uup

A single person can be diverse relative to a group, though. Like a black woman would add diversity to a group of white men, for instance. When we talk about diversity in recruiting, usually we mean diversity of the candidate relative to the makeup of the company.

Why not?

It’s pretty hard to just sneak up on someone in public. It’s not like your eyes or ears stop working when sitting on a park bench.

But did they really enter into these hedges after the GFC? It seems like rates were already near-zero so it wouldn’t have made much sense to hedge against lowering rates.

Tech startups have taking a beating this year due to market forces. 70% is pretty good compared to some other “covid darlings”

I don’t really see a good way out of this for the UK if pensions are in such a bad state that they can’t tolerate any change in interest rates. The era of free money is over, at least for now. The BoE can’t keep rates at 0 any longer. The government is going to need to borrow money to function (like all governments do). So the only option is going to be to sell bonds on the open market. That’s going to mean that bond prices will fall to the market rate, which is apparently higher than the pensions can tolerate.

API changes are way more common than adding keywords. That’s one difference.

I don't think the GP is saying the government needs to enforce laws on the usage of the blockchain, in general. Rather, one use of the blockchain is to run a centralized investment bank. In such cases, the government should regulate them just as they would any other investment bank, on or off the blockchain.

Of course the government subcontracts the work out to do the actual construction. By the government has no incentive to build livable housing. Government employees don’t live in the housing. The government doesn’t have a business reputation to uphold. As crazy as it might sound, those who live in a community just might have a better understanding of how it should be developed compare to those on the outside.

If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.

Source? I think most people are going to understand that speech you disagree with is part of freedom of speech.

Communist countries did succeed because they controlled demand. Although I don’t think people would like the solution that much, e.g. three families living together in a 3 bedroom apartment, one family per bedroom.

One of the founding principles of this country is “no taxation without representation.” Disregarding the will of the voters seems to run contrary to that.

I don’t think the public can building housing well. Public housing projects aren’t typically seen as desirable places to live.

ts-node isn't an official part of the TypeScript project. It has notoriously bad module support.

Try this:

    // tsconfig.json
    {
      "compilerOptions": {
        "outDir": "dist",
        "module": "es2020",
        "allowJs": true
      },
      "files": ["index.ts"]
    }

    // index.ts
    import('./test.mjs').then(console.log)

    > npx tsc && node ./dist/index.js
    [Module: null prototype] { Foo: [Function: Foo] }

d.ts files allow you to add types to imported JS. You’re free to import raw JS as an any type and the compiler won’t complain.

You can directly import any valid JS module using TypeScript if you have “allowJS”: true in the compiler options of your tsconfig.json file. The comparison to FFI doesn’t make any sense. FFI requires compiling a special library that explicitly exports the C types. This is different than TS. Using TS, you can import any valid JS module without any special preparation. Also, you can’t import all compiled languages into each other using FFI. You can only import and export C-based types. There is no way to export a Go struct for consumption via FFI, for instance. All valid JS modules will work with TypeScript.

That’s not true. You can import JS directly into TS or use ts-ignore annotations.

Perhaps it's just me, but if I ask myself whether or not the comments on this post, or the article itself, was written by GPT-3, I'm unable to decide one way or the other.

In populated areas, Japanese Knotweed is a pain, but at least people see it and try to mitigate it. I go fishing in upstate NY, and you used to be able to walk along the river banks that were mostly just flat stones deposited during times of high water. Not anymore. Now the river bank is mostly an impenetrable wall of Japanese Knotweed. It sucks.

Pretty sure Chrome also uses libav to play back the media as well, so FFmpeg usage alone isn’t what differentiates this thing from a browser.

So use one of the other 2FA options.

ML has shown more promise in MT than any classical algorithm. Unless you believe there is a fundamental limitation to ML, or a new frontier on the horizon in classical CS, I don’t see a path for classical CS to hold a candle to ML in the machine translation domain.

Also, I disagree that translations need be precise. I read a collection of short stories recently called the Icarus Gland. I highly recommend it, especially if you can read it in the original language (Russian). The translation was simply comical. Probably it mostly translated via MT. Yet, it was an amazing book.

I’m not really sure how machine translation being less than perfect is related to whether or not the end of classical is near. Unless your argument is that because ML based translation is bad now, it will never be good unless there are developments in classical CS. But look at Stable Diffusion. If you had taken a GAN a few years ago and looked at its generative art potential. You could make the same argument. State of the art ML (at the time) is not good at generative art, therefore classical CS is still relevant. Of course, we know know that’s not a true statement.

Machine translation isn’t for translating literature at the moment. Maybe that’s why you’re feeling it falls short. For conversational vernacular or straightforward instruction, it’s great. I can’t remember the last time I used pork-pie hat in a conversation, for instance.

Perhaps you could qualify your initial statement that we can’t translate literature in a way that isn’t ugly. That would be true. But machine translation is a huge asset every day to people in need of understanding important things in a foreign language. Quite a miracle really.

I’ve used it a lot from German and Russian. I lived in Germany for a few years. Auto translation was absolutely essential for navigating official things like government websites, banking, flat renting, etc. Now, all of my in-laws are exclusive Russian speakers. When my partner isn’t around to translate, we use Google Translate’s conversation feature. It works great. My partner overhears a lot of our conversation. She’s never needed to clarify anything.

Machine translation works pretty well though. At least into English.

I saw this on Reddit and it resonated. Yes, it’s the election season and we’re seeing democracy in action: that’s when elected officials do things you like and then you vote for them again. Not sure why you’re making it sound like a bad thing.

I see, I didn't realize the graph of progressive / regressive changed as your scrolled the page.

Actually, looking at the data further, you can't really draw a conclusion about whether or not the funding is regressive or progressive. The local funding is definitely regressive, but you'd need to know how state and federal funds were distributed across schools to know if the end result was progressive or regressive. For instance, if federal funding was evenly distributed to every school, that would still be regressive.

The test was mandatory for all HS students to take, but I do think there is an element of selection bias. Those who took the test on the weekend may have been more invested in the result. They certainly dedicated at least an extra weekend's worth of time.

only pay for about half

That's a lot. From your own link, a vast majority of schools are regressive, i.e poor people get less.