I worked for Fetch Robotics (now defunct), and there were a bunch of people (especially in management) who would constantly reference the Mean Girls "stop trying to make fetch happen" line in company-wide slideshows.
A couple of times it was cute... but they took it too far in my opinion. And sadly the company was bought out, and now they too have decides to "stop trying to make Fetch happen" (yes, officially it was bought out, but not for the actual robots part).
> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.
And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?
I live in the Bay Area, and I think this needs a little more exploration. You are correct both in that PG&E spreads the costs around the state, and that San Francisco (and a number of other Bay Area cities) is exploring creating it's own utility and removing itself from PG&E (like Palo Alto already has done).
It is a near certainty that power rates would be cheaper for these cities if they removed themselves from the PG&E pool. Right now they look to be on the hook to help pay for all of the (long deferred) power line under-grounding that the recent state wildfires have proven is necessary. Much of that under-grounding is to get power into remote locations, and does nothing for most people (other than the implicit reduction of wildfires, which is a complicated subject).
But there is a second side to that coin: without the big cities full of people (which are relatively cheap to service), all of the needed under grounding costs are going to fall to rural California areas, and they simply don't have the population or finances to pay for that.
Personally I am in favor of some mixture. I would make the utilities all completely non-profit, with no investors to demand returns (the current system has perverse incentives). I would also start looking at some drastic limitations on where the public pays for power lines. Yes that would make some rural locations financial impossible to draw power to, but that would probably be a part of a real-plolitik re-evaluation of where people can afford to live. This is probably going to line up pretty closely with pushing people out of fire-prone places that should also be pretty much un-insurable anyways.
The way these things normally work is that the project starts with some sort of a grant. Then that grant pays for all of the costs of the project: peoples' salary, materials used, time on equipment, plus money for the buildings and administration (overhead).
In this case the time on the equipment would need to be included, both a portion of the cost of building/maintaining it, and probably the energy needed to run it. Even where the government is providing the grant (likely here), it still needs to be accounted for.
I don't have numbers for you, but I do know that every European I know is much more worried about card fraud than the Americans I know. One quick example is that the Europeans get very nervous when the waiter takes the credit card away from the table in the U.S.. This is just not done in Europe because there is a (at least perceived) history of skimming in much of Europe.
One big difference is that in the U.S. cardholders are largely protected from credit card fraud (not debit card fraud), so the card vendors have to take the risk and so have robust anti-fraud measures (both before and after payment). Largely it is the merchants who have to prove that there was no fraud. Whereas in Europe the burden of evidence (not proof) is with the cardholder.
Personally I think that these conversations are focused on the wrong thing. Facial recognition stands to be a great tool in spotting "the bad guys" so that appropriate measures can be taken. For example preventing people who have repeatedly been convicted of violence ("hooliganism") from entering sports stadiums.
The problem that is not being missed in the conversation about the technology is: who gets to decide who is excluded, how transparent to the need to be about this decision making process, and what is the course of appeals. Obviously the instance where MSG silently black-listed the lawyers representing their opponents in a court case is an obvious abuse that needs to be curbed.
I would propose that there be tiers: smaller venues only get dinged when their behavior is obviously bad (no need for formal systems, let people sue if it becomes a problem), mid tier need to post their rules, and large companies are subject to audits and formal rules about when they are allowed to blacklist people.
DEI statements are not about quotas. Anyone who was using them as quotas was acting illegally. But so far there has been no attempts at showing that that was the case anywhere (only people spouting off, like Charlie Kirks's statement about a theoretical black pilot).
While I worked at Apple a directive came out forbidding developers from adding more RAM to their systems without express upper-management permission. The reason was that the experience on stock-ram supported systems was getting really bad and management wanted the developers to feel the pain (so they would fix it). Note: dedicated compiler boxes were exempted from this (but still required management sign-off).
A similar directive came out about that same time forcing all managers to use the baseline phones, and limiting the upgraded models to only testing fleets, for about the same reason.
I was going to comment that any sort of script that you are using in multiple environments probably should have all of the paths completely written out. I usually try to do this myself as I have gotten burned by binaries from unexpected paths on new systems a number of times.
But then I realized that the point of this project is to make it easy to write scripts that can be used on multiple OSs... and that is going to make fully-qualified paths possibly a nightmare. Anyone know if these get put at `/bin/`?
Is this a meta-joke about links that don't prove what they are supposed to? If so, I don't really get it.
Most of the 2010s section is about some drama about managers/hosters. The only thing that is even remotely applicable is they fact checking a satirical website, and needing to add a "Labeled Satire" tag to clear up confusion around the intensions of the linked site (as opposed to combating people who use the article as an argument without labeling it as such).
The cmd+q is the "quit" command. And the convention in single-window apps (or ones that have a single unambiguous main window) is that the window only closes when the app is quit. So this is command you have to give.
For "document-based" apps (think almost anything where you open multiple files), the application can stay running even if there are no open windows. So you have both cmd+q and cmd+w available to you.
You can probably come up with some apps that don't cleanly fit these two, but that is what Apple has.
As to screen shot commands, it is a three-key chord because it is system-wide, and they did not want to step on any toes that the apps might have. And there are a few versions:
shift-command-3 takes the entire screen
shift-command-4 takes either a window or a section (press space bar to switch between them)
shift-command-5 opens a more menu-based system that includes a timer
Why 3, 4, and 5 (and not 1 or 2)... I don't know. Maybe there was something in those spots at some point.
Design is not the problem. Having foundry space to manufacture is the bottleneck. It is just all being sucked up (with AI needs being the big additional load).
And to be clear, the foundry space for CPUs/GPUs is not the same as for RAM, which is printed with much larger feature size in order to lower the costs.
My guess is that the are requiring this in order to reduce the amount of fraud there (I am sure there still is some, but...). Apple really does not want to be involved when someone can't get into the Taylor Swift concert that they paid some scammer a lot of money for the Apple Wallet ticket they got.
Having an authenticated developer account at least provides some level of speed bump to scammers, and a better starting point for the police.
If cap-and-trade held the same levels forever you would be correct. But all of the cap-and-trade systems I am aware of have a built-in lowering of the cap over time. So they start out doing nothing/very little, then ramp up to meaningful reductions over time.
The idea being both to make it easy to get people to agree today (the reductions are tomorrow's problem), and to allow time (and foresight) for industry to adapt to where things are going.
Public schools are not subsidizing charter schools. Rather per-student money travels with those kids to the school they are actually attending. So since the kids don't go to those schools, neither does the money.
I don't know what state you are in, and there are a number of them where the charter systems are absolute messes and have become fraud paradises (looking at you Florida), but other states things are much better.
Fo instance my kids are in charter schools in California. All charter schools here are required to have tiered lotteries to get in, and after siblings and teachers' kids, the first tier is always kids with an IEP (the problematic/expensive ones). And at my kids school we know one of the kids with a severe problems that the school has bent over backwards to provide the best environment for that little girl.
And every 4 years they have to re-apply for their charter, and one of the front-and-center numbers required for that is how many kids they kick out. And they got grilled on that (which our school passed with flying colors). The charters absolutely had to prove that they are doing things better than the local schools, and our school worked very hard to prove that (and had the numbers to do so). If they didn't, then their charter would have been cut (we heard about other schools that failed this grade).
So I am experiencing a well run charter school, inside a well policed system (California). If you are not, then make that one of the things you cast your vote on: regulations on where your school dollars flow to.
I will note that there is one important advantage that charter schools have: you have to make a choice to get into them. That means that the parents tend to be more involved in their kids' education (if only minority so), and so you get kids that are a bit more motivated to do well. This one area is unfair to the public schools.
Nearly nation wide enrollment at schools is down, and the funding methods for schools mostly are done on a per-student basis. So school budgets are getting smaller in absolute terms, so they have to get rid of a lot of the fixed spending (mainly schools).
Unfortunately, people hate it when you close their local school, and fight tooth-and-nail against it, but almost never fight for the funding needed to keep those schools open.
In the SF Bay Area almost all of the school districts are facing this. Oakland and San Francisco both had school closures canceled by parent revolts, but are still stuck with the budget shortfalls (and are handing out pick slips). One of the school districts in San Jose looks like they are going to make it through closing 5 elementary schools this year, but it has been a close fight all the way.
Given the (often ongoing) educational requirements, if you pro-rate it you still come out much below most positions with similar requirements. We absolutely under-pay teachers in virtually every public school.
My mother retired after working her entire career as a teacher, and I earned close to double her final salary my first year working in tech. She has her masters degree and I did not graduate college. And if you count the stocks I got at the end of that first year, it was over triple.
She was a special ed. teacher teaching emotionally disabled grade schoolers (including a first grader that tried to kill his grandmother with a tv power cord). There is no way that I worked harder than she did.
European aviation is particularly exposed to the shortage of jet fuel, relying heavily on imports from the Middle East. Around 75 per cent of Europe’s jet fuel imports come from the region, making any prolonged disruption especially problematic for its aviation industry.
I think you are mistaking "oil" (crude oil) as a straight stand-in for jet fuel. The former is a raw material (one that has a lot of "flavors"), whereas the latter is one possible product from refinement of that raw material. It should be noted that not all refineries are setup to produce jet fuel, and not all crude oil is viable for making jet fuel. I don't know the details about Europe's mix on refineries an d viable crude oil supplies.
As it happens, about 75% of Europe's jet fuel comes from the Middle East (I don't immediately have numbers for what of that goes through the Persion Gulf). That percentage puts it outside of the range you can correct with market changes (other than most flights don't fly... that is pretty drastic).
You are correct, but I should point out that Russia has described its Kinzhal missiles as hypersonic, when they are really more of a traditional ballistic missile fired horizontally. So very fast (Mach 10), but not as maneuverable as what the U.S. has been calling hypersonic.
Since the original story here does not provide many details, we can't know which side of that fence this falls on (assuming it is real).
A couple of times it was cute... but they took it too far in my opinion. And sadly the company was bought out, and now they too have decides to "stop trying to make Fetch happen" (yes, officially it was bought out, but not for the actual robots part).