• 0 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • I think it’s more about the web visitor cost. Handling traffic and API calls becomes a financial problem when there are a growing number of companies using bots to scrape data. Larger companies are moving their content behind paywalls, which acts as a bot filter, and have also identified that they can generate a revenue stream from subscriptions and API connections. Old content on the web is not deemed to have much business value, so it’s a decision of either charging for it or scrapping it.


  • There’s quite a difference between rapid prototyping on software/hardware versus the human body.
    Musk’s approach to developing engineering advances has worked well in the software, aerospace, and vehicular industries. Development on inorganic things is much more predictable, we can isolate variables, and it is easier to understand cause & effect. If you screw up some software on an inorganic system, your program might crash, your rocket might explode, or your car won’t start. These risks can be anticipated and costed fairly well, therefore rapid prototyping has an acceptable risk/reward ratio in that environment.

    The human body, on the other hand, is an extremely complex system that we still don’t fully understand. Each person is a unique variation on the model and that changes over time depending on upbringing, diet, exercise, and life experiences. Applying the same engineering approaches from inorganic industries has a much higher risk once you cross into the medical realm. If you have errors in a medical situation, you risk sickening, injuring, or even killing a person. The risk/reward ratio is skewed towards ensuring that human life is protected at all costs.

    Using SpaceX as an example, the first three launches failed spectacularly and a fourth failure would have ended the business but fortunately the fourth test was a success. If you’re suggesting that we apply the same risk-taking to Neuralink, are you suggesting that it’s acceptable for the first three patients to die, as long as the fourth is a success?










  • It’s a poorly designed chart, likely published this way so that it confuses the average reader and hides how bad the numbers actually are.
    If you add up the year-on-year budget performance, the Jan-Aug 2023 budget performance is about 2.6 trillion rubles WORSE than last year.

    The reporting tries to cover up these bad numbers by focusing on the surplus in June 2023 - the highest result since March 2021. However, the June result would not offset the deficit experienced in April 2023, let alone the Jan and Feb deficits.

    There’s even a hilarious typo in the news story where the author has stated “800 trillion” instead of the actual “800 billion” result, plus they mixed up the months - the 800B was in June, not August. They really should run these numbers past an analyst before printing the story, but I expect disinformation is the real goal.