Could it rather be that genZ are risk averse and choose not to volunteer to be shot at? Or even that they have greater moral concerns than earlier generations? (No judgement on that implied, complexities acknowledged)
That said, personally can’t see how a show would be much help either.
Unlikely to be a popular question in this forum but in my view the most important topic we need to reflect on is “are we really better off with these services?” - obviously at face value there is utility or there wouldn’t be the market penetration but the externalities and issues of market dominance are becoming more apparent and pressing.
And if we agree that better solutions are needed then the question becomes “how do we create the market conditions that support those better outcomes?”
I’d really like to see kk reflect on this article with 10 years hindsight and see if he remains optimistic.
Genuinely curious- In what sense is the risk calculated? I understand that the leverage factor is known but fundamentally isn’t this still just a bet that eth will rise? And if it falls then won’t the loss be multiplied by the same leverage factor?
Obviously you can research the eth market and form a view but you can also research horse racing form and the odds themselves should be a fair calculation indicator if the betting market is working well - so it seems fair to suggest that this is in the same category as a horse racing bet.
This seems consistent with research from the University of Alabama that demonstrates substantial differences between Parkinsonian gut microbiome and control subjects- very plausible (IMO) that this might result in smell differences.
The Alabama paper is open access and well worth reading if you’re interested in Parkinson’s
Surely this can’t be justified as a ux driven “oversight” - I am not an economics professor but I would be feeling totally sketchy if I manipulated a data source in such an apparently arbitrary manner.
In combination with the (reportedly)blatant lack of any reference to the methodology in his paper this feels like wilful gross misconduct in professor-land.
IMO this sort of thing rightly undermines confidence and credibility of research in a much broader context and should be a sackable matter if shown to be true as asserted.
Adjacent to this, I recommend reading (and perhaps even sharing with your parents) “Being Mortal” by Atul Gawande. It is a masterpiece on the reality of aging and what is important in managing the process towards a good life and ultimately death.
As someone dealing with a long term, chronic, progressive and currently incurable condition I can say that for me it really helped to find a better focus and conversation around what is important and how to communicate needs and desires towards good outcomes.
“…and finally the work will be done completely by AI.”
How will the AI be trained on novel patterns of interaction, for example new products or previously unknown problems?
It seems to me that (as the article suggests) high level human support capabilities will be more valuable in this scenario rather than less - rather different from a complete AI solution
Fair enough- however this analysis specifically addresses
“Critical technologies [which] can be defined as current and emerging technologies with the capacity to significantly enhance, or pose risk to, a country’s national interests, including a nation’s economic prosperity, social cohesion, and national security”
So a level of consideration for the geopolitical implications seems warranted - after all, I’m not sure anyone really invests in hypersonic nuclear capable ballistic technology for the general advancement of humanity.
The benefits of a multi polar world are another topic of course.
Northern English is significantly influenced by Scandinavian words today- for example the “-by” suffixes on town names is a direct use of the modern Danish word for town, Kirkby meaning Church Town in a direct translation
It seems relevant to me that the English themselves are actually a good mix of Vikings, Romans, French, Germans and Celts (and some other stuff no doubt) - so to advocate for just one of these inheritances as opposed to the mixture seems a bit of a nonsense, even if one chooses to ignore the richness of interactions with other languages in Britains history as an international nation - “Global Britain” indeed.
From experience of NZ quakes, wooden buildings seem to survive well.
Aside from the flexibility of wooden vertical load bearing posts, the typical weather board / external wooden slat construction which is widely used in New Zealand allows for the narrow boards to slide independently under the lateral shaking forces. The external walls can deform into trapezoid shapes more effectively - hence a higher threshold for catastrophic damage and better future usability.
Brickwork chimneys, internal plasterwork and the subsurface conditions are another story but a least the dwelling is still functional :/
No, you’re right - as an earlier comment said, the red zone roads are not maintained anymore since the area was demoed and they are currently pretty munted.
I can’t say that the rest of the city is pristine but it is a good bit better.
I’m pretty familiar with the area- one of the more unique parts of the city is the “red zone”, a recovered area which became uninsurable due to the changes in the assessment of land risks post quake.
It’s a weird place as the roads are still there and the trees are still along the edges of the former gardens but all the houses are gone and the sites reverted to grass. Many of the fruit trees on this map are from those gardens.
I think I have a basic understanding of the underlying “likely next word generation “ paradigm of gpt but what puzzles me is how does the system form an apparently coherent/ persistent sense of self? Ie repeatedly using the self identity of Sydney across multiple sessions and or persistently holding on to the I love you theme in many exchanges in this example.
That said, personally can’t see how a show would be much help either.