I said "without risk of lawsuits", and that phrase is doing a lot of work. Also, you're looking at it only from the employee's side.
Multiple statements can be true at once:
An ordinary employee who is just doing their job and hoping to continue doing their job can be laid off for any number of reasons that are outside of their control. The most common of these is company financial performance, which is both completely invisible and completely uncontrollable for an ordinary employee. Behind the scenes, the decision-makers in these layoffs have very scrupulously designed them to ensure that the people deciding who is laid off have no knowledge of an employee's membership of anything that might be construed as a protected class. This is why they often look so illogical.
A manager who has a problem employee can have a terribly difficult time getting rid of that employee in a way that is legal. My boss had one such problem employee, who did literally zero work after being hired. When my manager had an experienced engineer pair program with him, he literally had to be told what to type, keystroke by keystroke, to get him to produce anything. When my boss called him on this, he produced a doctor's note saying he was depressed and went on disability. Short-term disability can last up to a year, and you cannot fire someone on disability without a paper trail that says "You fired someone on disability, you knew they were on disability, and that is a protected class." Now your lawyers have to argue in court that the fact they were on disability had no bearing on why they were fired.
A person who takes the law as a tool with which to screw others over will do a better job screwing people over than the employee who is just trying to do their job and incidentally wants to keep it, or the manager who is just trying to provide a supportive environment for their reports to do their best work. Because that's what they're paying attention to. If you've got a lawyer combing over case law and statutes to understand the fine points of what you can and cannot be fired for, you can act in ways that ensure that you will win a big payout if you are ever fired. These ways probably bear no resemblance to what our notions of a "good employee" or even a "decent human being" are. But they are effective at collecting a paycheck, potentially from multiple employers at once, and being able to collect a bigger paycheck if your employer tries to get rid of you.
I’ve found the complete opposite as recently as last week. When I ask a deep question about a book it will hallucinate whole paragraphs of bogus justification and even invent characters
The LLM just working on its own is just generative intelligence. You have to ground it if you want the real stuff. The Kindle app has the text of the book and I'd want it to put that in the LLM context.
I hold some RIVN and I'm wondering why they're spending resources on custom silicon instead of using something off-the-shelf. What is their advantage here? Can they hire the right people? Can they ship enough units to pay for it?
Those are my bearish questions. On the bullish side, the VW deal shows that they're willing and able to license part of their platform, so possibly have a big chance to recoup costs and maybe turn a profit just on that side, which justifies a big software + autonomy investment.
If their idea is both novel and useful, and if it actually works, and they can actually produce it, then: They can sell it to other automakers.
(GM has made a lot of cars with their own transmissions. And at various times, they've supplied -lots- of them to other automakers all over the world. They've made a lot of money doing this.
Someone's gotta build the machine vision/control systems for all of these self-driving cars; that someone may well be Rivian.
It's not as sexy as something like a new convertible might be, or a $40k self-driving electric car, and a consumer might not even know that the new car in their driveway has expensive Rivian parts buried inside, but that future can be very profitable for them.)
Oh, I think everyone missed this. Rivian is betting Elon made a big mistake by designing FSD to be strictly for Tesla. Rivian are doing FSD to license it out to other manufacturers. They're planning to open a new market.
Just to put the market into perspective, the UK was looking to build an undersea cable to push power from Morocco but canceled it [1]. That cable would have provided somewhere around 8% of the power to the UK and the whole project was slated to cost 25bn pounds (~$33b USD). Imagine sahara solar shipping could provide that but also supply (cheaper) to Spain, Italy, etc. As the tech gets better and cheaper the Americas could become customers too. Suddenly Timbuktu becoming an energy hub for the world doesn't sound as crazy as, well, it sounds.
Less demand these days, In 2015 when it launched there was lot more drive to move to the cloud, lift and shift was the industry mantra. By 2024 the kind of orgs with >100 PB have already moved to cloud or have no plans to do so.
The current solution is we can bring our own devices and reserve ports on a AWS Data Transfer Terminal. It costs $300-500/hour USD for a 100 GbE bandwidth so not really cheap.
While AWS is stopping doing devices for migration (not economical at low volumes these days). They however still support physical transfers so customers can pack their own planes so to speak with hard disks to the AWS terminal.
Supports MPS (Metal Performance Shaders). Using something that skips Python entirely along with a mlx or gguf converted model file (if one exists) will likely be even faster.
I suspect you’re missing something important- not surprising since Wim is a really unclear teacher. The low oxygen and/or high co2 causes your body to panic and you are supposed to use that as a stimulus to gradually train conscious control of your heart rate and stress response and calm yourself down. This is where the benefit comes from, not the short term physiological panic itself, whose symptoms you are describing. In fact, those symptoms should go away entirely when you learn to calm the panic and consciously control your autonomic nervous system. This then also primes you mentally to be able to go into ice water, which is also a large stimulus to learn to calm, plus trains your brain to more easily jump into anything difficult. All of this takes months or years of consistent practice to gradually develop a relatively permanent sense of calm and internal strength among other things, and is really just a simplified form of tantric tummo meditation.
I'm not sure. I figured out most of that from taking Wims online class, and through years of personal practice and experimentation. I found that I was able to pick up a lot more by watching Wims body language and actions in videos, that he never directly explains, but I am not sure everyone could pick those up.
Ultimately, Wim's stuff is mostly based on tummo and other Vajrayana/Tantra yoga practices, and you can find both books and in person teaching locally in most places that cover these things. Wim never even explicitly mentions this, but effectively what he is is a yoga master that has developed yet another new system of yoga. Before the 'Ice Man' stuff he had even developed and written about other yoga innovations he had come up with.
Another thing worth mentioning is that while Wim is truly a master at his own method, he tries to rationalize everything with a scientific backing, but he has absolutely zero understanding of what he is talking about, and it's all nonsense. I have a biomedical background, and have developed some of my own theories about how his stuff is actually working physiologically and psychologically, plus there is some academic research out there you can read both on his methods and Tummo itself- but ignore everything he says about that, he doesn't even understand the basics.
Also, ignore everything he says about putting breath pressure up in your head/ears- absolutely never do that, as it can cause tinnitus, and the methods work fine without it.
Some will argue that consumption drives production but according to the common definition children don’t contribute to GDP.
Assuming governments are going to address population growth/decline then it’s a choice between incentivising births or issuing visas.
Even in countries that have free healthcare births are in decline so it’s not the cost of children alone that is causing this situation. I would argue it’s the economic crutch called immigration.
reply