I don't understand the obsession with asking chat GPT with what it wants and suggesting that is somewhat indicative of the future. It doesn't _want_ anything, but humans want to anthropomorphise it. When they do it just makes one think they have zero understanding of the tech.
We still don't have anything scarier than humans and I don't see how AI is ever scarier than human + AI. Unless AI is able to monopolise food production while securing server farms and energy production I don't see it ever having leverage over humans.
Disruption, sure, increased automation sure but humanity's advantage remains its adaptability and our AI processes remain dev cycle bound. There's definitely work that will done to reduce the dev cycle closer to real-time to make it able to ingest more information and adapt on the fly but aren't the techniques bound by CPU capacity given how many cycles it needs to bump into all its walls?
This kind of stack ranking was used at large investment bank (starts with M) about 10 years ago while I was working there as a C++ developer.
It resulted in a strategy where some teams have hired puffer people with the only purpose to have poor performance ratings assigned to them and let them go when the demand for such inevitably rose for such from HR.
This shielded the core team allowing them to focus solely on actual business requirements.
There were people in the office taking decent salary, doing barely anything with kind of no expectations of their performance whatsoever. Some were doing their masters, some hit the gym very hard, some were just chilling out.
This was my first lesson on how focus on tactical goals and metrics can fundamentally screw up the long term vision.
Globalstar having "weak" offshore and truly global coverage is because the present globalstar architecture is a bent pipe, a satellite needs to be simultaneously in view of a globalstar-run earth station and the end user terminal (handheld phone, data modem module with antenna, etc).
Globalstar in the serious two way satellite business has been a joke for 15+ years, everyone who needs something serious that'll work anywhere on the planet has implemented solutions with Iridium, or something else geostationary based for low data rate (inmarsat isatphone, if not needed for very high latitude services). Or of course the wide array of different types of Inmarsat medium speed much more costly data terminals for briefcase-size folding (BGAN terminals, etc), ground vehicles, ships and aviation.
One of the Inmarsat 3rd party RF/modem partners is now making a data terminal for the medium sized UAV market which is about 3.5 pounds of stuff total including the antenna and good for 200-300 kbps of data, albeit at a typically high inmarsat $ per MB cost.
Or with small ku/ka-band self aiming vsat terminals in radome (commonly seen on ships), which get costly, which are quickly having their market eaten by starlink's much higher speeds and lower costs.
The value of globalstar at this point is probably in its spectrum licenses and legal entity's ability to operate, which given sufficiently deep pockets in capital resources, can be replaced with much newer and better tech in the L/S-band satellite-to-phone RF segment. I would bet good money that the people who are bankrolling this believe that they now have reliable access to two things:
a) relatively low $/kilogram cost for launches to LEO on some spacex competitor
b) low cost per unit mass production of satellites in an assembly line fashion, much as starlink satellites are currently churned out in large quantities.
Obviously they now know that what Motorola designed in 1997 for satellite-to-satellite data links in the same orbital plane for Iridium was the right way to go, I'd be shocked if a replacement Globalstar network did not implement a more modern version of the same. Same general idea as spacex's beta satellite-to-satellite laser links.
In the defense contractor/military/DoD world I have literally never seen a Globalstar terminal in use for anything anybody cares about. The only globalstar phones I've seen were in the hands of the staff of enthusiastic-but-utterly-telecom-clueless international aid NGOs, which not surprisingly completely failed to work in the location where they were trying to use them. They ended up packing them back into their boxes, putting them in a closet and buying Iridium handhelds.
> Partner has agreed to make certain payments to the Company for (i) 95% of the approved capital expenditures Globalstar makes in connection with the new satellites described
I translate this as meaning that they intend to forklift upgrade the entire network to something that they think can reasonably compete with Iridium (and now SpaceX/Starlink) in addition to other regional players like Thuraya, and also of course Inmarsat.
These days it might be better to teach new users about ‘git switch’ and ‘git restore’ (added in Git 2.23, released 2019-08-16) rather than the two overloaded meanings of the confusing ‘git checkout’ command.
Sometimes you want a company like Facebook or google deliver ads to your potential costumer, but you don’t want, that the ad company knows how much product you sold.
You know your ROI, but your ad company doesn‘t.
I heard multiple stories from amazon, that hey still let the ad campaign or targeting running even if you bought the product for random times so external companies could not get insight in your businesses.
If you got the washing machine you will not click to buy another. If you pay per click, it makes no difference how long you let the campaign running if it is targeted.
I used to work with a very smart man that I'm sure was some kind of secret genius. He's was that sort of tech gofer. Hardware, software, didn't matter, if there was a problem he'd solve it. Sort of guy you'd see carrying a thick ass SQL book around because he 'needed to learn it' to solve just one little problem. He built whole entire solutions for the company I worked at in his spare time that the company once tried to sell for 500k and at a previous company I heard he figured out a way for the pain mixing machines to save on paint or recycle it or something saving them 1.3 Mil a year. When Raspberry Pis first came out he was one of the first people I saw tinkering with them and he was in his 50's doing it just for fun, I think he ended up using it to open and close his garage door from work or something just to scare his wife.
That sort of guy. Well he once told me something about executives and upper managers working for corporations that I have never forgotten. He said to me, and of course I am paraphrasing:
"Change gives the illusion of progress". I asked him what he meant and he responded with something to the effect of "They have the habit of changing big things every 5-10 years on purpose to make it look like they are productive, and to justify their own roles, one guy will come in and 'cut costs', the new guy after him will 'invest'".
OT but does anyone else find their M1 Mac to have very bimodal performance? I have an M1 Macbook Pro (2020 model) and in general it's very fast. It's certainly the fastest web-browsing machine I've ever used.
But when I overload it (dev servers running, Google Meet, Notion / Slack all up) it goes full spinning-beach-ball and sometimes takes minutes to recover. It seems like in particular it's much too eager to give 100% of all cores to something like "npm build" and doesn't leave enough power behind to run the UI. For example it's really common for my music to skip/jump when my code compiles, which is not something I'd expect on any modern computer.
My Intel MacBooks before this and my Windows laptop never have these kinds of issues. They definitely got very slow at times, but never totally locked up.
The thing that I learned was that “essential” really meant “an acceptable loss of life so long as the profits keep flowing to the upper management class”.
This isn’t just demotivating, its dehumanizing, and it’s the reason so many people I work with now won’t lift a finger to help stop the collapse of society. Just the opposite in fact: many people seem to be looking for a match to start the fire.
Another useful resource, albeit more beginner level - Quant Economy course. It has both Julia[1] and Python[2] flavors. Recently they even added a small introduction to the data science[3]. And all of this - open-source project at GitHub[4]!
The world of medecine is degenerate. Sustainable, non addictive and non neurotoxic anxiolytics exists:
the #1 being opipramol the sigmaergic.
emoxypine (which btw cure hangover) and guanfacine are worth mentioning.
Maybe beta blockers to some extent. NMDA antagonists such as memantine have side effects but are not neurotoxic to my knowledge and there are milder ones such as mg-lthreonate.
afobazole is interesting but its pharmacology is too weird to be sure. Etifoxine is revolutionnary, it double axon length growth rate so ironically a great cure to benzo neurodamage. its acts on the mitochondria benzodiazepine receptor. It's unclear to me wether it is subject to a tolerance effect and if so if it is lower. Also etifoxine can interact badly with other drugs on the liver.
Note that there exists ultra-atypical mechanisms, such as inositol megadose or tofisopam but they are not firstline.
So yeah, basically opipramol and guanfacine should be what humans take as first line. Glycine is a nice obvious augmentation (kinda absurd that people forget about the second inhibitor neurotransmitter in the brain, especially since the effect feel nice and doesn't really lead to tolerance).
if you have benzo neurodamage, take magnesium lthreonate which is a very potent synaptotrophic.
also fun fact: the benzo cartel was so strong it was the most prescribed drug in the world, all classes, in the 70s
Doesn't that make UST a derivative of LUNA? The price of UST when it is below $1 should be equal to the expected percentage that LUNA falls during the time it takes to convert your UST to LUNA and then sell that LUNA. Since doing that actually inflates the LUNA supply there is no point at which LUNA should stop falling (absent other value propositions) and therefore UST should always be below $1 and so LUNA should inflate away.
I'm probably missing something, but stable this is not.
We still don't have anything scarier than humans and I don't see how AI is ever scarier than human + AI. Unless AI is able to monopolise food production while securing server farms and energy production I don't see it ever having leverage over humans.
Disruption, sure, increased automation sure but humanity's advantage remains its adaptability and our AI processes remain dev cycle bound. There's definitely work that will done to reduce the dev cycle closer to real-time to make it able to ingest more information and adapt on the fly but aren't the techniques bound by CPU capacity given how many cycles it needs to bump into all its walls?