It's a fairly safe bet if you're trying to minimize your risk as much as possible. Sure it lacks imagination and you probably miss out on the true outliers but most Vcs are really conservative risk averse investors no matter what they say.
I second this. I just fear the hype surrounding generative AI is leading to extreme tunnel vision and neglect of other promising tech (cough crypto) and even other areas in ML and deep learning that might actually be more fruitful for Agi.
I'm not sure the history of CRDTs is at all bound up in cryptocurrency, which, for instance, isn't mentioned in the INRIA paper (which paper mentions previous CRDT designs that just didn't have the name).
I always get downvoted for this, but I much prefer Quora in my search results to Reddit for this reason. Although they've abandoned it now their earlier stringent sign-up process requiring that you are a real human means you're more likely to come across an answer with a real name and/or professional creds attached to it, and those answers imo tend to be higher quality. Of course there's all the copypasta spam (mostly) from India but that is easy to avoid since people use their real handles not anonymous sock puppets. Unfortunately they've decided to go down the route of promoting their AI chatbot in search results which for me has significantly degraded the results
I think what they're saying is in the times of Mozart, Beethoven etc you would not have been able to survive exclusively or mainly as a composer for piano. A career like Chopin's was only possible later on when music and the arts in general was more established and composers didnt live or die by royal patronage and the odd subscription concert here and there. Chopin is unusual in comparison to those earlier composers but not really unusual for his time. Liszt is another contemporary who wrote mainly for piano and there are probably at least few other lesser known 'specialists'(none of which come to mind alas)
>The problem is that people feel morally uncomfortable arguing that it's ok to bomb government buildings (and similar actions) when your cause is just
I don't think anybody has any moral quandaries about it when it is THEIR cause. Only when it is someone else's cause. Name one freedom fighter/revolutionary (even a perfectly non-violent one) who is not a 'terrorist' to the regime theyre trying to overthrow. I don't think anyone 'pretends' Mandela was a 'perfect angel' anymore than anyone pretends the founding fathers were beacons of unblemished moral rectitude.
What Wikipedia article are you looking at? Even the article on 'Association Football' which I assume is referring to the modern organized form of the sport that did develop in the UK has a long history section referring to the many origins of 'football' or 'soccer'.
"Association football in itself does not have a classical history.[26] Notwithstanding any similarities to other ball games played around the world, FIFA has described that no historical connection exists with any game played in antiquity outside Europe.[3] The history of football in England dates back to at least the eighth century.[33] The modern rules of association football are based on the mid-19th century efforts to standardise the widely varying forms of football played in the public schools of England."
So, yeah. There are similar games. But the game in England is not an import.
This is generally true but not entirely. The UK like most other countries is becoming more like the US (think tech tycoons, celebrities, 'influencers'). And the US has always had some pockets with similar (though less rigid) class distinctions (think WASPs and places like Martha's vineyard, parts of New England and 'old' New York, many parts of the South).
reply