For the most part, shooting wars avoid taking out leadership. You need somebody capable of surrendering, and with clear authority to order the troops to cease fire.
That said, the US has already broken that with Iran, so all bets are off.
People routinely spend many hours indoors, with CO2 levels several times the overall global CO2. I'd expect that effect to swamp the fraction of a percent that global CO2 levels rise.
Rising CO2 isn't going to be great for any of us, but I'd expect that the climactic consequences are going to be far more than the consequences of our breathing gas.
Polymarket isn't a stock or commodities market. There is no underlying value to it. It's zero-sum: the only money coming in comes from the other players. (Minus their overhead.) It's gambling.
It's bad enough that desperate people can lose everything gambling. Leverage allows them to lose more than everything, and that seems like a recipe for disaster.
I don't want to just waggle my finger at prediction market gambling. If that's how people want to spend their money, it's not up to me to protect them. But having the market itself encourage people to spend more than they have seems more like greed than like a serious consideration of market dynamics.
Nobody has ever asked me that. I'm having a hard time imagining how that conversation goes. Anybody interested in it would just find out.
I wonder if you were telegraphing it, which caused them to ask. I'm reasonably confident about mine, so perhaps that conveys sufficiently well that they're willing to risk finding out.
Not quite sure what you're suggesting here; perhaps it's satire?
If P!=NP then it is arbitrarily smaller, for the same reason that e^x > Cx^N for any constants C and N, as long as x grows big enough. There is no epsilon in that can overcome that, no matter how big you make it, because x will eventually dominate the equation.
There are a lot of cases where pragmatically x remains small enough that it doesn't matter, and a P algorithm will give you an answer more quickly. (For the same reason I only ever write bubble sorts: I would only write my own at all if I knew that the list would never be bigger than 10. Even then it's only when using the library is too much trouble for some reason.)
But we care about P and NP when the number can potentially be very, very large.
I had noted a few weeks ago that Hacker News used a font without serifs, causing confusion. I'm not sure when they changed that, but there are now serifs on the capital I and lower case "l".
This headline is much less confusing for the change. Thanks.
Corporations already owe the government part of their earnings, via taxation. What does the government need, or want, with actual ownership of the company?
They can't sell it; the government isn't any good at managing stock portfolios. They don't have enough votes to matter in the direction of the company. If they do want to control the direction of the company, they should do so via a law regulating it, not as one voice on a large board.
If the government feels that the corporation isn't paying its share of taxation, they should pass laws to alter the tax rules -- for every company. Why should AI companies be special?
The US is getting a national windfall. During the dotcom boom, we used that to nudge the deficit to near zero, by taxing profits on capital gains. That's sufficient. We don't need a meaningless ownership stake, which grants us neither cash nor control.
Of course Claude picked it up from usage; it didn't invent the phrase. But I don't see any indication that it's uniquely Claude-y. I use the phrase on occasion myself.
I don't really believe that egg prices could have made that big a difference. It was an easy thing for media reports to grab onto, but overall inflation was just not that high. I don't see people getting that bent out of shape over it.
It seems more likely that it made an easy thing to tell pollsters, rather than admit their real reasons. Exactly what those real reasons are, I have only dark suspicions, without evidence.
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that they're stupid.
Maybe they like that other people are suffering because they wouldn't make the least conceivable effort to help them. Maybe their goal is to make the world so much worse that there will be a revolution.
That said, the US has already broken that with Iran, so all bets are off.