The article would not be so controversial if it weren't outright saying "fake deadline". Of course you need a plan and a push, and stakeholders legitimately need (if only emotionally) some idea of when the builders will deliver. But on a charitable reading there are already terms for what it describes -- expected, target, soft date etc.
In my first engineering job out of college I was manipulated into working (on prem) into the early morning night, after I'd been there a few years. I couldn't help but think of that when I read
> If you think that a prototype might take a month, why not challenge the team to see what they can deliver by the end of the week? You will be surprised, and so will they.
Just being a kid and having my boss, a former professor I looked up to, expect that I could pull it off was enough. You have to be really careful "challenging" engineering reports like this -- need to actually use "see what you can do" language, NOT "deadline" (even if fake) for a 1mo->1wk timeline compression. He certainly acted surprised when I quit sometime thereafter. Hopefully he learned from the experience as well, I still appreciate my time there, just needed more experienced / realistic management.
Probably impossible to separate Le Pen's disqualification from the situation in the U.S. It's the song of the day. I seem to recall some account arguing in 2020, nominally on their expertise as a lawyer, that the election result could not be determined except in the courtroom. If you asked in 2020, should lawyers be disgraced if not disbarred for attempting to nullify the election - answer from GOP would be no. When asked today, suddenly answer is yes.
Is the fact of it being legally cumbersome to acquire a machine gun the best support you can give to this idea of sending perps to El Salvador, "for what they are doing [property damage] to Elon Musk and Tesla"?
They are both just legal questions. I don’t regard getting the wrong answer to one of those questions as being any different from getting the wrong answer to the other question.
I don't believe you, in the sense that I am certain you are lying and do not support both rifle and straw bans etc as well as arbitrary rendition of people to a third world prison. John Yoo had a theory in any case, skewed and kept secret as it was -- what's weird about MAGA's "law" is it's pure shitposting all the way into the courtroom. They don't even care when they're disbarred.
You don't know what you're talking about. People are fired when they can't add enough value to justify being employed. Sweeping industry-wide layoffs are different. Eg the "damage was done" to the aviation industry in 2001 due to plummeting demand, due (obviously) to new fears and hassle inhibiting travel; the damage currently being done to companies in the economy is from interest rates, inflation, trade uncertainty, stock manipulation, ...
> You don't know what you're talking about. People are fired when they can't add enough value to justify being employed.
That depends upon the employer. Layoffs occur for a plurality of reasons and the persons selected for termination are selected by various different criteria that may include quotas or random selection.
I went to a University of California school which had 3 calculus tracks - one for life/social sciences students (eg biology, econ), one for physical sciences (chemistry, physics, math, ...), and an honors track.
High school went up through what we call Algebra II. Calculus is an Advanced Placement (AP) course that most students don't take.
I took physical sciences calc + multivariate calc (1 year including summer), an intro to proofs and set theory course, and then finally a rigorous construction of reals was taught in our upper division real analysis course. So somewhere in my second year as a math major. Though I had already researched the constructions myself out of curiosity.
Apart from the material being extraneous for anyone outside the major, I think they were in a sense trying to be more rigorous by first requiring set theory which included constructions of the integer and rational number systems.
That's fair. Hardy himself was a zealot and in fact despised applications, writing that he hoped his work would never be put to extrinsic use, for then its value would become contingent on a particular stage of technological development.
I don't want to come across as harsh because the idea is neat and I'm sure creating this helped the author through their own study/understanding of the subject. But if you want to learn it would be better to study a textbook written by a mathematician.
The preamble already contains multiple errors (conflation of general and special relativity, assertion that category theory formalizes the common diagram, assertion that mathematical reasoning underwrites thought itself, assertion physical models are unnecessary/curve fitting is all you need ...)
The intro reminds me that V.I. Arnold once accused his algebraist colleagues (quite unfairly), especially in France, were primarily driven by their inferiority complex with respect to the hard sciences. The book would be much better if it didn't begin in this manner. It's valid to study mathematics (or anything of beauty, anything indispensable) for its own sake, of course.
What they claim to want to create is a for-profit organization that replaces "most economically valuable work".
Putting aside the enormous capital, technical and energetic hurdles - where would the profits come from?
Sam's idea seems to be that governments will have to give people basic income, but he is not really an ally to the UBI movement, because in his vision mainly what needs to be bought is access to OpenAI's computer systems.
To be honest it is the onus of the venture capital class to prove they are not grifters. Talk is extremely cheap compared to the resources at their disposal. And to be fair most of them do not even claim to be altruists.
The notion of mathematics as "the art and science of effective reasoning" is grandiose and blatantly wrong, both in the sense eg no mathematics is performed when an animal correctly flees from a fire, and also that this definition would exclude computer science from mathematics when his whole point is to incorporate it (for almost all formal systems are unreasonable).
Math and computer science at their core are more it less the same. Both are concerned with manipulating "digital" equipment that is assumed to respond predictably. Equipment is a prerequisite even for pure mathematics - it is interesting in this case because it is the mathematician themself, who agrees to act that way and respond predictably.
Physics is implicated in this in that it forms the basis of that agreement. Certainly it did historically. In the 20th century serious attempts were made to justify it on the basis of notions like consistency and completeness; the failure of that project is not yet fully absorbed. To be fair, the results are devastating because they can only really be understood by students after they have invested greatly in mathematics with the idea that all but a few "facts" derive from reason - when in fact almost none of them do.
In my first engineering job out of college I was manipulated into working (on prem) into the early morning night, after I'd been there a few years. I couldn't help but think of that when I read
> If you think that a prototype might take a month, why not challenge the team to see what they can deliver by the end of the week? You will be surprised, and so will they.
Just being a kid and having my boss, a former professor I looked up to, expect that I could pull it off was enough. You have to be really careful "challenging" engineering reports like this -- need to actually use "see what you can do" language, NOT "deadline" (even if fake) for a 1mo->1wk timeline compression. He certainly acted surprised when I quit sometime thereafter. Hopefully he learned from the experience as well, I still appreciate my time there, just needed more experienced / realistic management.