"The key is ensuring that any future cuts at NASA are not indiscriminate. If and when Jared Isaacman is confirmed by the US Senate as the next NASA administrator, it will be up to him and his team to make the programmatic decisions about which parts of the agency are carrying their weight and which are being carried, which investments carry NASA into the future, and which ones drag it into the past. If these future cuts are smart and position NASA for the future, this could all be worth it. If not, then the beloved agency that dares to explore may never recover."
You pay an annual % tax on the value of your investments less debt as of January 1st. This means you still pay taxes if your assets lose value, too. It's a wealth tax that pretends to be a capital gains tax.
It doesn't pretend to be a capital gains tax at all. It's a tax on income from assets, which is in practice more or less a 'wealth tax' which is also why it's called the Dutch word for 'wealth tax' in the first place.
It is a tax on an assumed return on assets, determined as a set percentage of wealth. "Vermogensrendementsheffing" means a "tax on return on wealth", not on the wealth itself. In name it is not a wealth tax, but in reality it is, since the assumed return that is taxed has no relation to the true return. This relates to the recent decisions declaring this partially unlawful, see e.g. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/magazine/supreme-court-net...
The creator got started on TikTok doing weird history trivia with is wife and has started a podcast after that.
For my "going to sleep" podcasts, I use "The Indicator from Planet Money" (the ads are a bit distracting at times), "More or Less" (facts about numbers in the news), "Robot or Not" and "Ungeniused". All are long enough to fall asleep to, but interesting enough to start listening.
Paracetamol and alcohol is actually not a dangerous combination at all as far as the liver is concerned. That is why there is no warning against combining the two in the information leaflet that comes with it. Paracetamol is not toxic, but its intermediate metabolite NAPQI is. The enzyme that converts paracetamol into NAPQI is the same that breaks down alcohol, and it has a higher affinity for alcohol meaning that it will be too busy working on the alcohol to turn the paracetamol into toxic NAPQI.
Long-term alcohol abusers will develop more of this enzyme, so they are more likely to get liver damage from paracetamol though.
When you evaluate an ML approach, you should use one part of the data to train your model and a completely separate part to evaluate it. Otherwise, your model can just memorize parts of the data (or overfit in some other way), resulting in artificially high performance. Data leakage is when there is a problem in this separation and you somehow use information about the evaluation dataset in the model training process. The table in the article lists various examples. The simplest would be to just not have a separate evaluation set. A more subtle one is if you normalize your input data based on both the training and evaluation sets; this way the normalization will be better suited to the evaluation set than it should be if you had no knowledge of it, resulting in artificially high performance.
E.g. on Google if you search for "how to tie a tie", a little info box may pop up with step by step instructions. This content is taken from some website, but that website gets no page hits or ad revenue. Instead, Google gets to serve ads on the search engine results page.
(I don't know if this happens for this specific example, but Google does this for some searches)
Part of why sites participate in the infobox program is that in practice you do get quite a lot of hits from it: many people click through to see the answer in context.
Thanks for sharing. I would like to add the Artistoo framework (not mine), which is an easy to extend implementation of the Cellular Potts Model in JS that you can also fiddle around with in the browser. It supports chemotaxis, movement of cells in reaction to nearby concentration of diffused chemicals. I have used this in a project with genetic algorithms to evolve cells that "hunt" for food.
"The key is ensuring that any future cuts at NASA are not indiscriminate. If and when Jared Isaacman is confirmed by the US Senate as the next NASA administrator, it will be up to him and his team to make the programmatic decisions about which parts of the agency are carrying their weight and which are being carried, which investments carry NASA into the future, and which ones drag it into the past. If these future cuts are smart and position NASA for the future, this could all be worth it. If not, then the beloved agency that dares to explore may never recover."