One way of thinking about that is higher order even powers just reduce down to two.
For the purpose of inverting a negative vector, you can think of squaring as rotating the vector around the unit circle, 180 degrees, to make it positive. Higher order powers just keep rotating that vector back and forth- from this perspective the other even powers are the same transformation. Obviously with the magnitude being different.
I mean this kindly, but this is so “engineer brained”
Maybe the game has changed with LLMs, but its been a running joke that engineers will build a startup/product/library/thing only to then realize they can’t get any users and that marketing and sales are hard.
Attention and mind share are more valuable than ever. If you can’t answer “Why should I care about X?” then you are fighting an uphill battle.
I don't think its innate though - most people I've met can think of higher order consequences or at least understand them.
The real issue is actually measuring results. I think we have to design society to factor higher order effects in. That means a fundamentally new approach to things like voting and tracking accountability.
Is it even possible? Who knows. Sometimes I think our problems have outstripped individual life spans which makes them intractable.
What are the fatalities for e-bikes vs SUVs in the US per year?
Your comment is irrelevant otherwise because last time I checked cars are the real problem, and concerns over e bikes / delivery bots is just another lame extension of “safetyism” and ignorance around public transport failures that just misses the mark.
“Riding in traffic” is half the issue here. Like trying to explain water to fish.
The prompts and responses are used as training data. Even if your provider allows you to opt out they are still tracking your usage telemetry and using that to gauge performance. If you don’t own the storage and compute then you are training the tools which will be used to oppress you.
Your example assumes there would be sufficient liquidity on that bet. The existing platforms aren’t houses or market makers that just provide functionally infinite liquidity on any bets. The “win” criteria on this example is so specific that verification becomes its own problem.
In theory a fun example, but practically it doesn’t play out the way you’re describing.
Courts and law enforcement certainly provide these things, but they are not required. The inherent design of blockchains makes them trustworthy (an oversimplified statement), which is even better.
The prediction algorithms are so good that indirect behaviors and data can be informative.
You might also be profiled by Google and bucketed into a group of similar people who leak their data. They also went to this website and their YT recommendations became a signal to inform your own.
Not claiming any certainty here just possible ideas.
I was a bit peeved by the title, but I think its a fair use of clickbait as the article has a lot of little details about acoustics in humans that I was unfamiliar with (i.e. a link to a primer on the the transduction implementation of cochlear cilia)
But yeah there is a strict vs colloquial collision here.