Very very few things being claimed by the average person fall off immediately, almost all of them scale such that you are still netting an increase, even if that increase is less pronounced.
In fact, I can't think of a thing where this isn't the case. Can you provide an example?
All of the people who would get jobs if it wouldn't cut them off of their free/cheap housing and food stamps? You either qualify for subsidized housing or you don't (at least in my state).
Except that in the situation described, this wasn't "I am reinvesting in my business to turn a higher profit in the future" but rather a case of "I am buying something that will not improve my bottom line in order to avoid paying taxes."
"Fair" is so subjective in the context of taxation it's virtually meaningless. You can't assume other people share the same assumptions rolled up into the word.
That's great and all, but it's already been done by much more simplistic algorithms by abusing the mechanical nature of the game.
Some units are balanced by the fact that no human can manipulate them to their full potential. Once you remove that restriction, the AI can abuse the speed of execution, acting as a force multiplier that will cover any strategic lackings.
If they want DeepMind to really "play" Starcraft in the traditional sense, i.e. make it win based on decision making and reasoning about the game, then they'll need to artificially rate limit its APM.
hmm, actually i don't think i caught how much your speeds are actually reduced.
Its throttled until you've used less than 50% of what you pay for for at least 15 minutes.
That threshold is so low specifically so that a line doesn't end up cycling between throttled and not every interval if its 79% once then 81% the next, etc.
It seems obvious to me that Comcast et al are vastly overselling beyond their capacity.
They then market these strategies as methods to ensure quality to their customers, when their customers bought a service that was misadvertised as having enough capacity for them in the first place.
Just like airlines - they sell more tickets than they have seats, because they figure they can squeeze more profit out of the people who paid for a ticket but didnt show up, then when everyone shows up, someone has to get bumped.
I believe it is that if you use more than 80% and someone else is using 60%, IF throttling occurs on the network, the person using 60% will have priority over you.
For what they are doing, a very strong background in data structures and memory management is required, at least in so far as the code running on the rocket itself.
Very few people learn that on their own, and even fewer learn it to the proficiency level they need.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask if you think that because you've had very, very few people without a degree apply for that kind of position? Your ad is ensuring that you'll never see the people that have learned it. As a self-taught programmer, I don't apply to listings with this requirement, even if I have everything else they're looking for, because it's just as much an indicator for me as it is for you. I just want you to be aware that you're excluding a very special niche group that could do wonders for any business.
I don't have application demographics in front of me, but I'd wager that you're correct, most people without a degree don't apply to that position.
However, that doesn't actually speak to what I was saying. My claim refers to the population of non-formally educated developers as a whole.
You might fall into the small portion of the population where you do have the requisite knowledge and skill. However, I think you're missing key element to recruiting, that took me a long time myself to understand.
Recruiting is a numbers game. Finding good people is hard, but the best way to find them is A) have competitive compensation, and B) volume. If the signal to noise ratio of college educated applicants is 50:1 and the ratio for non-college educated applicants is 100:1, then as long as there isn't a shortage of college applicants, it improves the recruitment process to require a college degree.
I think you're missing fapjacks point. its not that you're not letting a few people in that are just as capable, its that you're not finding all of the top talent possible. looking around my organization I would say of the people that one out of every 50 people who are hired are observably way more talented than all of the other engineers in the org (ignoring years of experience and strictly speaking about talent + measured output). half of those do not have degrees whereas 90% of engineers in the org do.
so if youre looking for top talent, you are limiting yourself by a significant amount by only looking for people with degrees. looking further into this, if the top talent you do have doesnt have many people to challenge them, then they will leave because they either feel like they arent progressing or feel like they get frustrated by the others not being able to contribute at a level that they expect.
It sounds to me like he's challenging the conceptual idea of a generation, which to be fair is a kind of difficult line to draw. Instead, he's saying that if you're 20-25, regardless of generation, you'll see things one way. 25-35 another, etc.
It really depends. As an early GenX, I find the generational boundary quite stark. I have more in common culturally with people 15 years younger than me than I do with people 5 years older (late Boomers).
Children generally don't enunciate as clearly as adults. Their speech is more difficult for a computer (or a human who doesn't know the language well!) to understand.
Incidentally, when I said "live on less than the average poor American", I meant in terms of material consumption. I have no car (75% of poor Americans do). I can't drink the water coming out of my tap. I have a small living space.
Americans believe everyone should have basic things like sanitation. Arguing that the poor somehow shouldn't just because India hasn't been as successful at infrastructure development isn't really a good argument.
To be explicitly clear, the question is this: Suppose there are concrete negative consequences to having ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted income below $14,500/year. What are those consequences? Why don't middle class Bulgarians and upper middle class Indians suffer them?
(I overemphasize the phrase "ppp-adjusted" since you, llllllllllll, and many other people in other threads seem to repeatedly ignore it.)
In fact, I can't think of a thing where this isn't the case. Can you provide an example?