I always figured that it was originally a Touhou meme because the right foot of the final boss, Utsuho Reiuji, from Touhou 11 (2008) is based on the Elephant's Foot from Chernobyl.
That's interesting, though I don't remember Demon Core meme to have come from Touhou. Touhou was nevertheless cultural upstream for lots of Japanese otaku community contents, as seen in Yukkuri, so it is believable if the general awareness of the incident came from there.
That came to mind for me too, but it's the sort of thing that always could be just a coincidence. Touching on nuclear fears is hardly unknown in Japanese media after all.
My read of this is based on an assumption that monopolies will always structure their business around being monopolies. This post is implying that there cases where there are not, and those are the only cases where antitrust law should be enforced. Based on this contradiction, as well as the odd phrasing, emphasizing how important making money is over resolving the badness of monopolies, I'm pretty sure this is a joke.
The chief difference here is that you can plausibly point at every investor in Starlink and say if they have the slightest idea of Starlink's business plan, they know that causes light pollution. There is exactly one degree of separation from putting satellites in the sky to causing light pollution. There's no plausible deniability there.
This article is more about the phenomenon where decisions are removed by multiple degrees. The locus of decision making is either obscured or non-existent, creating plausible deniability. This is often done by rewarding activities that don't obviously create harm but nevertheless require causing harm to carry out.
But that is how it works, isn't it? They're saying, "we want to make the Internet available to as many people as possible." They don't want the light pollution, and they don't create the light pollution.
It's analogous to the Fox example in the article, where somebody at the top says, "we want high viewership." They don't want their employees to lie to their audience, and they don't force them to lie to their audience.
Does the Fox leadership at some point become aware that "lying to the audience" is a result of their performance goals, just like the decision makers at Starlink become aware that light pollution is a result of their goals? They very likely do. Does that make them feel accountable for the negative side effects? Probably not, because they didn't tell anyone to lie and pollute the skies, somebody else did that.
def divisionProgramAsync(inputA: String, inputB: String): EitherT[Future, String, Double] =
for {
a <- EitherT(parseDoubleAsync(inputA))
b <- EitherT(parseDoubleAsync(inputB))
result <- EitherT(divideAsync(a, b))
} yield result
Yeah, but Usually we just use something like ZIO nowadays. So the code becomes:
def divisionProgramAsync(inputA: String, inputB: String): IO[String, Double] =
for {
a <- parseDoubleAsync(inputA)
b <- parseDoubleAsync(inputB)
result <- divideAsync(a, b)
} yield result
(the annoying wrapping/unwrapping isn't necessary with ZIO here)
You can also write this shorter if you want:
def divisionProgramAsync(inputA: String, inputB: String): IO[String, Double] =
for {
(a, b) <- parseDoubleAsync(inputA) <*> parseDoubleAsync(inputB)
result <- divideAsync(a, b)
} yield result
My immediate thought is that it would probably get better results of they intentionally set pay based on social media predictors of wage sensitivity. I expect that you could that there are fingerprints of wage sensitivity. And that could amount to what's basically predictive union breaking via wage increase.
This is a shortcoming of every music recommendation algorithm except Spotify and Pandora's. Spotify holds holds a pretty hefty patent portfolio of music classification algorithms and Pandora employs hundreds of music experts that spend an hour tagging each song.
Spotify's Discover Weekly seems to be a healthy mix of close enough guesses and random but not too random suggestions. Song radio is okay. The pop up recommendation for specific new songs/ albums feels so unrelated to my likes that it must be a sponsored recommendation. """Smart""" shuffle exclusively sends me whatever was popular on the radio in the last 5-30 years despite my listening habits being the opposite.
Pandora was much smarter, but seemed to run out of songs instantly.
I'm unsure how banked memory works in the C abstract machine. But it seems to me that if you had a banked architecture with an unbounded number of banks and a write-only bank increment/decrement register, then you could write Turing complete C.
reply