I think one of the key differences is that math is abstract whereas CS is relatively concrete.
CS examples are often easy to picture and understand the motivation for. You can use tools to visualize or play around with them and test them.
Math gets abstract so fast you have to spend a week of research to even understand the problem statement. The the motivations themselves can be completely unclear until you have a lot of context.
I majored in math (B.S.) and upper level math is completely foreign to me.
A human reader for a popular product is generally a paid actor who reads the script nearly verbatim, not a domain expert, so it has no bearing on the technical quality of the script.
I can see them as a shared fate for a couple reasons:
* the obvious one is Elon - both valuations are largely propped up on belief in Elon. Whenever he falters, his companies that are speculation-based (all of them) will take a hit
* Elon pitched SpaceX as an AI company. Tesla needs better AI because they keep sending signals that they won't be at L5 anytime soon, and Tesla's valuation is still very speculative[0]at least in part due to the race to L5 autonomy. i.e. Tesla will need better AI , and SpaceX is that natural fit (on paper, at least, I'm not sure SpaceX has any useful AI for any use case, let alone self-driving).
[0] Tesla's PE ratio of is still 30x massively out of line with it's actual earnings and ~30x the American automotive industry.
And since I won with an age, company, and title that is literally me right now... Well, I'm not exactly sure what to do with it information but some internalization is in order.
I'm simply impressed they're releasing at all. This has to be literally the worst 6 month time window in the last 20+ years to launch a new computing device at scale and have to build the vendor contracts and inventory from zero.
Yeah, I imagine Linux support would be more like a supported Linux distro rather than generic Linux support. Something like SteamOS but with kernel anti-cheat and secure boot from the start.
Big question is whether they can make craching the anti-cheat it hard/unpredictable enough that the publishers will trust it. If the publishers release such a platform and someone releases a live distro that can crack it with 3 mouse clicks, that's a lot of wasted effort.
I have no idea how effective the Windows anti-cheat is, but I imagine that Linux tooling in general is going to make it harder to lock a user out of controlling their own machine.
Even though I balked at the Steam Deck prices on the recent inventory restock, as they were up ~30% presumably due to the same hardware shortages, I got one anyway. Prices won't drop anytime soon and if any for-profit organization has earned my loyalty, its Valve.
When I used it I was somewhat incredulous that I could simply exit Steam mode have an actual Linux desktop environment, where I could literally do what I wanted. It was my computer, a proper general purpose computing machine, and it was (willingly* in my control. No sneaky root needed.
People want to do X, so the metric is how much X can be done.
Everyone is over-complicating the explanation. The answer for "why are we fixating on this bad metric" is almost always the same pattern.
Broad audiences need simple metrics to talk about. If the metric itself requires nuance, it's hard to communicate and hard to reason about. It's easier to push the need for nuance from understanding the metric itself down the road to where the metric is applied, which allows everyone to ignore it in immediate conversation.
> I've had to spend week and a half battling Gmail daily email account limits sending batches of 500 emails just to notify people in her address book, receiving hundreds of responses. Her memorial was attended by hundreds of people.
I love this story, because I had the same experience. When my dad passed, I had the same 500 email limitation, and had to send out multiple waves of emails through Gmail. He was loved by so many people!
Yawing seems like it must be adventurous, the contagious part not so much.
Even the mention of a yawn can trigger it.
Perhaps we are almost always in a state of needing a yawn, but the trigger is seldom met, and seeing or hearing about it is enough to make our brain go "oh yeah I forgot about that".
Perhaps yawning is actually underdeveloped and an ideal human would yawn at regular intervals without any prompting.
I know this guy from his videos over the years on hiking topics, like how to safely purify water with the minimum fuel and how to pack calorie efficient food.
His videos are incredibly well researched, very in-depth, and absolutely zero fluff. Very much feels like his cycle is to get intrigued by a topic, spend a year deep diving into everything that's published, extrapolate what he can from there, then summarize it in a 1 hr video.
So if the top 10% is $2m net worth, then what's the 1%? Are we supposed to mentally extrapolate?
I hate when only part of the criteria are provided. Arrives like this need a table. If they don't have it, it calls into question whether they should be writing the article.
Preserving more than one lineage and providing a cohesive family name isn't practically easy, and society did not go that direction, and that likely isn't a coincidence.
Discarding names doesn't preserve lineage. If you need a book to trace the names, then the point of using a name for lineage has failed.
> The traditional approach is for women to keep their maternal name and discard their paternal name on marriage while men do the opposite
It sounds like this scheme is "men keep one name lineage, women keep another".
Which, IMO, has the practical drawback of not identifying the current family unit. Lineage was important, but so was gathering all folks together into a household. When taxes, religious ceremony, etc. occurred, there was one household name on the roster responsible. This was particularly important in societies where men held certain rights for the household.
It hails from when family lines were important, and you can practically only have one line reflected in a name. Unsurprisingly, most societies considered the male's name to be the dominate lineage of interest, although that doesn't hold true 100% of the time.
More about me: http://bradconte.com/about
My reading list: * tptacek * sdevlin * NateLawson * sweis * cryptbe * moxie * pbsd * cperciva * daeken * tytso * andrewbinstock (editor of drdobbs) * FiloSottile * matttproud