It says "Weather: Partly cloudy, 72°F". Normally, I'd ask "where" (not here in New England!) ... but in this case, "when"? Is this the weather from 40 years ago also? (and if so ... I guess "where").
> taking actions that reduce the difference between predictions and reality, effectively minimizing prediction errors
Since you can't change reality itself, and you can only take actions to reduce variational free energy, doesn't this make everything into a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I guess there must be some base level of instinct that overrides this; in the case of "I think that sabertooth tiger is going to eat me" you want to make sure the "don't get eaten" instinct counters "minimizing prediction errors".
Yep. Essentially take risks, expand your world model, but above all, don’t die. There’s a tension there - like “what happens if I poke the bear” vs “this might get me killed.”
When TWA Flight 800 went down over Long Island in 1996, there were at the time multiple witness statements of a "streak of light" which had been reported (and later discounted by the investigation) as a possible missile.
Although the odds are incredibly slim, I wondered around the time if it could have actually been a meteorite striking the aircraft, passing through the fuel tank and causing the explosion. Presumably it would have been moving very quickly, might have looked like a missile to an observer, and wouldn't have left any shrapnel debris/marks in the wreckage.
I would imagine that the space debris mentioned in the article would be a lot less dense and moving much more slowly (relatively speaking) than a meteorite at the impact with the aircraft.
I think Customs is on to that -- that was how Saddam Hussein got the precision parts of his "supergun" out of Europe into Iraq, the parts were all labeled as oil industry related.
While that is to circumvent arms export control, which may be executed by customs officers, but is mostly a topic for special departments, often requiring government permission.
Isn't there not some contractual agreement between the VCs and the founders? (I understand that a non-compete might not apply [in CA], but taking VC money is a little different that simply getting hired).
Were I a Windsurf investor, I'd be pissed right now and calling my lawyer.
the founder is on a vesting schedule set with the vc. walking away forfeits his ownership in the company (not sure of the specifics of this weird deal, but this is true in 99% of situations) which returns his ownership to the VCs either directly or functionally.
the only reason he'd walk away is because he thinks other opportunities are higher EV. if he believes this, a) the investors investment is likely worth virtually 0 anyway and b) if it's not, removing a leader who doesn't want to be there probably increases P(success) for the company and further increases the value of the investment.
founder departure isn't good for the narrative, but it's a symptom of an investment going bad, not often a cause.
Presumably the founder(s) is/are getting a better deal by walking away in this case. If they've been through a few round of funding, they may have been diluted to the point when this sort of exit is better (for them).
