I instinctively want to agree with you, but isn't it possible that throwing orders-of-magnitude more engineers at these kinds of problems will eventually get them solved, but right now nobody is doing that because the hardware is too expensive (and the market thus perceived to be too small)?
I think robotics is a field where there are magnitudes of more engineers than required. Look at the college enrolment in robotics vs the actual jobs that are there in market. I would say less than 10-20%(just anecdotal data, correct me if wrong) of the students who study robotics work in proper robotics jobs.
I would imagine that the bottleneck for breakthroughs is more the number of robotics Ph.D.s and robotics engineers with 5+ years of experience. A bunch of bachelor's grads aren't going to help advance the field if they don't even get a first job in the field.
As noted, there are a lot of robot engineers out-there. Maybe tossing them all together would help but massive engineering projects tend work when the outline of what to do is known and the many teams can fill-in the details. It doesn't seem like we're there now. Notably, every single entrant in Darpa's two legged robot failed to complete the course.
Also, if someone was throwing that many resources at a given problem and it was to sell pretty cheap robots, how would they get their money back? Lots of expensive tools sport expensive software.
Have you? Because the rationalists I know are genuinely well-adjusted people.
It's cheap and easy to make fun of the lesswrong community as a cringy cult of AI-obsessed neckbeards. And to be fair, the writing style on LW tends to support that impression. But I've found that most of the actual people within the rationality/AI safety/effective altruism communities actually don't fit that stereotype at all.
Yes, I was in the community for several years and then "left" but still spend a lot of time on its edges. I'm not trying to call them "neckbeards" (although I knew many of those too), only saying that there is an air of superiority without any actually radical content.
I consider EA separate but related, and it definitely qualifies as staking out a superior position within the constraints of liberal morality.
Most proposals in this direction (e.g. Glen Weyl's "Radical Markets", [1]) make reasonable exemptions for basic personal needs, so people don't get thrown out of their (modest) homes or lose their personal belongings unexpectedly. The point isn't to kick you out of your village, it's to make speculative investments in real estate unattractive.
"Second most popular language in the area" is a gross distortion of reality. It would make zero sense for a local police officer to choose to yell at local protestors or local colleagues in a non-native language that carries significant stigma in HK.
It's not a "gross distortion of reality" to question a interpretation a clip in a way that you disagree with, especially since you lack the context as well. It doesn't change how little evidence there is that Chinese officers were secretly policing Hong Kong.
The latent space of type design choices is large but very much finite, and concepts like "warmth" consistently refer to features like large curves, low stroke contrast, deliberate imperfections (that evoke physical reproduction) etc. I'm very confident that this would hold up to a randomized trial.
In this case, "warmth" refers mostly to the rounded corners and unique design quirks, which are meant to imply "I was crafted in analog by a seasoned master draftsman, not merely constructed from sterile geometric shapes by some hipster on a Macbook."
Whoa I grew up Mormon and have never once heard of this script. Super interesting. There is so much Church history that they don’t teach because it’s weird in contemporary light, and this is a great example of that.
There is a ton of info about the church that isn't widely known in Mormon circles. The CES letter does a good job covering tons of it
https://www.cesletter.org
yeah for sure, it's definitely by design. My family is quite deeply intertwined with the church, going back several generations, so it's always very interesting to see weird ways the Church tried to embed themselves. The state of Deseret and the Mormon uprisings are some of my favorite trivia to lay on people who aren't familiar with the Church and how wild it's history actually is.
Tai Le also has similar characters but some of them in the writing do no match the Tai Le Script alphabet. I.e. the cursive y with a dot in the middle or the character that looks like "-|"
Well, in a world where users had to have fully funded their accounts before making any orders, the clearinghouse would have nothing to worry about. So it's not exactly independent from whether end users are using margin.
It looks like RH let hordes of new users onto the platform and allowed them to put in GME orders before having those users' cash in the bank. Now the clearinghouse sees the volatility, throws up its hands and goes "listen RH, no more of these crazy GME orders from you until you have the cash to pay for them". Understandable – but that should be RH's problem, not that of its users.
What's not OK is RH's sledgehammer solution of disabling buying for all users, even those whose accounts are fully funded, not to mention force-selling people's shares against their will. IMHO they deserve all of the anger and lawsuits currently directed at them. (Edit: unless, of course, they are only force-selling stocks that were bought on margin in the first place, and if their T&C let them do that, in which case ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
The clearing house doesn't know who is trading on margin and who isn't. They don't have visibility into the brokerage's interactions with their clients. They can't "only allow trading for non-margin accounts".
No, but RH knows, and could make that distinction if they wanted to. RH is punishing margin and non-margin users alike until it has enough cash again to resume making orders.
To be clear, the RH T&C very broadly protect them in case of any arbitrary service interruption, so on paper they're probably entitled to do whatever they want. But at the end of the day, it was them who got caught with their pants down because they went too far in their UX/risk tradeoff, and now users are paying the price and are understandably pissed.
I'd like to add: org-mode is overwhelming, so just take it easy. Set up a notes folder, sync it to the web, and just use org as a plain markdown/todo list editor for a while. Perhaps add org-roam (like vimwiki with backlinks). Then, only if you feel the need to, give org-capture and/or the calendar/agenda features a try. Don't force yourself to use some obscure feature just because it's there in the manual on page 587, or because you saw someone on Youtube rave about it.
I switched to Doom Emacs about two years ago and while I miss the insane performance and simplicity of vim sometimes, the positives overall outweigh the negatives once you get over the initial differences (workspaces, command names, etc.).
That sounds rather positive. Still 'it was not the dream'?