Zuckerberg is kind of rare among tech founders in that he still controls 61% of the company. Therefore the board serves him.

None of this is a secret and this setup is why Facebook is what it is.

(the spring handles the retraction)

There are already ten million AI image generators, the overwhelming majority of which do not watermark their outputs. Google auto-inserting them is nice, but ultimately this kind of tool to remove them will inevitably be widespread.

These things are tolerable on American suburban roads, which are sized generously with even more generous parking. They're an utter disaster for pedestrians because their front profile is more "brick wall" than "gentle slope." It would be fine if they were driven slowly, but the machismo that leads people to buy them also means that they are all absurdly quick.

The conclusion is pretty clear: intelligent people are better at discerning intelligence in others. The effect is weak but statistically significant.

This result lines up with mine (and others) experience, which is that it is significantly harder to bullshit a smart person than a stupid person about your own intelligence. It's fair game to discuss anecdotes in the context of a study like this because human beings don't understand the world in CIs and z-scores, they understand it in narratives.

> That is close to tautological, not some profound discovery about social perception. ;-)

So is my statement above. It would have been a profound discovery if the study found out that intelligent people were no more accurate at judging others' intelligence than anyone else.

Low interest rates are a good thing because they allow people to explore new ideas and new businesses - the entire modern tech industry would not exist without ZIRP because the scale of investments has only gone up as technology has advanced.

If we had the technology to maintain 0% inflation, we would do that. We can't, and rather than risk deflation we instead target low positive inflation. This is because deflation leads to nightmare spirals where people start stuffing money into their mattresses instead of investing in useful things because holding has risk-free guaranteed returns that the unpredictable real world can't match.

The amount of gold being mined is not sufficient to keep up with economic growth and gold is therefore inherently deflationary. It's not a good way to store value, because a coin that's going to double in value over two years or whatever is obviously not a stable store of value.

You can argue about corrosion resistance or whatever other physical properties gold might have, but unless the civilization collapses you will find just as much luck storing your wealth in the database of a major bank. Needless to say, designing a civilization around the idea that it could collapse at any moment is unnecessary and expensive.

As for SpaceX I'm not sure what you mean seeing as how the government is easily its largest customer...

I wish that more people would understand that this was the real success of the policies, and be honest with themselves that it's the only real reason they were enacted. We should obviously offer support for addicts to quit their substances, but I don't think the police should get involved until they're making a nuisance. Criminalize importing and selling cocaine, not possessing it. If there's a homeless drug addict making the neighborhood feel unsafe, arrest them for that and not the drugs.

The part that will make it absurd is going to come when Trump suddenly greenlights some made-in-China routers because the CEO responsible made a "donation" to a "charity." Probably the presidential library.

It's addictive, but the price of quitting is a few weeks of cravings. It's not like alcohol (which is relatively uncontroversial) or opiates.

Don't let them sell to kids. Include scary images on the box. Whatever you do, the truth is that human beings like their drugs and this one isn't really that bad.

I'm not providing that list because it's stupid. ATC is not a jobs program; it's a profession that exists to solve a problem. The goal is not to pay ATC more, the goal is to safely manage air traffic at a reasonable price.

There is a ton of low hanging fruit because ATC is done today via phone calls and analog radio despite digital radar and mandatory transponders. It would substantially reduce controller workload, because important yet brainless tasks like "don't issue a clearance to cross a runway with landing traffic" are trivial for a computer but require the same amount of synchronous focus for a human as managing an emergency landing.

Clearances to cross a runway are given by someone with a radio and a pair of binoculars right now, which is how this was possible. With another few controllers it would have been less likely.

With a few traffic lights and computers controlling them? This wouldn't be possible at all, because the controller could focus on the emergency and the rest of the traffic could just run as normal.

The number of flights in the US is enormous and still growing. ATC, as a job, really sucks because you have to spend years in school and then commit to a career where the government can just decide where you're going to live on a whim (no, a union would not fix this, because everywhere needs ATC but not everyone wants to live everywhere). You have criminal liability if you make a mistake and while you can make six figures, it's very hard to make as much as you would at a similarly stressful and intellectual job because anything in the private sector that's this critical just gets automated ASAP.

I have a pilot's license. I can tell you with certainty that even when ATC is staffed for conditions they still make mistakes fairly often. That's just the nature of the problem no matter how much you pay them or how many controllers you hire. When you're landing a 200mph jetliner every 60 seconds there is too much room for error in a human brain.

(well that and the "it's not just x, it's y!" pattern they seem to love)