Solar is so much cheaper than Nuclear and the efficiency sway is so reasonable, it’s still the better option in non-ideal circumstances.

With initial cost of deployment being the biggest obstacle to nuclear, I’m not sure it will ever be the best green option for developing countries.

This is doubly true since it’s lifetime cost-per-kwh is much higher than that of solar.

I didn’t miss that part at all. The top-text just tells a different story from the bottom-text.

Ultimately, nobody should be homeless. But if they are, they shouldn’t have to have tons of skill running businesses or networking to get off the streets.

Fair enough. He showed that someone with his skills and experience can get out of homelessness, I suppose. I wasn’t looking at the $1M goal nearly as much as the “absolute failure” stuff.

Yeah. Instead of giving a bad-faith summary, the article could’ve dug into how he couldn’t even hit middle-class without leaning on networking. Because saying he failed and had to quit because of his health, then admitting it was his DAD’s cancer and that he managed to earn his way fully to middle class, just didn’t work well.

I mean, he managed to find himself an apartment and start a growing business, and then he quit in part to be with his dad who was on chemo. From the article’s details, he had a place to stay and office space, was on clip to make $80,000 in year 1 from being completely homeless, and had started multiple businesses that had serious growth potential.

I think “look, all you need is tons of ambition, sales skills, and networking” is a bad message, but the article is a shitshow of “our top-text pretends the facts in our bottom-text didn’t exist”. I wouldn’t say he failed at all.

This is just childish mimicry of Marxism. The “landlord” as a source of income becomes a villain because the landlords as a class were villains in the eyes of Marx.

That said, people who full-on hate all landlords would say “fuck you and your money you filthy capitalist pigs” to your argument. That the house is hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t mean much to a communist because “property is theft”. Yada yada.

That said, the fact of that seems to bury the real criticisms about megacorporate landlords that represent a fairly large percent of all rental properties.

You’re not wrong, but I’ve also worked at companies that successfully contested unemployment claims. It can depend by state, but “it was entirely this person’s fault” is a bad start. Employers win about 30% of contested claims, and then about 15-20% of appeals (#1 cause for an employer losing a contested claim or an appeal appears to be withdrawing or not showing up for it). (Some numbers)

And the main reason employers lose when they show up is lack of preparation. In a case like the above, if they can show a policy (preferably one signed by her) that directly forbids her onlyfans account, they probably have a pretty good case to shut her down.

That said, they’re very unlikely to waste their time and money to fight it. Ultimately (as my current employer’s HR put it) “it’s just a cost of doing business” and a waste of money to pursue.

She was terminated “for cause”. To get unemployment, she’s likely to have to fight for it. She’s likely to win, but it’s not a free thing.

There are valid criticisms to UBI (usually specific to each implementation), but “lazy workers” will never be one of them.

Simple answer. Most of us (and most of the world) thinks At-Will employment is barbaric.

It is entirely reasonable to require some substantive effect to warrent termination, even if that substantive effect is not directly the teacher’s fault. Her having an onlyfans account, not grounds for firing. Her onlyfans account passed around by students? Grounds for termination.

There’s a (not so new) trend in the US for companies to crack down on side gigs. Yes, sex work is a politically charged side-gig, but we shouldn’t ever be supporting a company’s right to fire people having side-gigs without a very good reason. So long as your side-gig never encroaches into your day job in any real (not hypothetical) way, there really isn’t a good reason.

HR where I work is excessively paranoid about terminations. They will want a paper trail of performance failures or argue to death that “then they’ll be able to argue they were really fired for a protected reason. Get me a paper trail of performance failures”.

Not saying our HR is worker-friendly. They’re just VERY lawsuit-averse.

Flip-side, I worked at a company that fired anyone for any reason and just kept cash aside for wrongful termination suits. And they had a HUGE HR team, whose job it was to keep the employers happy.

At Will employment. “In a meme” is not a protected class, and a reasonable bank employee could see her meme-attachment having a detrimental effect on business (you don’t have to be in your reasons for firing someone as long as those reasons aren’t protected or being used to hide that you’re firing them for a protected reason). I’d guess she’d have no case in almost any state in the US with their lack of employee protections.

One thing of note with the Steam Deck is that it CAN stream games from your PC, allowing you access to your whole library. You get access to fewer games in SteamOS (there’s still a ton). You can always look up what games are natively compatible with Steam Deck before you buy. The big ticket games are usually compatible nowadays (Starfield was markedly absent, but BG3 is there all-the-way).

I don’t really get people saying fuck Nintendo. It’s their IP, and Yuzu team was pretty blatant it’s made for piracy

Because a significant percent of people have always seen IP as theft and IP lawsuits as shakedowns. Real Talk - IP was codified to solve one problem (it wasn’t casual piracy, it was inventors being ripped off by evil businesses), and it made that problem worse. We should’ve just thrown it out from there and tried something else, but then the evil businesses convinced the soccer moms that their little Billy listening to Metallica on Napster was everything wrong with this country.

It’s not what you do when you try to stay under the radar

And people walked down the street smoking pot in my state before it was legalized. We still said “FUCK the war on drugs” when they got harassed by cops.

Are you referring to Presh Talwalkar or someone else? How about his reference for historical use, Elizabeth Brown Davis? He also references a Slate article by Tara Haelle. I’ve heard Presh respond to people in the past over questions like this, and I’d love to hear his take on such a debunking. I have a lot of respect for him.

Your “debunk” link seems to debunk a clear rule-change in 1917. I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’ve never heard the variant where there was a clear change in 1917. Instead, it seems there was historical vagueness until the rules we now accept were slowly consolidated. Which actually makes sense.

The Distributive Law obviously applies, but I’m seeing references that would still assert that (6÷2) could at one time have been the portion multiplied with the (3).

And again, from logic I come from a place of avoiding ambiguity. When there is a controversiallly ambiguous form and an undeniablely unambiguous form, the undeniably unambiguous form is preferable.

No. Zod’s fine, if slow as molassas.

The library I was referring to is typebox (I wasn’t going to name&shame, but I guess it doesn’t hurt). By some metrics, it’s the second-most-popular validation library, despite the fact most devs have never heard of it. And according to a lot of benchmarks, it’s incredibly fast. But that sinclairzx81 guy was really immature on reddit, starting a bunch of arguments and then up and ragequitting the threads. And as far as I can tell, he’s the only owner/merger. It sorta scares me about using it until at least enough other active users embrace it that it would be reasonably forked if he pulls a why the lucky stiff

And don’t confuse things. We’re talking about intelligence here. Not learning

Are we? Alright. Can you describe a definition test for intelligence that we could agree upon that humans pass and no NN or other ML is capable of passing? I suspect you’re confusing things. Not an intelligence,learning comparison, but an intelligence,consciousness confusion.

That’s not really an accurate take of how machine learning typically works. Neural Networks (allegedly) learn in a way similar to how humans do, taking the data they are fed and building a weighted matrix of resolutions that seems most compatible. A historically interesting trait is that neural networks are often better pattern-discoverers than humans.

But note, the outcome of a neural network is NOT a “random combination of the information we feed them”>

is pseudo-intuition (eventually) coupled with proper rationalization (the only part of intelligence computers can systematically do) enough to replace most tasks humans do?

I feel like this is a hard question to answer since it is based off controversial takes about ML. I am not a brain-is-a-computer hypothesis adherent, but we’re talking about specific learning mechanisms that are absolutely comparable to human learning. Is “the learning humans do” enough to replace “the learning humans do”? I would say obviously yes.

There’s a growingly popular javascript schema validation library I avoid like the plague because its author was a whiny child on reddit who would get into flamewars with a bunch of people and then suddenly delete all his comments.

There’s a lot of reasons not to trust a library with an unstable Code Owner.