benp84

I was under the impression that corn ethanol was effectively solar energy because corn turns sunlight and carbon into biomass then we burn the biomass back to atmospheric carbon. Isn't that the fundamentals? Is there a big, basic reason it doesn't work or is it lots of little side effects? Thanks for weighing in.

Why are they so adamant about destroying whatever goodwill they have left?

Counterexample: Suppose I'm selling a product with zero cost and I've determined the profit-maximizing price to be $1.00. This means profit as a function of price is maximal and therefore the slope is zero, i.e. raising the price by 1% makes sales go down by 1% and vice versa.

Now suppose my cost to produce goes from zero to $0.99 per unit, which drops my profit to $0.01. Now that 1% increase in price that only drops sales by 1% is well worth it because my profit per unit doubles. The profit-maximizing price is now likely well over $1.

I think if I'd have thought of these expenses as "buying physical fitness" I would have spent more. Thanks for the perspective!

How do you mean you spend money on physical fitness? It does sound like a great investment.

Wouldn't your pretrained model be lacking in neurons that react to human features though? Seems like a poor choice if your ultimate goal is human images.

Yes! I couldn't get into the instant pot either but the air fryer changed my life. I eat so much meat and vegetables now.

If it had been called a "high-speed toaster oven" or maybe a "digital grill" I probably would have bought one sooner.

It's like how the visual neurons of blind people get repurposed for other senses. Turns out this happens so quickly we can start to lose visual function in just the 8 hours our eyes are closed while we sleep.

Can't remember source but heard this theory on a podcast.

Books by John Gottman. He seems to be the leading authority on the topic.

These two parts seem contradictory:

> "Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they're proposed by reasonable domain experts."

> "The lowest form of all is to dismiss an idea because of who proposed it."

I feel like he's prematurely dismissing the idea of dismissing an idea based on who proposes it because of who he's imagining doing (proposing) it, if that makes sense.

I run out of cognitive energy for coding faster than I run out of time. Sometimes the slow and stupid way is optimal because it saves cognitive energy.

I suspect coders "forage" more than this time-based model predicts because it's cognitively easier than deciding where to "navigate" or how to "enrich".

I wonder how much of the problem here is solo developers and big tech developers exchanging advice in the same places.

As a solo dev I relate to this frustration with over-engineering but I can imagine its benefits for big teams.