analyst74

There are plenty information about China on the outside, but nobody is paying anyone to push those into your feeds. It doesn't benefit any US entities to paint China in good light, and China largely doesn't market itself to the wider world (maybe to their detriment).

In practice, there is very little difference, no point splitting hair saying coke is better than pepsi.

I used to believe this line of thought strongly. But like any "rule", it has limits and presumptions.

Genuinely good and new ideas do have a lot of value, they are just very hard to capture by its inventor, because others can just take it for free.

If the law protects ideas, practicality aside, ideas will be more valuable; if the law don't protect implementation, as seen in some countries, then good implementation does not naturally create more value than copycats.

To give a more timely example, a software idea was not valuable because others can take it for free, while taking someone's implementation to redistribute is illegal, so implementation was valuable. But with LLM advancement, there is now a legal and increasingly cheap way to copy implementations, which will greatly its value going forward.

Maybe soon the golden rule will change to "ideas and executions are a dime a dozen, <something else that is hard/illegal to steal> is what separates success from failure"

People in safe countries generally do not worry about kidnappings.

compression is not free, dictionary compression:

1, complicates and slows down update, which is typically more important in OLTP than OLAP

2, is generally bad for high cardinality columns, which requires tracking cardinality to make decisions, which further complicates things.

lastly, additional operational complexity (like the table maintenance system you described in last paragraph) could reduce system reliability, and they might decide it's not worth the price or against their philosophy.

Sounds good in principle, but I don't see any meaningful suggestions.

News has never been about reporting absolute truth, there is just too much influence/power/money to be gained for manipulating public perception.

The fact that people believe in journalistic integrity shows how successful they are at brainwashing the public.

Do they not want those conveniences? Or are they tempering their expectations based on their budget and perceived cost?

If, let's say, a typical $30k car means a large EV SUV with all the luxury gadgets and conveniences, plus fridge, massage chair, full camping setup, etc. Would 30k car buyers not expect those things?

I can accept the argument that they are trying to be inclusive towards disadvantaged students, and it just happens that racial make up of poor but qualified students lean towards black or hispanic.

Is that the reality? or is it middle class and less advantaged white/asian kids giving way to middle class black/hispanic ones? Or worse, is it simply raising the bar for asians because there are too many of them in higher education like they did to jews?

I think it's mainly corruption. A significant amount of budget (hundreds of millions) is allocated to "deal" with homelessness in SF, so efforts to actually solve the problem are going to face significant challenges from existing beneficiaries.

Since a few years ago, especially as layoffs started at big name companies, there have been a massive investment in funding and talent into modernizing traditional industries. This effect will be felt by IT departments that built in-house software and small product or consulting shops.

US car manufacturers other than Tesla have not been very successful at producing EVs despite subsidies. It'll be interesting to see how this affects future policy making. Will there be subsidies to protect legacy US automakers? Does that mean gas cars are here to stay?

If a building's rent is higher than its surrounding ones, renters are less likely to live there. The same applies to cities, if, after adjusting for job/lifestyle/etc, people feel it's too expensive to live in a city, they move away, eventually reducing demand.

China does not ban YouTube or Instagram because they're foreign, They have some very onerous rules about censorship, which I disagree with, but are applied equally to all companies operating in China, including Chinese ones.

A good example is that google is banned but bing is not, and tiktok is also banned in China because they don't follow those laws.