I think Fabi is licking his chops thinking he can now finally be a world champion since Carlsen is out and Ding maybe won't be too hard to best. He predicted lots of lines in the match or saw better ones from his commentator chair (granted the eval bar helps a lot). But you are right he will have to take some risks probably.
I would want a way to view all the slides for a particular deck together, but here it seems I can only click a slide and see just that slide, no way to go back or forwards. I know in some cases the full deck may not be available but often there is more than one that we should be able to page through.
Who knows. The point is, if when not restricted you get a ton of db connections, then any restriction on that almost definitely means you are imposing a bottle neck. The only way this would not be the case is if it was trying to create db connections when it didn't need them, unlikely.
>Sidenote here: one thing I found but didn't mention (the reason I put in the pooling, both in Python and pgbouncer) is that otherwise, under load, the async implementions would flood postgres with open connections and everything would just break down.
Doesn't this prove that async is waiting for connections when you put a limit on it? The only way async wins is if it is free to hit the db whenever it needs to.
I had to go back and look it was a while back, it took longer than I remembered it. The initial reach out was in May 2011. I had some initial conversation with them in May and June, sent them some overview of the company, etc. Then didn't hear back for a while. In December 2011 conversations started back up. By then the company had actually launched a product where they could see my business being useful. I sent them some small amount of data as a sample. I had actually proposed a simpler lower cost proposal of them just purchasing the data they wanted and not the business or acquiring me to work there. Anyway sometime at beginning of Feb 2012, things started to move faster and then it was done by beginning of March 2012. So in my mind/memory it was really January 2012 to beginning of March but really started in May 2011.
Not sure how MSFT usually handles it, but when I was acqui-hired (by a different large tech company, not quite on MSFT scale, but no trifle) I dealt almost exclusively with a person from Business Development. Maybe it is a bad sign that they had you discussing with people in their engineering group directly. Sounds like they were gathering data from you with no real plan to acquire. Then again every company may do it differently.
For me, there were some questions about my technology, but not a lot. Mostly we agreed on terms, and then they came up with a 40 page contract :) (the bus-dev guy said they don't really treat a small acquisition like mine that much differently than a larger acquisition in terms of contract verbiage). I had my lawyers (no I did not have any before this offer), review it.
But overall I felt that someone, who later I'm pretty sure turned out to be the CEO, had told their Business Development guy, just acquire this thing (and bring him along if you can), so they just went about doing that and it came out ok.
By the end of the stock market downturn of 2002, stocks had lost $5 trillion in market capitalization since the peak.[39] At its trough on October 9, 2002, the NASDAQ-100 had dropped to 1,114, down 78% from its peak.[40][41] Many online shopping companies, such as Pets.com, Webvan, and Boo.com, as well as communication companies, such as Worldcom, NorthPoint Communications and Global Crossing, failed and shut down.[42][43] Others, such as Cisco, whose stock declined by 86%,[43] and Qualcomm, lost a large portion of their market capitalization but survived, and some companies, such as eBay and Amazon.com, lost value but recovered quickly.
Silly to look at % down from ATH when we had a massive bubble that peaked and popped. If you look at return overall, crypto beats ALL stock market investmets.
What we need is more data. What is the % of Covid-19 cases that require hospitalization (and are people actually going to hospitals when they don't need to?) ? Is it 20x that of flu or 2x? We need random testing throughout the population to know true mortality rate and herd immunity.
It's pretty ridiculous and has a ton of just bizarre stuff you have to read through (and do!) to even get to something remotely interesting.
One of the first projects I "assigned" to myself when learning to program was to create a 3d environment and be able to scale, rotate, translate objects in 3d. It was easy and fun because I got to choose the language, the rules, etc.
This assignment makes me cringe a bit because there are a lot of hoops to jump through. But yeah, I guess, no pain no gain or something like that :)
Is this foresight a function of the CEO themselves or more of being in that position (ceo of a technology company). In other words, being in that role you have time and resources to think about "what is next?" also this is somewhat expected from the board and investors.
How much of their insight comes from others (eg. senior staff, acquisition targets, etc.) and how much from their own noggin so to speak?
Or a better way to ask this might be, how would one go about replicating this insight if one is not a CEO of a tech company? What resources would I need to pull in, who should I be talking with?
Do you think MCAS worked well in the event of a failed angle of attack sensor? I mean ignore fucking "stability" semantics.
Also this: "The MCAS deflects the horizontal stabilizer four times farther than was stated in the initial safety analysis document..[19] Due to the amount of trim the system applies to the horizontal stabilizer, aerodynamic forces resist pilot control effort to raise the nose." Wikipedia
Lol, these things are big !!! I had the scale all wrong. When I saw the pictures and video I thought this plane was something one or 2 people could hold (6-12 ft wing span). Then I saw people talking about 600kW and I was like, no freaking way can you get that much power from a plane that size.
• 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002.
These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from
February to November 2002.3
• One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal
manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and
parts sectors.
• Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000
jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.4
• More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500
Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
• Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs,
with the highest losses occurring in California (19,392 jobs lost), Texas
(15,826 jobs lost), Ohio (10,553 jobs lost), Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
Illinois (9,621 jobs lost), Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost), New York (8,901
jobs lost) and Florida (8,370 jobs lost). Sixteen states lost at least 4,500
steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel
prices.
• While insufficient data exist at this time to measure the precise role steel
tariffs played in causing such significant price increases, relative to the
other factors, it is clear that the Section 201 tariffs played a leading role in
pushing prices up. Steel tariffs caused shortages of imported product and
put U.S. manufacturers of steel-containing products at a disadvantage
relative to their foreign competitors. In the absence of the tariffs, the
damage to steel consuming employment would have been significantly
less than it was in 2002.
• The analysis shows that American steel consumers have borne heavy
costs from higher steel prices caused by shortages, tariffs and trade
remedy duties, among other factors. Some customers of steel consumers
have moved sourcing offshore as U.S. producers of steel-containing
products became less reliable and more expensive. Other customers
refused to accept higher prices from their suppliers and forced them to
absorb the higher steel costs, which put many in a precarious (or worse)
financial condition. The impact on steel-consuming industries has been
significant.
In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel
industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial
spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs
should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered."
Oh and the chart they publish of prices from 2002 shows the following:
HR Sheet metal: went from about $220 to $300 ($ per ton) an increase of 36%
HD Galvanized metal: went from $330 to $460 an increase of 39%
CR Sheet metal: went from $305 to $405 an increase of 32%
>People / companies like to have the ability to dispute the outcome of a transaction
Crypto currency doesn't stop this. You can dispute cash transactions and you can dispute crypto transactions. If I pay for something in crypto and it is not delivered, I can sue, complain, etc just as I would with a credit card. What you can't do with crypto is run to visa and have them magically reverse the charge (possibly screwing over the merchant). But dispute away my friend.
I feel like the Chevy logo and branding didn't help much with Volt sales. They could have done something similar to what Toyota did with Scion. Create a unique logo and branding.
Create a high tech brand that isn't associated with "Chevy". Is that just me?
