alboy

Not to mention all the people hoarding data center cooling liquid in their intestines.

I don't think former employees being exempt from the lockout period is a typical arrangement at all.

> Normally when new tools come out this doesn't happen

Normally, such new tools weren't a perfect fit for automating shilling and didn't involve trillions of dollars on the line.

No it doesn't, even if you stack every possible subsidy and discount (getting some of which involves scraping your old car, takes over a year, and later gets taxed as income) for the bare-bones trim it would be more like €13K, and the actual MSRP starts closer to €20K.

> Shitty apartment with a commute in the bay costs $3,000/month. Starter home in Seattle costs a million plus.

The prices in Madrid/Barcelona are not exactly far off already (through no fault of high tech salaries).

>Is there any other way to interpret this?

One would be "the market processing the new information that MongoDB's legal department doesn't know how to draft contracts".

>If Immigram has a customer base primarily composed of people who support Russia's war against Ukraine

I don't see anything mentioned in the article that would make one think it has such customer base. Do you?

>Why did you only quote the one?

Because it is the part that is the most misleading about this statistic.

The USDA defines[1] food insecurity to include the following:

>Food Insecurity

>Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.

People in other countries would scratch their heads at the very concept of "food insecurity without hunger".

[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...

Itty-bitty Cog.

>I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes.

Without a wealth tax that would just make tax evasion even easier for the ultrawealthy in the usual manner of borrowing against the equity of the stock they own.

Unspecified behavior[1] is used in programming language standards for a very similar reason: to provide the freedom to interpret in the, uh, spirit of the code, rather than the letter, when it would be overall beneficial.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspecified_behavior

I take it the processing model was trained on a dataset of Magritte’s paintings?

>Even if you limit it to the most egregious cases that just shifts the problem. What's egregious and what isn't?

It implicitly shifts the undertone of everything that isn't fact-checked on the platform from neutral to true. This is not a bug but a feature, as it provides the plausible deniability by blurring the line between "no tag since we can't fact-check everything, duh" and "no tag because we tacitly agree with the narrative presented here even if it is untrue".

You market to your customer, the purchase of their product will be approved by a C-suite Yama, not the mortals stuck in Samsara.

It depends on how much control the host system has over the output (can consciously drown out the signal). Suppose you just show YES and NO in big flashing letters while asking your subject the questions you already know the answers to and measure the output when training the device. Then it boils down to whether it can pick up what you "really think" over what you "try to think" better than the current generation of polygraphs (which is very bad at its job). So these technical specifics would decide where exactly it falls within the range from "comically unreliable" to "dystopian nightmare".

Maybe you could even do supervised by force-feeding known stimuli a la Clockwork Orange.

Not mentioned there that

>France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. [1]

according to the target set in the "Energy transition for green growth" bill.

[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...

>you end up in situations where it's suddenly justifiable to let developers use technologies unsuited for the situation because they're "fun" and "interesting" to use and keeping them happy means they're more "productive"

Well, companies already do that and justify the practice as something that selects for more passionate developers and makes job postings seem more attractive. Exhibit A: YC's very own Paul Graham wrote "The Python Paradox" [1] back in 2004.

[1] http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html

>Any large HashTable in Java starts to yield the problem of duplicate keys, it's just a weird situation, like you can 99.999% trust something ... but can't ever fully trust it so that over time, you're guaranteed to have something wrong.

hashCode() is a prehash function the outputs of which need to be mapped further to the (typically much smaller) number of buckets in a hash table of certain size (which would depend on the number of objects currently in the table), those "duplicate keys" are not a problem, they're how hash tables work in any language. Objects' hashcodes are used to find the relevant bucket, then this bucket is properly examined using equals(). HashMap and Hashtable are backed by arrays which have the max size of Integer.MAX_VALUE (minus some change) in JVM anyway, so those would need to be indexed by an int. I hope this helps to overcome the trust issues you have with Java data structures.

>but they might become say 50% more likely to die in a motorcycle crash

Or launch a startup.

This thread is clearly about comparing the probabilities of getting into FAANG vs getting into the Olympics. The situation with varying relative competitiveness of the local "scene" in a particular country is the same in both cases, despite the fact that even the 1% figure for FAANG engineers would only work under the assumption of the global pool of candidates (~20 mil software engineers worldwide), all willing to relocate and prioritizing FAANG above all other employers (a lot of assumptions). Tldr: no, being kinda good at leetcode is not an Olympic-level feat, try the ICPC.

>If you're looking at NCAA athletes, lots of those sports are not represented in the Olympics.

Not really, just football and lacrosse. On the other hand, there're many Olympic events that are not a part of the NCAA.

>Also, because spots in the Olympics are limited, the "best" person isn't always chosen to represent a given country for a given sport.

I don't think this is particularly important on average. I'm just giving a quick and dirty lower bound here to put things into perspective.

The whole Olympic roster for the US is ~500 people. There's half a million people who are current NCAA athletes, that's an order of magnitude off right there, even after excluding football and before counting in the actual pros.

This seems way off. The number of engineers working at FAANG is in the hundreds of thousands, an athlete that is 100000th best in the world is basically a hobbyist rando.