Important to note their findings only apply to a smaller subset of people, and do not include those with the most need.
> The findings of the pilot project will be generalizable not to the entire German population, but to 21- to 40-year-old individuals in single-person households with middle incomes.
The reason:
> We were thus faced with the decision of selecting 122 people who represented the entire country but did not provide scientifically reliable data on the effects of a basic income, or selecting 122 people from a more limited group from whom we could draw definitive conclusions. In the end, we chose the latter.
It worked extremely fast for me, I took it within 16 hours of symptoms that were increasing rapidly. Within 6-8 hours I started feeling much better, instead just dealing with the Paxlovid side effects. I don’t think my body fought off Covid that fast. Anecdotal of course, but I’d take it again in a heartbeat. I did get a rebound infection the next week but I couldn’t feel it, just tested positive for a couple days.
> I took it within 16 hours of symptoms that were increasing rapidly. Within 6-8 hours I started feeling much better
So about 24 hours? I took nothing when I got COVID, and the major fever and body/head aches only lasted about that long. One day I started feeling absolutely awful, and I woke up the next day feeling substantially better but unable to smell anything but smoke for the next week.
It is possible that the paxlovid helped you, but given the few details you've shared so far it's also possible that it didn't do much that wasn't already going to happen.
It was dramatic and started just a few hours after the first dose. I was worsening all morning and by mid afternoon a reversal, coinciding with the Paxlovid side effects. It wasn’t an overnight thing where rest was a factor, I was awake and bedridden. So I’m pretty convinced, enough to drop $1,500 retail if need be in the future for it.
It’s the same in both, it was deliberate. Wikipedia lists a potential reason.
> The title “Wolfs”, a grammatically incorrect plural of Wolf, is an apparent reference to the character of Winston Wolfe (aka “Mr Wolf”) - an iconic “fixer” in the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfs_(film)
I can’t say I often have cause to talk about multiple Nissans. Plus the car is called a Leaf.
Regardless of who is correct or not, the bus advert to me as a British person reads and scans as a spelling mistake or grammar error. Googling to find they’re allegedly talking about Winston Wolfe doesn’t remedy that problem. Plus that would be Wolfes.
I don't know if it is AI generated, but the formatting (lists with bold text, unnecessary headers, lots of en and em dashes) is setting off my spidey senses.
I keep hearing this about em dashes. Why do people think only AI bots write with em dashes? I use them. In fact, a lot of people do. That's probably _why_ the AI bots use them. Because the training material does.
Wouldn’t this be due to the Lunar New Year, a massive holiday that shuts down wide swaths of the country? UPS has a bunch of Asia delays right now too.
CNY goes for two weeks and just started last Tuesday night. The golden week holiday however just ended. Most people take extra time off so things are usually slow until the whole holiday is over.
UPs refers to it as “Lunar New Year holidays” on the website I linked, probably because it’s more than just China. You’re right though, I should have been more clear.
It took the use of poison gas to get countries on board, and some will still use it. Just more carefully.
Would China, Russia, or Iran agree to such a preemptive AI weapons ban? Doubtful, it’s their chance to close the gap. I’m onboard if so, but I don’t see anything happening on that front until well after they start dominating the landscape.
So each listen would have a variable payout depending on how much else you listened to that month? If you only listened to 1 song, the rights holder would receive all of your monthly payment (sans Spotify’s cut)?
That seems overly complex and more volatile. My guess is that there is no pressure from the artists or rights holders to do this. It’s revenue neutral for Spotify after all. Tidal is the most “artist-friendly” service and they don’t work like that.
Each listen have a variable payout already. If Spotify has EUR 100M in subscription and ad payments this month and 30B listens it will be a different amount paid per listen compared to a month where they had 110M in income and 24B listens.
> That seems overly complex and more volatile
How so? The current system incentives bot activity to game the system by paying for one account, using that to listen to one or two artists thousands of times, netting those artists more than what the account paid Spotify. With my requested system the payout from bots would never be profitable and therefore reduce volatility (and reduce overhead needed to analyse traffic for bot behaviour).
> If you only listened to 1 song, the rights holder would receive all of your monthly payment (sans Spotify’s cut)?
There is no downside at all here, but it seems you think so?
It would help solve bots absolutely, but there are other ways to approach fraudulent activity. I don’t see a huge downside personally, but I’m not in the industry. Given it’s a large, competitive market and this change appears revenue neutral, I think there must be underlying reasons neither of us are aware of.
If the majority of artists and labels wanted this system I don’t see why they couldn’t lobby and negotiate for it?
Kept getting this error when navigating:
This page crashed
Try again
Right side of assignment cannot be destructured
The video looks awesome, but I couldn’t get the demo to work using an iPad, so I assume mobile isn’t supported fully? I’d use it for my personal dashboard and for organizing llama.cpp chats if I could.
Most likely, touch devices are not officially supported however support is planed. Also the demo has some issues running on Safari which will be fixed.
> The findings of the pilot project will be generalizable not to the entire German population, but to 21- to 40-year-old individuals in single-person households with middle incomes.
The reason:
> We were thus faced with the decision of selecting 122 people who represented the entire country but did not provide scientifically reliable data on the effects of a basic income, or selecting 122 people from a more limited group from whom we could draw definitive conclusions. In the end, we chose the latter.
https://www.pilotprojekt-grundeinkommen.de/en/blog/how-the-p...
reply