Because the goal is sustainable subscription revenue. This feature is for subscribers to promote NYT content, typically among people you know and discuss the articles with, which is probably a great channel for them gaining new subscribers.
> Yes, sharing a gift article URL generated from a New York Times paid subscription on platforms like Reddit is generally against their terms of service. The New York Times allows subscribers to generate gift links for specific articles, which are intended for personal use, meaning they are supposed to be shared privately with individuals rather than publicly. Publicly posting these links can lead to unauthorized access beyond the intended use, which violates the terms outlined by the New York Times for using their subscription services. It's always good to check the specific terms and conditions directly on their website to understand the limitations and permissions regarding the sharing of content.
You're also legally bound not to compete with your company. You can't work for Google and build a search engine "on your own time". you can't work for Nintendo and make a game on the side.
What it means to compete will be decided by judges and lawyers in the gray areas but probably not hard to imagine clearly problem areas and likely not problem areas. If you want to know for sure, ask a lawyer and get a contract/letter from your employer to clarify.
Not just a computer... equipment could be anything needed in the course of developing -- or testing -- the software. I'm thinking of something like a warehouse management tool and you interfaced with a barcode reader or something like that.
>How do you reasonably do this? You would have to spend an incredible amount of effort creating fake data everywhere, without having any clue if what you're doing is even working. With new AI tools and technologies
Not really. AI wasn't an option until very recently. How was this managed before?
And even with AI, it would take a considerable amount of effort to flood all public channels with fake data. Do you do this via APIs for every service? Do you generate image and video as well? You would still have no idea whether your efforts are actually working.
Not to mention that using this approach contributes noise to an already noisy medium. Your fight with an imaginary enemy worsens the online experience for everyone else. We have enough junk on the internet as it is.
No, I'm pointing out how you misunderstood their comment as an attack on all Chinese industry, when it was criticism of specific firms in a specific sector.
I didn’t take it that way because there was nothing about the criticism specific to one firm. I might be wrong there but that’s how I choose to interpret it.
To me it seems odd that the statement “they have free slave labor” would be considered to be specific to one firm.
Thank you for providing something concrete. The original comment seemed like hyperbole to me, and now I’m leaving here better informed.
I do think this senate report is a little bit butthurt that their own regulations and trade agreements have enabled the business model.
It seems like it would be trivial to block out platforms in violation of US law via pressure by payment networks. That’s where I’m confused at the level of inaction given that this report includes a screenshot of a product page in violation. Visa and Mastercard can get Pornhub to vet their “suppliers” but they can’t do the same for Temu? They don’t even need a court order to do this.
I initially came across this book due to a Reddit post about the author being a failed child prodigy. My first thought on seeing the table of contents was "damn, this book sounds racist". But it's actually a series of historical accounts in support of Native Americans and their history.
This looks... dubious. The starting point postulating that America was populated by people from the lost continent of Atlantis does not inspire confidence in this account's historical accuracy:
> An origin as a race in some specific place is more probable―most likely, in some region now under the Atlantic Ocean. ... A red-race civilization certainly developed around the north central Atlantic region on both sides of the ocean, and the geographical center of this was in what is now the Sargasso sea, in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, but where tradition on both sides of the ocean places the lost continent of Atlantis.
I am very curious about this, because my understanding was that any EV would fare better in wet conditions than most ICE vehicles, because the battery has so much insulation around it.
When I first got my EV, I was worried about how it would fare in the rain, especially when driving over large puddles. After reading about the insulation, I felt comfortable driving it in extremely wet conditions.
Now I'm worried that I may have to rethink that. Am I supposed to be worried about splash getting into the pack, staying there, and slowly ruining the battery? If I keep driving long enough, will motion plus the heat of the battery pack be enough to dissipate the moisture? Since I live in an extremely humid location, is that a concern too?
I've seen footage of Model 3s operating in flood zones, with the rear wheels essentially serving as propellers. Of course, I've never seen the results of what happened afterwards. Presumably the water got into the batteries, and the car would no longer start.
In that case, the driving-through-water functionality would mainly be for an emergency where the only other option is a complete loss of the vehicle, and/or something more valuable than the batteries, whether its a life or possessions.
I didn't think about that until now, because my previous assumption was that it was fine to drive an EV over water. I thought that the the only exposure that the batteries had to the outside world was through the charge port and the engine, and everything else was protected by insulation. But I didn't think about what the insulation actually was. I imagined it as some sort of metal or plastic shell.
edit: I hadn't seen this video before, but I know there's at least one other tweet Elon made where he doesn't disapprove of something that, as I now understand, is probably going to render the vehicle inoperable in the near future due the battery pack failing after exposure to water:
The batteries have breather valves. If subjected to enough pressure, they can lead to water ingress. Despite Musk's statements, submersion isn't recommended.
I have never heard of one failing from a puddle or just "rain", though. It makes me think there is more to this story.
> at least one other tweet Elon made where he doesn't disapprove
Of course, lack of disapproval doesn't mean approval, and visa-versa. The documents that were signed, not an silly two word tweet, is what determines liability.
>It’s comfortable enough for Lewis, who is 5 foot 9. (Lewis jokes that I should report that he’s an inch taller so that he can boast about it on the dating apps. I do not oblige.)
I think something got lost in translation here. In SF online dating app culture, 5'10 is the minimum "not short" height. Note that it's specifically not considered "tall". Why 5'10? I don't know. How do I know this? Way too many overheard conversations with coworkers, housemates, and countless acquaintances of the above over the past eight years of living here as a tech worker. The result is lots of men rounding 2-3 inches up to reach 5'10. I hesitate to call it lying, because there's a reality distortion field that results from enough people doing it. Lots of people are convinced that they or their partners are actually a taller height. I can't find it at the moment, but I saw a post a while ago about how this becomes a real problem for things like ski rentals, where inches in height difference actually matter.
Then 5'10-5'11 guys who previously wouldn't have rounded up to 6' are forced into doing so, because the expectation is that a guy who puts 5'10 is shorter than he really is. Then the 6' guys have to put 6'2 for the same reason. At 6'2 it doesn't matter anymore, since it's officially tall. Yes, this is really dumb. But the point is that it's not about "boasting", which sounds silly.
You realize that this is how valuations for publicly-traded companies are calculated, right? Also the networths of people whose vast majority of wealth is tied to publicly-traded shares.
Putting on a white coat doesn't make you a doctor, the years you spend studying and practicing does.
Similarly, printing a billion tokens and trading one for a dollar doesn't give you a billion dollar market cap, even though "all the stocks do it!" Those stocks also back productive systems, have financial statements, forecasts, and a million other things that make them a billion dollar (or larger) market capped company.
Hey, it's fine, we'll just make another cryptocurrency that serves to back it, and control the price of that to keep the value stable. What could go wrong?!
So, it's a bit different. In the simplest case, a company pays 1bn dividends every year, so if 5% is considered a good rate of return currently, and there's no reason to expect the company's profitability changes much, then the value of that company is $20bn. Now, obviously, there's a lot of complexity layered on top of this. Many companies don't do dividends, preferring stock buybacks, for various reasons. Some companies are valued on _assumed future profits_, not current (ie valued on potential). And then there's speculation. But ultimately, if half of the $20bn company is suddenly sold, well, the price, in a rational market, shouldn't actually move much, unless the future value of money has also shifted. The company could be taken private by someone who had $20bn and thought $1bn/year was a good return.
Bitcoin's really pretty different; the value is ~entirely speculation driven. It does not, and cannot, pay dividends, or buy back its own 'shares', or anything like that. No-one would ever consider buying all the bitcoins (in the same way they might take the $20bn company private); the sole value of bitcoin is in other people wanting to buy bitcoin.
Shares give you rights and have a fundamental value. If the market undervalues them, you can buy the company and make lots of money when proven right (by virtue of the cash the real business makes and pays out in dividends).
That’s fundamentally different from crypto which has no fundamental value, but only sentiment behind it. When the sentiment is gone, the value is gone. Unlike, again, shares.
Those buildings and equipment and patents may have value, but less than the bonds, loans, and other liabilities IBM also has. Not only could IBM be worth $0, it could be worth less than that.
Things are worth whatever people are willing to pay. Bitcoin may be the original sin of crypto bros, but it still appears to be worth money, because it's impossible to make one for free, or obtain one for free. And it has utility. You can buy drugs or avoid the banking system using it.
Silicon Valley Bank had buildings. It was literally worthless at the end. A company is just as fictitious as a bitcoin, only existing because people all agree that "company" is a thing.
But IBM is a public company. These numbers are known. Its estimated liquidation value right now (selling off all the assets) is around $22 billion. That's pretty far from its market cap of just over $130 billion, but it's not nothing.
SVB became worthless by virtue of real changes in the real economy. Of course it can happen that a company goes bankrupt, and then its fundamental value is zero or negative. But the point is that there is a fundamental value that is realised over time. The market value is a good estimate of that fundamental value according to the EMH, but if you have a better analysis and better estimate of the fundamental value you can trade and then realise that difference over time if you were right.
