sb52191

> People coming here and extracting value from the economy to send home is also a problem.

What about the American rich extracting wealth overseas? Vacations, real estate, yachts constructed in foreign countries, investing in companies in other countries, etc.

I think you're asserting more money leaves the US economy because an average person comes to the US (legally or illegally) and sends a portion of their paycheck back home, but I'd bet American born citizens spend/send far more money out of the country...

Counter argument: Every crypto coin is, more or less, the same. Sure there's some underlying difference in how they work (proof of stake vs proof of work) but they don't do anything wildly different.

AI companies, on the other hand, ARE fairly different in the products they're offering. So while it can make sense to talk about the crypto world as a whole when on a thread about an individual coin, that makes less sense when discussing individual AI companies IMO.

I think you might be surprised at the distribution in wealth even within schools. Only an anecdote but I went to a public high school in somewhat of an inner city, and there was a stark contrast in financial well being across my classmates and myself. The kids from upper middle class families were the ones in AP classes and who went on to great universities, while the more median student likely came from a household that were much closer to the poverty line.

If performance had come with a financial bonus, I'd guess 90% of the recipients wouldn't notice any difference in their lives/outcomes. Maybe even a higher percentage than that.

I can think of one: If they can improve AI such that it doesn't cite fictional case study, poor people might get actual/better representation in court. The majority of court cases aren't particularly novel or unique (driving without a license, speeding, public intoxication etc). If we can train AI to do a better job than overworked public defenders, we might actually take a step in the right direction towards giving poor people a fighting chance in court.

I think the question is what are the tangible benefits people would actually pay for?

Social media companies have the incentive to figure out how to make more money from their product. I think the fact that none of them have really proposed any pro-tier that is adopted by a majority of users shows that most people aren't really willing to pay for anything they provide.

I think it depends on use cases and advancements in our understanding of time's effect on the DNA captured.

I.e. I could imagine that in the not too distant future, we know that DNA in air (exposed to sunlight) degrades at a certain percentage over time, and therefore could be used to determine if a person was near a given location recently. Sort of like carbon dating.

You could imagine law enforcement using this as a tool to find suspects: Drive around with a device that constantly captures air and checks it for the DNA of a suspect (which could have been found at the scene via other, more traditional methods) and then allows them to narrow down a persons location.

Society? People who want their fellow citizens to work toward greater goods collectively?

It's your job in interviews to accurately describe your abilities and talents. It's the company's job to determine if that's the right fit for them.

If they sent you an offer, I'd just assume I don't have a clear enough picture on what they will expect of me and when, and just trust that they did their due diligence in my evaluation.

Of course, if it doesn't work out, you had three offers so you'll likely be able to get a new job no problem.

You're completely missing the point of the person's comment...

The top comment is asking why girl's perform better, and yet and under-represented in top tier jobs. The comment you replied to responds that they think it's because of having child and choosing not to go back to work.

At no point are they taking a stance on whether or not raising a child is as important as working a job...

Two things that I'd need explained to trust this take: "Often, the data are in the hands of Democrat politicians and bureaucrats who refuse to make it available."

1) The Georgia SOS in charge of elections is a Republican, so why would it benefit him to work against the Republican Nominee

2) If the data is being held by Democrats who refuse to make it available, what "data" did The Epoch Times analyze that showed votes being removed?

In my experience, stuff like this often boils down to people's lack of understanding of systems or practices and they read into "anomalies" that might look weird to an uneducated outsider, but for someone that knows what they're talking about, isn't sinister...

Depends on the country. In the US (as I understand it) a key component to being charge with a monopoly is you have to show that consumers/users are negatively impacted.

Philosophically I don't know whether or not I agree that's best, but it's the way it is currently.

Admittedly I haven't read tons of scientific research on this topic, but whenever the topic of diet/exercise comes up, I often find the way the question is researched to be lacking.

The article mentioned the participants could exercise however they wanted and "many chose to walk". I don't understand why walking is considered exercise. I understand it burns more calories than sitting still, but it doesn't elevate your heart rate nor push your muscles to grow/develop in any real way, and it feels like trying to "cheat" your way into exercise.

Also, this bit was really interesting to me: "Those burning about 3,000 calories a week showed changes now in their bodies’ levels of leptin, an appetite hormone that can reduce appetite. These alterations suggested that exercise had increased the exercisers’ sensitivity to the hormone, enabling them to better regulate their desire to eat." I would bet that those who burned the most amount of calories weren't just walking farther than the others, but instead their choice of exercise was just more intense.

I've always heard that running isn't a great way to lose weight because it just makes you want to eat more, but that hasn't been my experience. After running somewhere between 3.5-5 miles, my appetite is gone for at least a few hours after the run. I have no desire to snack, and while I might eat slightly more at dinner, the overall calories for my day don't change too significantly.

What do you mean by this? What unrelated causes are people dying from that aren't exacerbated by COVID?

I've heard this argument before but it's never made sense to me. If you have AIDS, it's not the AIDS that kills you, it's the fact that AIDS weakened your immune system to the point that something else can kill you. But to say that AIDS wasn't paramount to killing the victim is just wrong. Seems to me like COVID is a similar situation...

I'm not even sure I believe this anymore. Seeing how many people out there believe masks are BAD for you makes me skeptical that most people will actually get the vaccine...