Why is the article blaming SoftBank? They bought Arm fair and square. They can do with their acquisitions as they please. Arm is a profit seeking company like every other profit seeking company. They sold themselves to make their founders rich. They are not some beacon of Western liberty that people like to make it out to be.
So why call it 'autopilot'? Seems like bullshit marketing to me. The first association we make when we hear that term is hands-off, not 'advanced cruise control'. They're specifically using that terminology to sell their products and now they're paying the price.
In an emergency, an airplane pilot often has time to pull out the operating handbook, flip through to the emergency checklist for their particular problem, and follow the instructions. Even for time-critical emergencies, it's recommended to read through the checklist afterwards to ensure you didn't forget anything [1].
By contrast, it would be very unsafe to be reading the Tesla owner's manual while driving. The level of attention required is much higher.
There is a well-known association between the Godfather movies and oranges. For example, Don Vito has an orange slice in his mouth when he dies in the garden. And yes, the fruit stand scene. There are many more examples.
I'm not too familiar with Mario Puzo's novel and use of oranges but it would be fascinating if there was somehow an innate link between the use of oranges in the movies and the origins of the mafia (what this paper is claiming).
This is great! I've been working on something like this as well (an automatic tracker for various body movements). Would love to have a chat about how you've accomplished this.
It would have been amazing if Jodorowsky's Dune actually got made and released. He really was too far ahead of his time for the studio.
I feel that in order to make a roughly 2-hour long film on as complex a subject as what the novel portrays, the only way to illustrate that complexity properly is to ascribe to surrealist elements. That is the only form that can provide the necessary density, if done properly. Lynch knew this, which is why he took on the project, but was later pressured by the studio and his vision was lost. He did a pretty admirable job considering.
Even if they are not technically selling at a loss (I actually suspect that they are, but in any case), their opportunity for a particularly high profit margin is something that is priced in to their outlook when they are looking to invest and purchase assets. If all of a sudden they don't have as many marbles to play with, they either need to liquidate assets they currently have to the control of foreign owners and invest more strategically (greater chance of using these marbles in non-wealth creating opportunities) or don't invest at all and lose all of these opportunities in the future.
I can transfer my wealth to you either by just giving it to you, or I can transfer my wealth to you slowly over time by not being able to invest in wealth generation at the same rate as you while my base investments depreciate.
Yes, but Docker is an application distribution format that essentially bundles parts of the server the app needs to run on with it so they can run within a container on the host machine. Didn't Microsoft solve this application bundling with .NET before?
While I generally tend to stand with McIntyre on the Bayesian vs frequentist debate (whether it is much of a debate anymore given recent advances in AI due to Bayesian techniques for ML is another discussion) I feel that he doesn't adequately explain our 'wrong' intuition on the Monty Hall problem. While he goes on a tirade against the frequentist hold on our education system as being responsible for our mistaken intuition in this regard, he doesn't explain the fact that largely all of us are duped by this problem (having taking courses at school taught by evil frequentists or not). If indeed Bayesian probability theory is innate in us and we have just been brainwashed in school, it would seem to me then that those of us not taught frequentist statistics would be able to solve the problem better than the rest of us. I think this would be an easy experiment to conduct but I have not seen any experiments done to confirm this though.
Not only does testing help with managing large codebases by being able to make actual assertions about certain parts of the code (to be able to prove correctness) but it also improves the quality of your code. If you're writing code that must pass certain tests, you inherently start to think about making that code more modular and de-coupled, ie injecting dependencies rather than creating them for a start.
