdrawal, they probably should receive treatment as part of their survival training...why shouldn't that be good practice in the field?

A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence.

I keep returning to the same examples, but there are many "amputations" performed for non-medical benefits. Frenectomy; tooth extraction; mole/skin tag removal. I don't know if circumcision fits somewhere on this scale, I think it does, many believe it is of a different nature. I don't see how removing connective tissues in the mouth is any less injurious than removing connective tissues from the genitals. They both sound bad on paper, but in life this is a common occurrence with benefits (real or perceived seems to be up for debate)

This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.

I'm asking you genuinely how someone can tell. Is my kid going to enjoy food less just because his tongue tie is removed? I had a painful skin tag removed from my back, so yea I suppose I'm less sensitive there now but in a good way; it is less painful taking a shirt on and off. I am not making a broad based claim, I'm saying on an individual scale I've not suffered diminished sexual pleasure.

You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. Ok, I think every male in my family is evidence that you can get circumcised and no ill effects come from it. No infections; no ED; no pain. It'd be fascinating to find data on ED etc in Jews compared to the rest of the world. I can't find anything, but if you can, please share.

lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect Is it not possible for both to be true? Lifelong mutilation to fulfill a belief can involve temporary pain with no negative permanent effect. I'm suggesting circumcision is just that. Are these necessarily contradictory?

Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.

I'm not debating adult circumcision, we have to agree that is of a different nature than adult circumcision. Just like so many other procedures that have different risks/outcomes as an infant vs as an adult.

I'm not convinced me that circumcision is barbaric. If you are someone who believes a child cannot make their own informed decisions about their body, but that a parent is also not in a position to make such decisions, then you seem to be arguing that kids shouldn't have anything done to their body. Unless you're proposing there should be a committee or something to make decisions for kids? That seems kind of fascist though.

What is the medical benefit of a frenectomy? Or of braces? Tooth extraction to straighten one's teeth? Removing a mole? The list goes on. Procedures are performed on kids because parents think it will give them a happier life. Not everything in this world is based on measurable, medical benefits.

The indelibility robs the person of the agency to choose not to belong to that community.

Most males born in the US are circumcised regardless of religious affiliation. It's not like circumcision alone makes someone part of the Jewish community. As I revealed earlier, I am a circumcised Jew, but What authority is controlling me? I am free to observe (or not) Jewish practices and traditions as I deem fit. Now having a US passport, or a driver's license, or a mortgage, or student loan debt? Those definitely place me under under control (financial or otherwise) of an authority. Being circumcised? I don't see how or by whom I am controlled.

Could they leave anyway? Sure, the same way a person with gang tattoos can leave the gang.

Comparing membership of Jewish to membership of a gang seems pretty judgey. Maybe you're just anti-religion, and that's cool, but lets not compare Judaism, a world religion with thousands of years of history, to a gang. Unless you think all Christians also belong to a gang? Or like the vast majority of the world?

I'm not trolling. I'm trying to give examples of different degrees of mutilation to understand where circumcision fits on the scale of "accepted body alteration" and "unacceptable body alteration." Is circumcising a newborn much different from having orthodontics placed in an 12 year old's mouth? That is, dental work that is done for purely aesthetic purposes. Or what about a frenectomy on a baby, or a toddler? While a frenectomy function to improve clarity of speech, I would argue clarity of speech is aesthetic in an aural sense. People with a lisp are understood, they can communicate, but their speech isn't considered as "pretty sounding" as those without a lisp. Is a frenectomy controversial in your opinion? If so, you're in the minority. If not, why is it ok to snip out part of a kid's mouth but not ok to snip off part of a kid's penis? A part that serves no benefit, mind you. Unless foreskin does provide a benefit that I'm unaware of.

Do you believe a child should have the power to decide what happens to their body even at a young age? What if a 6 year old wants to get a permanent tattoo? Or a middle schooler wants a subcutaneous horn implanted on the forehead to look cool? Or a toddler refuses medical treatment? I doubt that's what you mean.

Maybe you mean a parent and child should decide together? I don't think a child has the capacity to make, or even weigh in on, decisions. Not just a newborn, even older children (most anyway) would have a difficult time making big decisions like if they should have a body part altered by surgical operation. Is it your position to postpone all non-emergency decisions regarding bodily alterations until the person is old enough to decide for themselves what happens to their body? If so, that doesn't seem practical. If you mean something else, please go on