they aren't being made whole by receiving "free credit monitoring" or a check for $12.83 18 months later either. maybe increasing the damages paid by the corporation is needed?
I had the opportunity to play Macbeth in my last year of undergrad, and would confidently speculate that Lang probably remembers that moment with the same fondness you do.
It’s a role that, under a conscientious actor, demands attention and introspection years (decades) after the curtain drops.
Imagine claiming undue credit for the works of Euler, Einstein, Michaelangelo, and hundreds of huge Cathedrals all over Europe, while disclaiming the constant bailouts from the taxpayer so that Capitalists never actually risk or lose money, and being blinkered to the fact that 'money' doesn't solve hard problems or do hard things, workers do.
Manhattan project? Taxpayer funded. Concorde? Taxpayer funded. Walking on the Moon? Taxpayer funded. What are you talking about.
> so that Capitalists never actually risk or lose money
If you think capitalists never lose money then you're not on this planet. Obviously money is lost all the time. There are lots of investors, lots of companies, and few winners. This is mad. Of course bailouts happen, and they're done by the state. Capitalism would let them fail.
> hundreds of huge Cathedrals all over Europe
In this case the church was the capitalist. They risked the capital that paid for the cathedral. Although it was fairly low risk, as building a cathedral is pretty well understood.
> Manhattan project? Taxpayer funded. Concorde? Taxpayer funded. Walking on the Moon? Taxpayer funded. What are you talking about.
In this case the state is the capitalist, although it's taking the money by force rather than with a risk/reward voluntary investment. The worker isn't doing this by him/herself.
Capitalism is not "when someone pays for something". By that logic when the USSR launched the Mir space station in 1986, because the state paid for it that made them capitalists.
> Capitalism would let them fail.
and yet ... Here we are. The state paying for things is Capitalism, and the state paying for this isn't Capitalism, in the same comment.
> The state paying for things is Capitalism, and the state paying for this isn't Capitalism, in the same comment.
I see what you mean.
In the first example: the context is we're talking about workers vs capitalists. The state is acting like the capitalist in that dichotomy for things like the Manhatten Project. The Manhatten Project wasn't a triumph of the ability for workers to do incredibly complex, expensive, risky projects. The money to do it came from somewhere else than the workers. So the Manhatten Project is not an example of workers over capitalists.
In the second example I'm not talking in the frame of "everything is either worker or capital" (which wasn't mine) and introducing the much richer, more dangerous, and more powerful third entity: the state. Because state bailouts are not an example of capitalism.
I don’t have any specific inside knowledge about Amazon, but I would hazard a guess that the first approach also provides better training material for the LLM.
Can anyone recommend documentaries about pre-Triassic life? I’ve seen the “Ancient Earth” short-form series, and keep up with PBS’s “Eons” on YouTube, but I still feel like this is a facet of earth’s history that is rarely discussed in science media.
Yep - same story here with Nuke (the old one, but then it happened again on the new one too). Got to global and it was a ghost town save for the same 5 man we ran into every night.
>If you’re curious about wealth impact on public schooling quality, see table 1 for a clear breakdown.
We weren't talking about wealth of households, we were talking about the amount of funding that goes into poorer areas vs richer areas.
I'm not sure you actually understand the charts you're sharing. What you linked shows an expected correlation between student performance (as well as teacher quality, both of which are combined to give schools an A+ score), and being in an area with more expensive homes.
while the lectures in they were encoding would definitely look fine with these settings, I have to question your baseline for quality if you’re watching full Hollywood movies encoded at CRF 30.
there isn’t an easy answer, as it’s always going to be dependent on the source you’re encoding from. That said, in my experience anything higher than CRF 25 on AV1 is noticeably compressed, even to a layman. I mostly work in 1080 and occasionally 2160, though.
i can’t remember the last project i worked on in native 720 (probably circa 2009?) and even now 720 is only part of my output pipeline if specifically requested by the client.
With respect, they said pollution is the icky part. I’m not aware of any major industries that are responsible for an appreciable amount of CO2 emissions and no other pollutants/icky stuff, but I’d love to be proven wrong about that.
reply