The author doesn't get the most common problem with perfectionism. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Perfectionists often give up entirely, because of some perceived deficiency, instead of powering through to the end.
Of course, keep practicing to get better. Nobody says otherwise. But don't stop practicing just because you can't get it right every time. It's the ALL or NOTHING attitude that's the problem, where getting past failure requires SOMETHING in the pursuit of the ALL.
I've seen a bunch of his interviews now and his message is pretty controlled, actually. It all boils down to: (a) I don't know, wasn't aware, and (b) I messed up / lost focus. These appearances seem to play a therapeutic (instead of legal or financial) role for SBF (bad idea, obviously). Yesterday (12/12) he was still talking about returning in a "senior executive role" to help in the bankruptcy. He is also convinced FTX USA and FTX Japan were fully solvent and that they still have a future. Fascinating.
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to normalize these by student population? UT Austin has like 50k students to 6k at Dartmouth. Normalized, you would have .06 startups per student at Dartmouth and .01 at Texas. Many of the smaller elite schools would rise way up the ranking.
True, but the financial incentives of many (most?) companies doesn't align with public benefits (see pollution, plastics, diet etc.) Why is social media singled out in our demands for them to act morally good, instead of just profitable?
I have several major problems with this explanation (often endemic in the discussion more generally):
1. Shannon's original paper relates "the capacity [of a channel] to transmit information" as well as the potential of a system (e.g. the English language) to generate information. In other words, your pipe needs to be able to accommodate the potential volume coming from the source ("the entropy of the source determines the channel capacity"). The amount of information in a message or the amount of surprise, as the author has it, should not be confused with the amount of potential information.
2. Instead of "system" and "channel" the author uses the word "variable" which I find misleading. Channel (like a telegraph cable) and system (the English language) are specifically relevant to Shannon's discussion.
3. The discussion of "surprise," as the author has it, is misleading. Shannon is writing his paper in conversation with Hartley and Nyquist---all three specifically attempting to bracket out the subjective psychological factors such as surprise, in order to describe the capacity for information transmission in terms of quantitative measures, based on "physical considerations alone" (Hartley). Surprise reintroduces a subjective, relative, psychological understanding of information the original authors wanted to avoid.
Alternatively, you can lease a car like Nissan Leaf for the same $200 monthly. This price point makes no sense, except perhaps in the case of the company wanting to save face instead of turning off the service entirely. What percentage of owners do you think will opt in?
See my comment above. An elevated (or submerged) tube with rails (or a track) inside cannot be less expensive than those rails or track elevated (or submerged) alone. I get the pipeline metaphor, but a pipeline with infrastructure inside is just infrastructure + pipeline. So instead of a train system the proposal has always been to build a train system inside a pipeline, which has to be more expensive than either. We have no indication of cost savings here.
> The dramatically reduced costs of infrastructure for constructing mounted tubes on pylons, with each section being a fungible, mass produced item, makes rail obsolete.
This makes no sense. The "mounted tubes on pylons" contain rails inside and therefore are MORE not less expensive than just "rails mounted on pylons," which we already have. A more complex rail does not make simple rail obsolete. Nor does it beat it on fungibility, cost, or mass production. Where are you getting these "dramatically reduced costs"?
Hyperloop sounds like a bunch of hype. High speed trains are a thing already, as are MagLev trains, as are trains that go through tunnels, called the subway. The lack of their success in the US market has little to do with the technology itself and more to do with politics.
The addition of vacuum tunnels does little to alleviate the administrative / financial challenges of our struggling train systems. Vacuum has few practical upsides and a lot of downsides such as safety, reliability, and cost. It boggles the mind as to how investors are falling for this idea.
But perhaps marketing and branding are where Musk/Bronson's talents lie when it comes to high-speed rail? Please tell me otherwise, as I would love to see better rail infrastructure in the US.
> If some other car company would step up to the plate and try to complete with similar tech but offering higher reliability, I would go for a test drive immediately.
VW's commitment to the electric market with ID3 and ID4 is a big deal, given that the success of their Golf/Touareg platforms. VW/Audi fit and finish are second to none, along with their size and ability to compete at the entry-level price point.
"East Africans are crushingly dominant in marathon running." To be more precise, East Africans from East Africa. The effect of biology dissipates in East African communities living abroad.
Please review your basic understanding of race as per my comments above. If you still think there are five races or whatever, you are living way in the past century.