In the last tech bubble, companies were spending more on gaining and keeping employees. Employees earning more money spend more money, generally speaking. That consumption drives the economy. (It turns out, the real job creators were the average person.)

In the AI bubble, companies are holding off hiring and are not interested in retaining employees. That hurts consumption, and thus the economy isn't booming.

The rich are getting richer, but that doesn't help as much to drive the economy - they don't need the extra money, thus they are less likely to spend it. Give a person making $30k a year a $1k raise, and they'll likely find something to quickly spend it on. Maybe they'll finally fix their car. Maybe they'll buy something they need but couldn't afford before. Maybe they'll actually go out to eat for a change. That all drives the economy. But give a person making $3 million a year a $1k raise, and they don't have the same need to spend it.

Which is likely why we see the stock market booming even though the economy is mediocre. Money that's not needed is often invested.

So, you're saying it is the same successful approach as hiring a code monkey to vibe-code your first website and then when you hit a 100 users and it goes down, paying to a real developer to "fix" it?

I've seen this approach, it is very common, but that's the only thing it has going for it.

In some organizations, quickly half-assing a project pushed by management with no real world benefit is not a bad idea.

Perhaps that's why management loves AI - it gives their bad ideas good metrics. And it even BSes for them!

IPx5 is not rated for submersion.

That would be IPx8.

I'm seriously confused at how AI can do the jobs of historians.

AI clearly lacks the comprehensive of a prompt I'm giving it today. I don't trust it to be able to interpret and put in context events that occurred well in the past.

I overall agree with you - price disruption in tunneling would have so many benefits.

But at this point, I'm thinking Elon's businesses such as SpaceX is a mix of two factors: Elon not being full crazy yet, and other people successfully managing Elon's excesses.

Also, overall, techbros are like moths to the flame when it comes to reinventing mass transit poorly.

Google says about 1/6th of European buildings use heat pumps for heating. A heat pump is just an A/C unit operating backwards. A reversible heat pump does both With Europe's warmer climate, as well as advances in heat pump technology, it seems like heat pumps would be viable in most of Europe. Heat pumps are more efficient and can use greener sources of energy. As well as reduce dependence on non-EU fossil fuel sources. All of that is a win. It seems like the added desire, if not need, for A/C could be used to encourage more people to switch to reversible heat pumps that can be used for both heating and cooling.

Article wants me to sign up to read it, so I DNRTFA.

But are they including voluntary job switches with involuntary job switches?

Someone who has bills coming in and lost their job may have lower standards for pay than someone who already has a job.

If both groups are included together, that skews the numbers. It may be that for voluntary job switchers, do see a bigger boost in pay than staying.

I'll also note that this is a business news publication, and businesses are trying to force RTO. So there may be bias in how this news is being reported.

It's trash...if its gonna leak...it already has.

Hence why modern landfills have what is called a "liner" at the bottom.

More specifically, a modern landfill has a compacted clay layer at the bottom, then an impermeable membrane on top of that, and a leachate collection system. Plus groundwater monitoring wells.

And it can be that as trash is deposited, additional layers of soil coverings and impermeable membranes can be added.

Not to mention other systems that may be found in modern landfills, like methane gas collection systems.

So, once he digs, who gets to pay to repair all of that and how is that funding guaranteed?

I'm having a hard time seeing the parents' side.

If a student is doing simple math homework and uses a calculator, that's cheating.

So why should it change if a student is doing an essay and asks an AI to write it?

In both cases, the educational goal isn't to find a tool to do the work, but for the student to understand the concepts being taught.

Now the parents' argument that this may negatively impact their child's future also seems pretty flawed to me. The same could be said for a student that buys a paper off the internet from a cheating website, is caught, and receives a failing grade. But few people would say that the cheating student was unfairly punished.

So Crowdstrike protects our computers from viruses. But who protects us from Crowdstrike?

What is the cost to adopt to a warmer climate?

Coastal cities will require either abandonment of infrastructure due to rising sea levels, or expensive mitigation. In practice, probably both will happen.

We'll see farming being no able to be profitably done in many areas, and will require new farms to be developed in areas where the climate is now more adaptable. That is going to be costly and disruptive as well.

We'll see massive migrations of people, both internally and internationally, as some areas decline and other areas grow due to the climate changes. That is going to be disruptive and costly.

And there's political concerns, as these changes will result in some countries losing power, and others gaining power, changing the balance between them.

Not to mention concerns at the personal level - even if your current location is going to survive climate change, there will be changes to heating and cooling requirements, and disruptive events like floods, extreme weather, fire and landslide danger may change for you. What happens when your flat land becomes more prone to flood due to weather changes, or your hilly land becomes more prone to landslides due to vegetation changes?

I do agree adaptation is going to have to be part of the solution - there's too much climate change already locked in. But we better realize that there's going to be a pretty big cost to most of us.

MOND is a class of hypotheses.

To be fair, something similar can be said for dark matter - *what* dark matter is has many explanations.

And in favor of the dark matter theory, some of the explanations for what dark matter is could be very plausible - some have theorized that at least part of what is termed "dark matter" could be objects such as black holes and brown dwarfs that we aren't accurately measuring. Let's just call this the "boring dark matter" for the sake of discussion.

I actually favor "boring dark matter" to some degree. While I don't think it can explain the degree of discrepancy we observer, it could be a large enough factor to cause other theories not to fit - this would include other dark matter theories as well as modified gravity theories.

I'm going to offer you a choice - you get to kill one terrorist, but at the same time, you will also kill a young child.

Would you take that deal?

Okay, perhaps instead of a young child, how an older child? Or even an innocent adult?

Again, same deal, for one terrorist, you also kill one innocent.

Would you gladly take the deal? Or would you reject it? Perhaps somewhere in-between - you may accept that the life of the innocent is a regrettable but necessary sacrifice to take the life of a terrorist.

Or perhaps you reject this idea as absurd - questioning the premise as contrived.

After all, it sounds contrived. But as a general rule, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in most wars is greater than one civilian for every combatant killed. A one-to-one ratio is more favorable than most wars.

So regardless of what your choice would be, it is wise to feel to uncomfortable.

The hospital is about 30 miles away. But for severe cases, you probably want to call 911, due to the ability to air lift to about 120 miles or 180 miles away for larger facilities.

But I'm talking about a scenario with one ICE vehicle and one EV for a two vehicle household.

Instead of trying to prove it, maybe the smarter move is to try and disprove it. Concoct an experiment that would disprove the simulator hypothesis if its untrue.

There are many ideas in philosophy that aren't provable or disprovable. Ideas about what is good or right aren't provable.

My problem with it is that it doesn't result in anything. Saying we are in a simulation doesn't provide any meaning or any course of action. So maybe we're part of a simulated reality created by hyperintelligent ducks to study supernova, and we just exist as a byproduct. What does that matter?

It's not science. It's not philosophy. It's just BS.