TLDR: 80% of kids used to be potty trained by age one. Nowadays parents train later, because diapers are so convenient that its feasible to wait until the kids are older where it's easier to train them. This provides massive revenue to diaper companies.
----
This seems roughly plausible. I have never been successful at training 1 year olds to be potty trained, because there is so much exposed poop & pie involved over such long times, that it's just way easier to push it back by a year or two when they can figure it out more or less by themselves.
Maybe back then diapers were so bad, that there was always a lot of exposed poop & pie involved anyway, so potty training didn't really make your life any worse.
I'd probably say those extra billion in revenue are well earned.
I didn't expect such a misleading intro from Knuth. It reads like Claude solved Knuth's math problem. In reality, Claude generated various example solution, and Knuth then manually generalized that to a formal proof. What Claude did is certainly useful, but it would have been nice to be clear about the scope of the contribution in the intro.
The CCPA applies to any business, including any for-profit entity that collects consumers' personal data, does business in California (regardless of where it is located), and satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:
Has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million in its most recent tax year;[11]
Buys, receives, or sells the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers or households; or
Earns more than half of its annual revenue from selling consumers' personal information.[12][13]
He's not completely wrong though. I was assaulted (pushed and fell to the ground) for asking someone to turn down their music at a pool. And I think I've asked less than 20 people in my life to turn down their music.
The English intro talks a lot about medical advantages of the procedure: "reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections. This includes reducing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men in high-risk populations by up to 60%; ... Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer.[14] ... Some medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh the risks," and has one sentence of it being controversial worldwide "others hold that its medical benefits are not sufficient to justify it."
The German one has not a single sentence in the intro about advantages, but a whole paragraph on how it's controversial. "Die Zirkumzision als Routineeingriff ist besonders bei Minderjährigen umstritten, ... Von vielen Kinderschutzverbänden und einem Teil der Ärzteorganisationen wird die nicht medizinisch begründete Beschneidung abgelehnt, da sie den Körper irreversibel verändere und bei nicht einwilligungsfähigen Jungen nicht im Einklang mit Gesundheitsschutz und Kindeswohl stehe.[6] Im angelsächsischen Bereich gibt es schon länger eine gesellschaftliche Debatte zwischen Gruppen von Gegnern der Beschneidung („Intaktivisten“-Bewegung) und Befürwortern. Umstritten sind insbesondere medizinischer Nutzen und Risiken, bei Kindern auch ethische und rechtliche Aspekte sowie die Beurteilung im Hinblick auf die Menschenrechte, vor allem das Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit."
I'm not sure who's right, but it's hard to not see some bias here.
We should all copy from the Haskell community. Instead of coming up with a random name like "append" for a List function, we should appeal to our deep intuition of monoids and use the much more intuitive "<>".
I have proven quite a few theorems in Lean (and other provers) in my life, and the unfortunate reality is that for any non-trivial math, I still have to figure out the proof on paper first, and can only then write it in Lean. When I try to figure out the proof in Lean, I always get bogged down in details and loose sight of the bigger picture. Maybe better tactics will help. I'm not sure.
You don't know. Even with the best theorem provers, your definitions are still trusted. The best way I've found to help with this is to keep your definitions simple, and try to use them to do things (e.g. can you use your definition to solve other problems, does it work on some concrete examples, etc).
I think a big problem is just how US suburbs are built. Growing up in Germany, there were sidewalks, protected crossings, and public transportation everywhere, so I was just always expected to go to school and visit my friends on my own. Now that I live in the US, it's often hard to let your kids roam free, because there is a real danger of them being hit by a car.
That seems a little strong. We spend like $50/month on paper plates, which are compostable, and I get back many hours of my life that I can use to create valuable experiences with my kids. I don't think that's anymore morally wrong, then say, going on a vacation.
I would disagree that Brex (and many others in the space) aren't offering banking. I can deposit money, I can withdraw it, I have a credit card, I earn interest, etc, they seem to offer everything a traditional bank would.
To your point about risky investments, like stocks, I agree that that's very sketchy. But I think even very prudent banks that don't invest in stocks etc still take on a lot of risk, like we see with the bank collapses caused by the high interest rates these days.
He seems to say that the fractional reserve system is the only way society can work. But is that actually true? Quite a few banks (e.g. Brex) now allow you to keep your money in a money market fund, which invests in short term US treasuries that are protected by the full faith and credit of the US government. Importantly, in this setup, you own all the assets and the bank just acts as a custodian. And you tend to get better interest. That just seems so much saner than the bank being allowed to invest your money in risky and illiquid assets, and then we just hope that those investments don't lose too much money, or that a lot of people don't want to withdraw their money all at once.
Having 4 kids ages 5 and under, while also running a startup, I can confidently tell you that disposable dishes are the true answer to efficient dishwasher management.
I'd be curious to. Wikipedia seems to says that this might be mostly marketing speak. 'The term "3 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. According to the projections contained in the 2021 update of the International Roadmap for Devices and Systems published by IEEE Standards Association Industry Connection, a 3 nm node is expected to have a contacted gate pitch of 48 nanometers and a tightest metal pitch of 24 nanometers.'
----
This seems roughly plausible. I have never been successful at training 1 year olds to be potty trained, because there is so much exposed poop & pie involved over such long times, that it's just way easier to push it back by a year or two when they can figure it out more or less by themselves.
Maybe back then diapers were so bad, that there was always a lot of exposed poop & pie involved anyway, so potty training didn't really make your life any worse.
I'd probably say those extra billion in revenue are well earned.