Yes. The idea was to keep the engines (and engineers) out of the hands of the other likely buyers. You've seen how soviet military surplus gets around: the same channels work for rocket engines, and those engines work in ICBMs just as well as they work in orbital launch platforms.
I don't know how effective this was. Did it backfire by promoting economies of scale in a program that went on to sell to adversaries anyway? Did it murder the domestic engine programs and did that have knock-on consequences? I don't know if the policy was effective, but I do know that stopping "engine proliferation" was a widely given and accepted reason for those programs.
Well, RD-180 is not really a suitable engine for modern ICBMs due to the need for a cryogenic oxidizer, resulting in the ICBM not being a very responsive design. But you are certainly correct about the engineers.
Good point. Still, I have to imagine that the engines themselves are dual use in some regard. GNSS or spy satellites maybe? These days it seems like everyone and their dog has a GNSS constellation, but it wasn't always that way.
I know several companies relocated precisely because of the corruption and mismanagement. Stripe is a good example and their building remains unoccupied to my knowledge.
More companies have moved out citing SF to be unsafe to operate in.
this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness
in the learners' souls, because they will not use
their memories; they will trust to the external written
characters and not remember of themselves
Academics? Almost all of the free speech complaints I see these days come from the right, from people who would feel insulted if you called them an academic.
How do you define academic? For me it's essentially a synonym of a research scientist at a university. And that definition clearly fits Haidt.
>Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business.
Also, the title makes it obvious that he is no expert on mental illness. He's a business school professor.
> There's no other scalable solution given existing copyright law.
(Informercial hands slip on screwdriver) Call Today for our $29.99 special grip that solves all those slippery screwdriver problems you definitely have! There is no other solution to the screwdriver grip conundrum!
No, practicality does not demand "binding shitty algorithmic decisions for thee, extreme latitude for egregious errors from me." Determinations don't need to be scalable to backstop a system of back-and-forth escalating claims that keeps the incentives correct for everyone at all stages: human beats algorithm, identified human beats unidentified human (note that at this point and all subsequent points rights holders have an enormous, automatic scalability advantage), identified human with legal commitment to consequences for being incorrect beats uncommitted human, and finally bump it to the legal system if all else fails, but by now everyone has skin in the game committed to their claims so none of the disagreements will be spammy.
This is all possible, it's not even particularly difficult, but it wouldn't create a cozy relationship with big rights holders which is what youtube actually wants, so instead we get "binding shitty decisions for thee, extreme latitude for egregious errors from me."
> Determinations don't need to be scalable to backstop a system of back-and-forth escalating claims that keeps the incentives correct for everyone at all stages
That's yesterday's game. It might have been possible to do this in the 90s, but today's copyright claims are automatic, authoritative and legally legitimate enough to scare a platform owner. This is entirely legal, too; nothing stops Sony from dumping 800,000 alleged infringements on YouTube's lap and giving them a 2 week notice to figure it out. If Google doesn't respond to every claimed abuse, then Sony can force them to arbitrate or sue them in court for willful copyright violation.
> This is all possible, it's not even particularly difficult
But it's not automatic, it creates unnecessary liability, and it's more expensive than their current solution. It's not overly generous to Google to assume that they also hate the rights-holders, but literally can't be assed to do anything about it because the situation is stacked against them. Even assuming the overwhelming majority of copyright-striked content is Fair Use, the losses incurred by the 0.1% that isn't could make defending YouTube a net-negative. Record labels and movie studios keep IP-specific lawyers on-payroll for this exact purpose, and fighting it out is a losing battle any way you cut it.
The feature lag wasn't the problem, the bugs were the problem: the only reliable OpenCL implementation was the one from Nvidia, but this meant it tended to drive people towards Nvidia rather than steal them away.
She turned the company around and got it on the right path, but in interviews I get the feeling that she might also be responsible for the "Hardware 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.... eh, maybe software can be 5th" culture and AMD's deep denial that it has a problem.
That was OK for the CPU turnaround, but on the GPU front it completely shut them out of the first rounds of the AI party and maybe a trillion in market cap.
Sounds like a big step back from the car charges at home and is "always full" without ever "filling up", except on roadtrips, where it schedules periodic rest stops.
Just means "swap stations" instead of charging or gas stations.
The (major) challenge is what you do with 400-800kg of batteries and a bunch of different vehicle types from different manufacturers. Standardize the size/placement so a robot can do it? Break it down to smaller pack sizes so a human -- driver or attendant? -- can do it? Have each car manufacturer have their own set of stations?
Took everyone long enough to agree on a plug, would it be possible to agree on a swappable pack?
People say that, but the data proves good commercials work. Of course not all commercials work, but there is plenty of data showing they do work and what works.
I don't know how effective this was. Did it backfire by promoting economies of scale in a program that went on to sell to adversaries anyway? Did it murder the domestic engine programs and did that have knock-on consequences? I don't know if the policy was effective, but I do know that stopping "engine proliferation" was a widely given and accepted reason for those programs.