Not so daft if you consider that it is easier to segment, stratify, and control people in a linear city, as the structure itself acts as a continuous and infinitely adaptable choke point. This seems consistent with Saudi elite's ideas on managing their society.
That explains why it might have been an appealing concept to the inceptor but it's still daft and it was obvious to me from the start that it wouldn't actually be made. I still don't know why anybody humored the premise of this thing getting built.
tight tolerances and repeatability is mostly a combined rigidity and resolution issue, which is functionally equivalent to a cost issue. Add more money. Unfortunately there is a point where programming and hardware costs is higher than a skilled artisan ... hence the profession!
The distinction becoming vague is due to the changes regarding the Bologna Process/European Qualification Framework - whereby both Universities and Technical Colleges both award bachelor degrees (EQF6) ... and if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and awards the same EQF paper at the end, then it's the same! I've taught in a programme that is offered in both Universities and Technical Colleges (Law) ... and the distinction becomes that universities are more theory based, whereas technical colleges are more practical ... and that matriculating into a university offered masters programme in NL from a technical college awarded bachelors is made harder (even with the same EQF6 paper) ... not that any other university in the EU would care about the distinction!
You said: "However, I have used several startups options of AI document review and they all fall apart with any sort of prodding for specific answers. "
I think you will find that this is because they "outsource" the AI contract document review "final check" to real lawyers based in Utah ... so, it's actually a person, not really a wholy-AI based solution (which is what the company I am thinking of suggests in their marketing material)
> I think you will find that this is because they "outsource" the AI contract document review "final check" to real lawyers based in Utah ... so, it's actually a person, not really a wholy-AI based solution (which is what the company I am thinking of suggests in their marketing material)
Which company is that? I don't see any point in obfuscating the name on a forum like this.
fake it till you make it ;-) The company I suspect is "faking it" is https://www.lawgeex.com/ ... as an outsourced legal contract review company their "valuation" and trajectory is significantly lower than that of the same AI contract review company
Smart companies operating in CN seeking to minimise IP theft tend to "Own" the mold, and carefully manage its use and production - to ensure that there are e.g. no 3rd shift production "overruns". Producing the mold separately from the factory which uses it is not unknown, as is having a western employee tallying what comes off the production line. Molds at the end of their useful life (either because the item is no longer in production, or the mold is worn out) should be physically destroyed, and that destruction verified (angle grinder cutting it up is not uncommon - with a western staffperson overseeing that destruction.).
Labels ARE shareholders in Spotify.
There is absolutely a conflict of interest regarding how Spotify handles its rights/royalties negotiations when the licensees are an oligopoly, who derive value from both sides of the transaction, and represent downstream beneficiaries who have no say in the deal struck or prices paid.
Spotify and Labels together screw musicians, acting separately, and together.
As with the previous claim, it would be very helpful if you could cite data to this effect. When I googled myself I found a report[1] which does not seem to indicate that Spotify is majority owned by Labels. What percentage of Spotify is owned by record labels then? And why do they (less than 1/3 according to the source I found ) control Spotify and how does it make their relationship with artist's Spotify's problem?
Also, you know who the record labels own 100%? The record labels. Seems like if they wanted to fleece their artists they could just do it by fleecing their artists with fewer steps than buying minority stakes in Spotify and then hoping Spotify fleeces them, so they have no choice but to fleece their artists (seriously can't believe I just wrote something so dumb out).
And if it is record labels Fleecing their artists, why point fingers at Spotify? Again I'm going to point out that since they became prominent, revenue for the music industry has grown while before Spotify, it was declining. Do the artists prefer the decline that came before Spotify?
> Via a combination of ‘Statement Of Ownership’ SEC filings plus its 20-F annual report – all filed this year – we’ve been able to paint a picture of Spotify’s ownership cap table today.
>
> That cap table continues to be dominated by Spotify’s two founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon, along with a number of institutional investors, many of whom have been major shareholders for much of the time that Spotify has been a publicly-traded company.
>
> Among them are investment management firm T. Rowe Prices & Associates, investment firm Baillie Gifford, banking giant Morgan Stanley, and tech and multimedia giant Tencent Holdings (partly through its subsidiary, Tencent Music Entertainment).
>
> All the ups and downs of Spotify’s share price story hasn’t scared these investors away – clearly, they’re in for the long run.
