wlxd
7hr ago
No, parsing bits from a video file does happen practically instantly. Download a video file to your local disk, and play it from there, you’ll see. Even on YouTube, if you rewind back, it will have to represent the bytes again.
The reason it takes a while for YouTube stream to start is that this is what it takes for YouTube to locate the bytes you asked for and start streaming them to you.
wlxd
7hr ago
Unlikely. When you join early a company that then becomes highly successful, the equity grant you get is going to the moon. So yeah, maybe they got offered $300k TC when they joined, but that $300k is worth much more after a year or two.
wlxd
1d ago
This is easy to solve: just flip the script. Have the recruiters and hiring managers reach out to people. All you need is a job market clearing house, where job seekers advertise their interest, and companies make the first move. Clearing house verifies identity of job seeker, to prevent creation of multiple profiles, and charges companies a fee per contact, so that they don’t spam people indiscriminately.
This works, because this model has been very common on the tech industry. In my dozen+ of years in this industry, I only ever cold sent my resume to one company, for an intentship. I got that job, and from that point it was always recruiters reaching out to me.
wlxd
1d ago
I didn’t say it will be easy. What you describe are real problems. However, they are not as insurmountable as AI was 10 years ago. 10 years ago, there was relatively little investment in touch sensors, because even if you perfected them, there was little you could do with them. Now it is different.
My point is that AI advancements allow us to leap over solving problems by designing tool paths and configuration spaces, and onto solving problems by telling a robot “we need you to cut chicken, look how it’s done and imitate”.
wlxd
1d ago
This will come for blue collar jobs pretty soon too.
Consider meat processing: parting out chicken or pork carcasses is something that’s hard to automate. Every carcass is slightly different, and the nature of the tasks makes it hard to build a machine that will do this with good enough accuracy and low enough waste.
Now, imagine we have robots with flexible arms like humans. Current AI tech solves the image recognition problem, so that the robot understands the carcass like human does. It also solves explaining the purpose of the task, so that the robot understand the actual purpose of separating thighs or breast, instead of just mindlessly following the programmed moves. Lastly, it solves the reasoning part, so that the robot can plan the task independently for each carcass, and adjust to conditions as it proceeds.
All that remains is integrating these into one performing system. This is by no means an easy task: it will still probably take years before the finished product is cheaper and better than illegal immigrant. However, 5 years ago, the idea of training robots to part out chickens was complete science fiction.
wlxd
1d ago
I do agree that he likes China, but I don’t think he wants it to defeat US. The way I read him is more like “if China defeats us, it will be deserved, because they’re doing a lot of right things, while we are just fumbling while being insanely overconfident about our abilities, and seriously underestimating China”.
wlxd
3d ago
"Is the one-point compactification of a Hausdorff space itself Hausdorff?" The correct answer is yes, or so I'm told.
It’s not true. You need to also assume that the original space is locally compact. For example, if you one-point compactify the space of rational numbers (which is obviously Hausdorff), the resulting space is non-Hausdorff. That’s because the only compact subsets of rationals are discrete, and thus finite, so open subsets that contain the added point at infinity are exactly of the form Q plus the extra point minus some finite subset. This means that it intersects every other nonempty open subset (because all open subsets of that space are infinite). Thus, you cannot separate the point at infinity from any other point by two disjoint open sets, because there are no disjoint open sets from the ones that contain the point at infinity.
wlxd
3d ago
The point is that this answer is just incorrect. There are non Hausdorff one point compactifications of Hausdorff spaces. You need additional assumption of local compactness for it to be true.
wlxd
4d ago
Syria and Lebanon are outside Europe and thus outside the responsibility of the EU anyway.
Imagine what the world stage would look like if US shared this attitude.
wlxd
4d ago
The Zoe Post was the turning point for me as well. Before that, I bought into the whole progressivism. After seeing them eviscerate Eron, who obvious victim of abuse, I understood that actually we are the baddies. It really changed my entire perspective. What really sealed the deal was Untitled, though.
wlxd
5d ago
A typical use of cancer funds is a grant where you GMO some bacteria to produce some protein, which you then concentrate, crystallize, then do some X-ray crystallography to analyze its structure. What does it have to do with cancer? Oh right, that protein may lead to a cancer drug, maybe. But, you know, it might also lead to AIDS drug! Who knows.
You don’t need to move any funds. You can study AIDS on cancer institute funds. You can study it on kidney institute funds. You can do it on infections diseases institute funds. As I said, the way the system works is that NIH has enormous amount of discretion here. The only way to prevent it would be to literally have executive tell the underlings explicitly to stop funding AIDS, or have Congress pass explicit law prohibiting them from doing so.
Fraud is generally not covered by Congressional appropriations.
I’m literally telling you how the actual system works in practice. You can keep talking about appropriations and chide me for using the word “earmark” in a technically incorrect sense, but it is you who has no idea about how biotech funding actually works. Doing biomedical research that only tangentially concerns cancer under cancer grant is not fraud, it’s a day that ends in y. Talk to literally anyone in biomedical research.
That’s not the case here at all. NIH, NSF and the like have enormous amounts of discretion where they allocate funds, even if it appears to be earmarked.
For example, huge chunk of NIH funds are earmarked for cancer research. The result of this is grant applications for this money have to include some section about how their research is related to study of cancer, and this is enough for it to qualify. I learned this from some of my friends doing biotech research. Literally all of them work under cancer research grant, but their actual research has very little to do with cancer per se.
How to study AIDS on cancer grant? Easy: AIDS causes cancer, so AIDS prevention reduces cancer incidence. Done. No need to reallocate anything in Congress.
wlxd
8d ago
He makes sure to tax the wealthy more so they can't afford to raise an army against him and become the new king.
This confused me, because feudal monarchy worked on pretty much opposite principle. It was a duty of the wealthy nobles to raise and fund their armies when needed. This was something the king required them to do, not inhibited from.
wlxd
10d ago
First, disparate impact doctrine has nothing to do with it. At best you could argue that it’s related to equal protection.
More importantly, this is a fully general arguments against any laws. Why prohibit theft if it’s just a bludgeon when the your political opponents are the ones controlling law enforcement?
wlxd
10d ago
This argument proves too much. It’s not an argument specifically against federal ID cards, but against any and all ID cards, including state issued ones. Given that none of this is a problem with state issued IDs, I don’t find this vision very likely.
wlxd
10d ago
What would help is if you actually articulated how exactly national ID cards give government more power over you, relative to status quo. You claim this, but this is far from obvious to me.
First, that isn't something the federal government is allowed to do per the Constitution.
As much as I sympathize with this point of view, Mr Filburn, given the legal developments over last 100 years, I can scarcely think that national ID cards is the most advantageous location to pick this battle.
Second, I don't want even the states accelerating the panopticon by incorporating all our biometrics into it.
What is meaningfully changed in your life by state learning your biometrics? What kind of realistic nightmare scenarios are prevented by preventing Feds from issuing national biometric IDs? I really cannot think of any.
I don't know what benefits you have in mind, but I can't think of any which are not dwarfed by that massive cost.
Improving elections integrity, for one thing.
Anyway, I really disagree that there is massive cost here, and I think you are not doing a good job articulating it. Consider, for example, other countries that do have national ID systems on top of very comprehensive census registries. This covers almost the entire Europe, for example. To the extent these countries are controlling panopticons (which, to be sure, they to a large extent are when compared to US), I cannot think of any aspects of that panopticon that would be meaningfully relaxed by making their population registries less comprehensive, or their ID systems less centralized. I’d be happy to hear concrete counterexamples, if you can think of any.
wlxd
10d ago
That scarcely seem to me like something to worry about. We already need IDs for many normal activities. Having those issued on federal level would not change much, and in fact would probably be an improvement for reasons like Voter ID.
wlxd
11d ago
Why would you hate it? The only downside I can conceive are trivial relative to benefits.
wlxd
14d ago
And yet 4years later apparently nobody cares anymore. Either the cost was highly inflated, or Texas is just such a beast that it shrugs off things like that.
wlxd
17d ago
Well, yes, if the US didn’t care about Taiwan’s independence, or strategic presence in the Pacific, then yeah, Guam would be useless. However, for better or worse, it does, and so Guam is a valuable asset. In any case, your comment about official US Taiwan policy is completely irrelevant to the issue.
You clearly don't actually understand how equity works. It obviously is worth something, because investors are paying billions of dollars for it. Being public or private only has indirect effect on how much stock is worth.
Going public provides easy liquidity, which is good, especially to small stockholders, but private companies of the size we are talking about also usually provide liquidity options to stockholders. SpaceX, for example, had a tender offer a couple months ago. This event allows individual SpaceX stock holders to sell their holdings to institutional investors, in case you don't understand what that is.
To put it in more concrete terms: I'd happily go to any of these X AI employees, and buy whatever they vest in a year for $10,000. This offer establishes that their stock is worth something. (I'm not just making a point, this offer is 100% serious: if you work for X AI, feel free to DM me, I'm open to negotiations even).
These figures only include cash compensation, and they are a very reasonable range for cash part of the comp for between junior and staff levels.
There are around 40 people in the photo. I bet you that at least 10 of them are seniors or above.
More options
Context Copy link