If there is access to the hardware, then the data and software are not secure. So you couldn't run any business applications or anything were you would need to have an assumption of data privacy.
Sorry you went through this. If you want to make another attempt, I've found that the older I get, the slower ramp up time I need getting back into exercise. Do far less than you're body is able to during the workout when you start. To the point where it feels like you're not stressing yourself at all. Then make a plan to slowly ramp up from that point over 6-10 weeks depending on the shape you're in and age. After that, you can start pushing your body closer to it's limits during any given workout. Also, it will just suck the first 3-4 weeks before you start enjoying it.
Exactly. Google has no future. but for the moment it generates loads of cash to shareholders. Sundar's only task is to keep it as long as possible. And shareholders on their own will allocate this cash to next Google.
There's a certain % of people who prefer WFH, a % who prefer WFO, and a % who want hybrid. The same person could change preferences over time as well.
People will sort themselves into the teams who share their preference over the next 5 years.
Just like how not everyone wants to work 100 hour weeks at an investment bank, but a certain group of people want to take that deal. You self select for it.
I think this debate gaining the fervor of a religious war stems from people not wanting to have to leave their current job to obtain their WFH / WFO preference? The re-shuffling will take a few years, but if you prefer something different than the pre-COVID status quo then you should be happy the shuffling is happening.
Thinking about it more, the WFO crowd grouping themselves only with people who actually want to be there is probably better for them too. The great re-shuffling benefits all! Don't go all Spanish Inquisition on those who don't share your work arrangement preference.
Geoengineering projects should be getting far more attention in the public eye. There are serious alternatives to letting society crumble due to climate change. People are choosing not to have children and citing climate anxiety as the reason. Just today, two teenagers in London ruined a Van Gogh for a climate protest. It's absurd. If you apply any amount of rational thinking to the problem, you'll realize that it's incredibly likely that we'll solve climate change.
The paper cited here is from a U of Arizona professor who previously won a MacArthur "genius" grant, and develops the optics for some of the largest telescopes in the world. Not a quack. Harvard has a Geoenigineering department. Smart and credible people are working this problem out. We should give them our attention, money, and talents. The paper in this post lays out a plan to reduce climate change for under 0.5% of world GDP in 2006. The price of launching weight into space has plummeted in the 15 years since this paper was written.
If you're worried about unintended consequences of geoengineering, then contribute to reducing risk by helping to develop AI. Then we'll be better able to model its effects and mitigate risk through increasingly accurate simulation. We need to tell people to study materials science or something that will actually help if they're concerned about the climate.
> Climate protesters threw soup over Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers" in London's National Gallery on Friday to protest fossil fuel extraction, but caused no discernible damage to the glass-covered painting
Well that's good news. Thanks for correcting me. I think the attempt still makes my point that people are doing drastic things because of the prevailing narrative on the subject.
I also don't mean to rag on the kids, I appreciate their passion. I just think it's misguided, and that if the wider array of potential solutions were better known then people could be more productive working on solving the problem. I think the fatalism about the topic is sad and unnecessary. I didn't mean the comment to be a cultural war "pick a side" post. The passion around the subject is justified, but I think it could be channeled more productively.
Many people use to agree with Malthus in the 1800s that the world was about to run out of food. Then the Haber-Bosch process was discovered, and problem solved. More mental energy should be put into finding a similar solution for climate change versus this century's equivalent of "the world needs less people because of food limitations".
tried to ruin. The painting was protected by a piece of protective glass. Doesn't mean these kids shouldn't be prosecuted, but the good news is that a priceless piece of cultural heritage was NOT destroyed by teenagers.
> If you apply any amount of rational thinking to the problem, you'll realize that it's incredibly likely that we'll solve climate change.
Funny because lots of very rational climate scientists [1] who spent quite a bit of time thinking rationally about climate science suspect that we are on track for several degrees of warming (2, 3, or 4 deg C) and express concern that we’re not doing enough to mitigate things getting worse.
>If you apply any amount of rational thinking to the problem, you'll realize that it's incredibly likely that we'll solve climate change.
I think that confusing can with will is a good way to increase the chances of won't. "Solving" climate change seems to be within our technical capabilities, but we currently appear to lack the collective will.
I first learned how to code in R before moving on to Python, then some C and Go. I think a big cause for the SWE hate of R is that it's not OO programing. R is a functional language for data analysis. If you don't grok that, then I can understand why looking at it would make you barf. Going the other way, from functional to OO, caused me physical pain as well.
R is amazing for data analysis. Also, RStudio is a much more efficient solution for iteratively exploring data than Jupyter. Don't make fun of a screwdriver for not being a hammer.
France has nukes though. So I think you still have the MAD issue. Maybe France doesn't have enough of a stockpile to destroy all humanity 8x over, but not sure how much that changes the game theory.
> Maybe France doesn't have enough of a stockpile to destroy all humanity 8x over, but not sure how much that changes the game theory.
I think we currently have 2 submarines with 150 nukes each around the world. Probably not enough to end humanity, but enough to ensure mutual destruction.
Yup, deterrence theory is quite interesting and every country has different strategies. One doesn't need hundreds of nukes to deter an enemy from nuking them.
For example is a large difference between massive retaliation [1] which the US uses to deter North Korea, and minimal deterrence [2] used by China (during the cold war), or Pakistan currently.
Secondly it's not just the amount of nukes that influences deterrence, it's how one says they will use them. For example China has pledged "no first use" from the moment they got their first nuclear weapons, whereas the Russia and the US both adopted official policies stating the right of first use.
Modern ballistic missiles have multiple independent warheads. For example the French M51 has "6 to 10" independently targetable warheads. The submarine carries "only" 16 of these missiles.
They wouldn't have to share them with an EU army, they could leave them for "national use" only and avoid any possibility of escalation.
Now the EU Army being a non-nuclear entity would make anyone using nuclear army against them "the villain" and onward one could easily justify using "all means" (there's stuff there I'd say even nastier than nuclear...) against them, so a "moral" deterrent could work fine in practice (since everyone knows you're technologically capable of developing the really nasty stuff if anything motivates you to...).
Which "stuff" is even nastier than nuclear? Chemical weapons aren't very effective against modern militaries. Biological weapons are nearly as dangerous to the user as to the target.
probably it's more like sharing "the COST of maintaining and upgrading it" :)) ...EU Army funds would probably be better spend on tech for urban/guerrila warfare + next gen UAVs, eg. stuff you'd actually end up using in a real war!
Heck Russia would probably have the military capability to actually win this war cleanly and quickly of they didn't have to invest billions in their strategic weapons that will (hopefully) never be used. If the current world leaders are competent, they are probably only pretending to properly maintain and upgrade strategic WMDs while covertly diverting the funds to other secret operations... If WMDs are actually used, we've all lost anyways, so it probably only makes sense to keep a huuuuuge stash of the cheapest + most destructive and suffering-maximizing stuff around (I imagine some hellish bio thing) for pure revenge end-game.
