> Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars
I mean, yeah, I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Specifically, the side that I consider to be fundamentally in the right in the conflict.
Whichever side I am talking about is not relevant to the point. What's relevant to the actual point I am trying to make, is that I don't think that one side being better armed and funded serves as a reasonable indicator of which side is right/wrong in a given conflict.
> I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other.
Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither.
And this isn’t 2012, majority of Americans today do not see Israeli’s, who steal, spy on and try to get Americans killed through wars they start as the “good guys”.
> I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections.
Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history, and with less than 50% of the popular vote is hardly a decisive mandate to give Israel a blank check. [1]
> Apple said they're 'integrating into the OS' (which can really mean a lot of things)
Well, it can mean a lot of things, which is why Apple outlined plenty of specific use-cases and details of what they meant by "integrating into the OS" here.
What did they outline? We had "browser use" for a while now, but it is still way too slow to be usable. Not to mention whatever OS integration they are making.
The grandparent explained exactly why it is an issue though. It isn't because US is somehow just magically more legitimate than Denmark.
As they stated, it is because the population of Denmark is very homogenous, as opposed to the US. If you are trying to make a generalization that applies to a range beyond just white people, having Denmark as your sole sample is clearly flawed.
Along the same lines, picking Japan for the purpose of generalizing to wider racial/ethnic groups would also be a bad idea. Not because their research is untrusted/considered non-reputable (it is quite the exact opposite), but because their population is too homogenous.
> As they stated, it is because the population of Denmark is very homogenous
If you know about vitamin D, you'll note that sun exposure is one of the primary reasons location matters for this study. It would be similarly relevant if they only studied students in Miami or southern California.
Essentially: sun exposure helps you create vitamin D, and so you shouldn't naively generalize this study to other lines of latitude
I don't think it invalidates a study as long as you do things on relative terms and have a control group. Another study can see if the same delta effect is reproducible in an e.g. homogeneous Asian population and report on it.
It is probably a logistical nightmare to do a study of this sort in multiple countries and regulatory systems simultaneously.
It doesn't invalidate the study at all! On the contrary, if you're measuring vitamin d levels from blood tests, it is easy to adjust the dosage to match.
It's just an important factor - if you live much further south or spend a lot of time outdoors, your target dosage will be different than someone in _Denmark_.
> I don't think the CLI offers daily routines under the Anthropic subscription anymore?
It (Claude Code) does, I discovered it by accident recently, having never used daily routines before. Haven't touched Claude Desktop at all, outside of playing with it for 30 mins or so months ago.
TLDR: I used Claude Code to build a command that scrapes job postings from a few employers I am interested in (it is a bit more complicated than that, but that's the gist). At the end CC asked me "do you want me to re-run it daily?" I said yes, and it generated a daily routine and gave me a URL to my anthropic account page where I can see all my daily routines.
There, it says that I am currently using up 1 out of 15 "free" daily routines that come with my personal subscription, and I would have to pay extra if I want to have more than 15 active at a time (I assume by switching to per-token pricing for anything beyond 15, but not sure).
What does detaining someone over an unlawful (per the written law) protest have anything to do with corruption?
Corruption involves bribes, selective enforcement of the law, unethical favoritism when it comes to legal decisions, "favors", etc.
Your links just describe people participating in a protest that was against the law on the books, and then that law being enforced upon them. You can call that specific law unfair, undemocratic, authoritarian, etc., but what's the corruption angle here?
Agreed, I made the same mistake once by subbing on their website. Dealing with the eventual cancelation was an absolute pain.
Years later, I wanted to sub again, and this time I did it through the iOS app. Best decision ever, as now it just sits alongside my other App Store subscriptions and is easily cancelable in a single click.
I think you misinterpret: people use the apple route which means NYT lose money, and seeing people unsubscribe to their direct service only to immediately subscribe to Apple would’ve obvious.
The NYT frequently offer price deals which make it cheaper to directly subscribe. But unsubscribe hell remains (or did in January this year). I’m not in the US.
There is a difference between learning woodworking as a fun hobby that would allow you to make a chair for yourself vs. doing it in hopes of turning it into a profitable business venture that would make an impact on the world.
By the grandparent comment logic, there is no point in doing anything, unless it can somehow lead you to making an outsized impact on the world. Thus essentially declaring most hobby pursuits (that are done mostly just for the sake of fun and learning) as wasteful.
> GME also beat the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. Is this evidence that Ryan Cohen is a business genius?
GME did not beat the S&P500 over the past 10 years, and it is just the evidence of you needing to verify your claims before making them.
Over the past 5 years[0]: S&P500 up by 77%, GME down by 50%.
Over the past 10 years: S&P500 up by 260%, GME up by 207%.
GME performance in the past 10 years doesn't indicate that Ryan Cohen is a business genius. It indicates that he runs a company that has been underperforming the market for at least the past decade.
GME Jan 1, 2016: $7.09, $5.49 adjusted (accounting for dividend disbursements)
GME Jan 1, 2026: $20.09
266% or 365% return depending on how you count dividends. 365% for GME vs. 306% for S&P 500 over the same period (also using adjusted for dividend numbers).
For the previous 10 years, dividends reinvested, GME returned 14.59% per year, SP500 did 15.376% per year. Considering the much, much higher risk of owning a single stock, the risk adjusted return of SP500 is much higher than GME.
Granted, I am not sure exactly how Waymo operates, but I thought that the extensive testing was mostly for legal reasons+just handling edge cases.
I am saying this, because I noticed that they typically start with a low-tier restrictive permit to operate (with a rather small number of cars in the fleet). Then they run it for a year or two, iron out edge cases particular to a given city (e.g., climate particularities, crazy spaghetti junctions in ATL, etc.), and log a lot of data. Then they take that data, go to the city/state, say "we have all this data that demonstrates we were very above the board while running the test pilot program, we are safe, and now we want to expand out of a very limited test pilot program."
And then it either goes well (Bay Area, LA, etc.) or goes off the rails for other reasons (often failing earlier for entirely unexpected reasons, like the pushback against it from taxi driver unions in NYC).
My point being, I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think that they literally map every single inch of the road before being allowed to operate. I just don't see it as being possible in any large populated city, given how often things change there. Just in 3 years living at one apartment in Seattle, I had a road directly adjacent to me changed from 2-way to 1-way, and then had 3-4 lanes that were basically highway entrances/exits (a block away from me) created and the whole area being rerouted entirely.
Tesla is less "HD", they have standard maps like we all think of, and a lane level "see-ahead" system where they basically just grab a satellite image tile, and align it with what the car sees for "FSD".
Waymo does high resolution scans, the question only they know the answer to is how well does their model do without them and on camera only. I bet it's way better than is publicly acknowledged.
Those vehicles with lidar roof racks are validation for "FSD" look up project rodeo for some news reporting (they also have cameras further up mounted on a pole to validate "FSD"s reprojection technique).
Images of the cars screens show "project rodeo controls" is the only reason I say that we know these are validation vs mapping.
They actually do significant mapping. Where it operates currently it is not unusual to see this. It will be a waymo with a human driver operating someplace not currently in the waymo zone and clearly not en route to any maintenance facility either. Stuff like windy canyon roads with no thru access anywhere that are currently gated away, you might see a waymo with a human today.
Waymo is not the only company making lidar maps right now either. I've seen UPS deliver trucks with retrofitted lidar scanners on the roof now. I've even seen this on a police car already, looked like a black rooftop industrial ventilator on a 2ft mast installed directly on the crown victoria roof.
I mean, yeah, I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Specifically, the side that I consider to be fundamentally in the right in the conflict.
Whichever side I am talking about is not relevant to the point. What's relevant to the actual point I am trying to make, is that I don't think that one side being better armed and funded serves as a reasonable indicator of which side is right/wrong in a given conflict.
reply