ER doctors and surgeons have the privilege of being able to watch live surgeries during training, and doing their first live surgeries with safe supervision. The first time a field medic is trying to save a life in a live situation, it’s rather likely that they don’t have any supervisor on hand, and that someone is actively trying to kill them.
That was really a fantastic read!
I think you’re misunderstanding their point here. They’re using “smart” in the sense of “an efficient method to achieve a specified goal”, where the goal in this case is “make more money”, and the method is “by whatever means possible”.
No matter how you twist it, what this person did is likely an efficient route for them to reach that goal. So in by the above metric, it is a “smart move”.
This is what people need to realise: Despite everything, the US still has a concept of free and fair elections (no national election has been blatantly called off or couped yet) and parts of the judiciary are still making a fuss about laws being broken.
While it may look bad now, remember that what we’re seeing is still miles from a full autocracy where elections are purely for show and the judiciary exists only to go after enemies of the state.
Just out of interest: Don’t you have any “catch-all” word for military personnel? Where I’m from the equivalent of “soldier” it typically used to mean “unspecified military personnel”.
I heard we recently developed an extremely effective jammer that completely disables communications and navigation equipment in the target aircraft. It’s called an AMRAAM, and I really hope a russian jet over NATO airspace eats one soon.
The fundamental difference to me, which makes me not see “a website with extensive docs and a download button” as marketing, is whether you need to seek it out or not.
If I need to seek it out myself, it’s not marketing, it’s simply “providing solid information” and “making your product accessible”, which is a whole different ballgame from “shoving your shit into peoples face in the hope that they’ll give you money”.
I think there’s a substantial difference between “supplying information about a product without shoving it in people’s face”, and what most people associate with “marketing”.
If a company putting up neutral, verifiable information about their product on their own webpage where I can find it by searching for something I’m looking for after reflexively scrolling past the ads counts as marketing, then yes, I “fall for marketing” all the time. However, what I typically associate with “marketing” involves me somehow being fed information about a product without seeking it out. Usually when that happens, I’ll actively look somewhere else.
Shame on you! If those poor kids facists could read they would be very upset!
“Not a marketing company” as in their business model is not centred around shoving ads in your face for money is how I read it.
Oh absolutely. As with all other infrastructure, there is a cost to be paid. However, when you look at an average to small river, even routing 10 % of the water via an osmosis plant before passing it to the sea is an absolutely massive volume. There’s also the point that you don’t want to build these things in large, meandering, flat river deltas. You want a large salinity gradient, which means relatively small, fast-running fresh water meeting the ocean more “suddenly” than what you get in a classical river delta is the optimal source here.
Because osmotic power has enormous potential in the sense that millions of cubic meters of fresh water is running into oceans all over the world every minute. If we’re able to get even a low-efficiency method of using the salinity gradient to generate power working then every place a river meets the sea is essentially an unlimited (albeit low-yield) power source.
This is tech that doesn’t rely on elevation (like hydropower) or weather conditions (like wind/solar) it’s stable and in principle possible to set up at pretty much any river outlet, which is great!
Exactly this. The whole premise of the tax system is based around the historically correct idea that you need to physically move goods in order to sell them, or physically be somewhere to sell services.
Companies like google are making buckets of money all over the world, and don’t need to tax a dime most places, because they have no physical presence there. This makes it pretty much impossible to compete with the international behemoths, because they have access to a munch of tax-free revenue, while a startup will typically be centred around wherever they’re based, where they also need to pay taxes.
It’s not deflection, it’s exactly their point. In a healthy economy, inflation is low but positive, and the same or lower than the general increase in wages.
The US (and a bunch of other places) are currently having a hard time because inflation outran wage increases. In many countries, this is back under control (wages are now outpacing inflation) and we’re pretty quickly catching back up.
Part of the major problem in the US is the complete lack of regulation and unionisation. When we had similar inflation in Norway, our wage increases nearly matched the inflation, and the past two years, the wage increases have been very high compared to inflation in order to “recover”. When you don’t have any system in place to enforce this kind of response to inflation, it just leads to the owning class getting a larger share of the pie (what has happened in the US).
I read in the news that the driver of the car was dragged out of the car and shot by bystanders.
It differs per community.
Good point, I’ll moderate myself and just state that I’ve never experienced it being a hard requirement in my field.
No it’s not. I have both published in a variety of scientific journals, reviewed for a couple journals, and turned down reviews for a couple journals.
No journal checks your “review history” before allowing you to publish. However, if you consistently turn down reviews from a journal, the editor is likely going to get annoyed and you will probably have a harder time publishing in that journal in the future.
Yep. At that point, why even bother taking the review? You’re not forced to do reviews. Never taking any is likely to negatively impact your career, but still… just decline the review if you’re going to use a LLM for it anyway. Have some dignity.
I’m just waiting for the point where essentially enough people have caught on to this tactic that the effect flips.
Now, when trump announces some policy that will harm a certain business, their stock tanks, a bunch of people buy the dip, the policy is called off, and the stock rebounds. There are probably already people that begin buying already once the policy is announced, in order to catch the dip.
If this continues, there could eventually be enough people trying to “buy the dip” that trump announcing a harmful policy causes a stock to jump, rather than dip. Which would be hilarious.
Oh, that would absolutely be great!
However, it’s worth noting that the common field medic is a far less qualified surgeon/doctor than the typical doctor in training that’s doing surgery at an ER under supervision. A field medics job is to pack wounds, apply chest seals, and do other critical life-saving work, while possibly under fire, so that the wounded survive until they get to a place where actual ER doctors can treat them.
As such, you need to give them some form of live training at doing those things, without requiring the resources it would take to train them to a point where it’s responsible to let them work on civilians at an ER under supervision. Basically, field medics work in the interim where you definitely need them in the field (significantly more qualified at saving lives than the common soldier), while you very likely don’t want them working on civilians in an ER (significantly less qualified than actual trauma surgeons).