I'm a pretty staunch capitalist.

I have seen where companies borrow from the pension fund to do expansions, etc then return the money plus quite a bit of extra to the pension fund. John Deere did this in the 1970's and 1980's, and the pensioners benefited greatly.

However, more often than not it's an act of desperation by management.

This move feels much more like the 2nd. I thought we'd passed legislation a few times to prevent exactly this.

>> B) Are they just paying these folks astronomical amounts today to get them to look the other way when the inevitable happens and one of these systems does some society-wide harm beyond just killing jobs.

I think we could start to argue that the rate at which AI is displacing jobs is already causing harm. And no, I'm not advocating that we need to stop progress. But we do need to consider how fast we call can pivot to new jobs.

So are they paying these guys astronomical amounts to look the other way: YES. 1,000% YES.

Now, if you don't mind, I need to go check my fine-tune job.

You obviously didn't watch Biden's last debate.

The Biden campaign imploded because your above example is coherent compared to what Biden managed. And it was obvious to EVERYBODY.

So ... what's really happening is: bad weather happens. Bad weather happens more often. People complain. Then they relent and adjust their life (buy an AC, put better shingles on their roof, or a better whole roof, relocate out of a flood plain or otherwise adapt to the change in climate), and once adapted, they stop complaining.

Perhaps it's not that people don't notice, but rather at some level they at least think they can adapt to the changes and stop being overly concerned by them.

The big question is: will the changes remain thing we can continue to adapt to. But that people are adapting to changing weather patterns is something humanity has done forever, and is part of what makes us that we're one of the few species that lives in nearly every biome.

Have you ever compared the volume of air outside your house to inside your house?

Perhaps you live in a much larger house than I do.

Are we finally going to admit that corporate taxes work the same way?

No? Didnâ(TM)t think so.

⦠that most news stories are without content.

For sure what I can agree with here is: why is this always viewed as a predatory lender problem, and never a predatory supplier of the product problem? Why are not these schools held accountable for the massive fees they charge?

When I set mine up a couple of months ago you had to make a meta account. But you do not have to link that to your Facebook account.

Unfortunately you canâ(TM)t disable speculative execution. Itâ(TM)s been relied on to make CPUs fast since at least the pentium, perhaps the 486? For sure the pentium.

Itâ(TM)s based on some very old research from the 70â(TM)s (?), but back then they called it super scalar architecture.

Intel isnâ(TM)t the only one who does speculative execution. Most ARM platforms do as well, even all the way down to things like your smart watch.

The real issue that keeps tripping up intel is the effects on CPU cache are preserved after the âoespeculative executed codeâ is disposed of.

The simplest way to think of this is: you create an array of 256 elements. Then you preform an action to flush all that out of CPU cache. Then you trick the CPU to read a byte that it shouldnâ(TM)t read for you because you donâ(TM)t have the privileges to read that byte, and inside the speculative branch you read back into cache the offset in the array that matches the byte value.

Then, outside the speculative branch you read the entire array and time access speed. The array element that read fast was in the cache and is the value of the byte you shouldnâ(TM)t have been able to read.

The part of the speculative execution engine that undoes the work done in a branch that should not have been followed, at a minimum, probably needs to be extended to reverse effects on cache too. But thatâ(TM)s probably very hard to do in silicon.

This has nothing to do with bankruptcy or "defaulting."

Many companies, and a lot of Medical companies, don't want to chase ... shall we call them "exceptionally delinquent accounts." People who haven't paid in 90-180 days or more.

So a whole industry pops up in the debit reclamation space. A patent owes them (let's keep this simple math) $1,000 and is six months past due. So they sell the debt to a collection agency for $500. The debt collection agency has "bought the right" to attempt to claim $1,000 of debt from the delinquent payee. The hospital has "washed their hands of the issue," regardless if the collection agency actually collects or not doesn't matter to hospital. They got $500 and they are done with it, the item is closed on their books.

It's not uncommon to see these debts get resold a couple of times as well as various agencies struggle to collect. By the time these repeats itself a couple of times, the amount "the next agency" is paying to "buy the right to claim the $1000 debit" could be as low as $10 or less.

That's where originations like these step in. They raise money, and then step in as that 3 or 4th "debt collection agency." But instead of trying to collect the debt, they forgive it and stop the cycle.

They are doing great work! And it's a great way to donate money to if you're trying to make a lot of people's lives much better with just a few dollars.

And, then, once the debt is forgiven. The tax man steps in and says "hey, somebody gave you $1000 in forgiving that debt, you owe us income tax on that."

Also, if you are somebody who's very past due on their bills: try negotiating. Whoever you are talking with may very well no longer be the original person you owed the debt to, and may have "purchased" that debt for a fraction of the original dollar value. Any amount above that dollar value they purchased it for is making them money, and getting them out of your life.

I'm so terribly sorry that you are confused on this.

ECC memory stores 4 bits for parity for every 8 bits of data. With "this much parity" it is very possible to detect a single bit flip in either the data or the party and correct it. This is why ECC is so attractive to servers and other "mission critical systems," precisely because it CAN (to a limited extent) correct damaged data. It's very common for high end server to keep counters on the number of corrections preformed on each DIMM, and when it finally exceeds a threshold throw a warning light.

The next step past that is keeping a DIMM spare on hand and being able to copy the memory on that DIMM onto a good one. And/or hooks down in the operating system to get the kernel to start relocating pages. Which, can be tricky, lots of times some key kernel pages are difficult to relocate ... which is when it's nice to have hardware that can turn on a spare at the hardware level.

There's a whole subset of math called hamming codes that are all about how to "expand" data via "more parity bits" or some other system to not only detect errors but correct them. They are used very VERY commonly in radio protocols (WiFi and cellular) where bit corruptions are very frequent, and sending "extra" data and allowing the receiver to regenerate the lost data is more efficient that trying to signal for and do complete retransmits.

Also, old spinning rust disk drives rely on hamming codes A LOT. Like ... A LOT A LOT. Like: nearly never does the data read correctly from the platter a lot, it needs to be recovered on read. And if the % bits read exceeds a threshold, the sector is rewritten, and if it exceeds an even higher threshold the sector is relocated.

Itâ(TM)s MY computer apple. I paid a very large amount of money for it. I âoeget toâ run the programs I want to run on it.

If you want to toss in a bunch of warning dialogues that I have to tap through, fine.

But past that, let me run the apps I want to run.

So ... if my phone company decides to sell copies of my phone calls for $/minute, does this mean that phone tap warrants are no longer needed?

You need to read the article.

The referenced people are not saying "it's taking a day or three to move my funds."

They are saying "it's taking weeks to move my funds." "Sometimes they are telling me that I can't transfer it to the bank I told them to."

And other times yet the funds simply disappear. Goldman is showing the transaction happened and the funds never arrive at the destination bank.

These are not small "apple people are stupid and think it's a checking account" problems.