Yes, this works for private equity and those that want a quick artificial way to pump up stock prices or valuation in the short term.

All companies have deadweight to some extent. The big challenge is identifying that deadweight. Somehow, new management always has the hubris to believe that they have the ability to identify the deadweight. The one big ace in the pocket of these managers is that it's impossible to determine in the short term the accuracy of that identification. So, no one can tell them that they're wrong until long after they've been let go.

It used to be that Republicans and conservatives would complain about the liberal bias in news media. Then businessmen like Murdoch realized that he could make a lot of money by pandering to the right wing folks. But at least there were sources across the political spectrum.

What changed recently was that super rich guys like Musk and Bezos realized that they could use their money to outright buy and control these news sources. Instead of just being annoyed by hearing stuff they didn't like, they realized that they could bend the news to their liking and force it upon others. Not just censoring news and people, but actually creating the news itself.

But did the lawyer intentionally lie, or was she lazy and incompetent, delusionally trusting in the AI info? Of course, neither deceit nor incompetence are good, but they perhaps deserve different punishments and remedies.

Since there's no generally accepted definition or concept for AGI, why do we care? Different companies, research groups, etc. are working in different AI fields and on different use cases, and very few of them work on AGI, whatever that might mean.

Perhaps the one practical definition of AGI is the concept associated with AI that is intended as clickbait.

The Tensor SoC chip is very different from the TPU. Totally different architecture and different target domain.

There are multiple dimensions to helping the environment, and sometimes what's good for one dimension can be bad for another. This is one of those cases. Yes, avoiding the carbon dioxide emissions incurred for manufacturing a car is a good thing, since the increased efficiency of a new car won't offset the car manufacturing for a long time and maybe never.

However, that's just from the perspective of greenhouse gases. There's also the separate issue of air pollution and its health effects. For that, it's clear that getting rid of old cars is a clear win. Which issue is more important? If you live in New Delhi, air pollution is a huge problem, among the worst in the world. The air pollution is so bad that it's 10-20x worse than WHO guidelines and impacts both health and longevity. Old cars is a contributor to the air pollution crisis.

Climate change is important, but it's a long-term problem with varied worldwide effects. This type of air pollution is localized and immediate. If it were me and I lived there, I'd want to address the health issue first. The only local pushback is from considering family finances and not climate change.

"But some said the government support for Hangzhou's tech scene had scared off some investors. Several company founders, who asked not to be named so they could discuss sensitive topics, said it was difficult for them to attract funds from foreign venture capital firms, frustrating their ambitions to grow outside China."

Why do Chinese companies need non-Chinese funding? There are many Chinese venture capital firms. These firms can also fund expansion outside of China. The main problem with foreign/Western funding of Chinese companies is not Chinese government control or influence. Rather, the core problem is the instability of control and ownership in China. The law is defined by whatever the current thinking of the government is, much more than what the written law actually says. The government can favor certain companies. Situations like ARM China can happen. This risk is in addition to the inherent risk in picking startup winners.

So the Indian company seems to be just an outsourced manufacturing plant for the Chinese company. This could be seen as a problem of a poorer country being taken advantage of by a richer country. However, this is the same situation that China was in a few decades ago. The Chinese used the outsourcing opportunity to learn, then accumulate income, then copy, then innovate, and then finally compete. Why can't India do the same? This could be viewed as sort of a different take on the Innovator's Dilemma.

It's far simpler than that. Some of these references just don't exist. Just ask a summer intern or high school student to write a simple script to check for the existence of these references. Of course, since this appears to be so challenging to do, maybe someone can form a startup to address this problem and earn billions of dollars.

In real-life editing, there are human editors that just check for grammar, formatting, etc. Then there are editors that check for consistency, legal issues, being on message, etc. For this particular problem, we just need the former.

The LLM or something more complex than a simple script is only needed to evaluate the quality of references that actually exist, but that goes far beyond the current problem.

This is all well and good, but how do you know who to interview? You either need personal recommendations, or you go entirely off their resume. The part about hiring good people is obvious, but it's also obvious that absent the recommendation, you can't tell anything about how good they are. That's why something that is probably not that much of a discriminator becomes so important for someone who has very little work experience.

The problem with communism is that it's a theoretical economic ideology that has always been paired with totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Would a benevolent communist economy work? That's an impractical question because it hasn't and will never exist.

Of course, this lack of governmental benevolence also exists in non-communist governments. The only saving grace is that most of these government structures have built-in checks and balances, even if many of these incumbent governments strive to achieve authoritarianism.

There's some usable truth in this article. However, "no safe amount" is not accurate because very few people eat these types of food daily. Also, talking about "processed food" is not useful because the term is not obvious. They call out sugar-sweetened drinks, so that's clear. However, what is processed meat? Smoked meats? Is cutting or cooking meat considered processing? Sausage, like all sausage, including fresh ground and stuffed? Cold cuts, like all cold cuts? Jerky? Spam?

Look at the full chart.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffred.stlouisfed.org%2Fse...

The dollar rose like a rocket from 10/24 to 1/25. Then it reversed and went back to right where it was before the sudden rise. This is just a huge nothing burger. It was most likely driven by hedge funds speculating that Trump would replace Power and dramatically lower interest rates. That didn't happen and the trade reversed. This only looks dramatic due to the article's choice of measurement periods.

Tire wear is not necessarily faster with EVs, except for two factors. First, EVs are heavier, and the increased friction will increase tire wear. Second, EVs have "fun" acceleration, and outracing other cars when the light turns green will increase tire wear. With my first EV many years ago, I enjoyed the jackrabbit starts, but my tires had to be replaced after 20,000 miles. I drive differently now, and that makes a big difference.

Because politicians want PR opportunities, and they think that encouraging local manufacturing attracts votes.