Depending on the how pelicans are created, it is entirely possible to indirectly kill "somebody" due to the externalised costs of global warming etc.

You see this in all sorts of places, for example, stealing an EV charging cable. To a thief, a $500 charging station is just $10 worth of copper waiting to be melted down. They don't care about the $490 deficit they left behind because that’s the victim's problem. Social media platforms, and apparently now car manufacturers, look through the exact same lens.

What is different now, is twofold: 1. Bigger financial impact of having a child, both through less government support, and because more women are working. This combined means that to have a child, often, one of the parents needs to stop working, which severely impacts SoL. 2. Less social impact of not having a child. It is far more common to not have children than it used to be, and so it becomes much more of a choice as to whether to make that SoL sacrifice or not.

Then the load during the working days makes those ripples larger and into outages.

Part of this is communication overheads, and as op points out, the need, and ability, to specialise in a larger organisation.

Tying this back to your first point, the revealed preference is that people would rather fill their own gas tank, rather than be forced to wait for someone to come and fill it for them.

Bagging groceries is different, however the revealed preference is that people would prefer the lower price/lower service supermarket, and those that need the help have to ask for it.

You are correct that everyone needs to earn a living, I think that most people would prefer that others can earn a living doing a somewhat meaningful job, in a somewhat safe manner.

The reason that much of this isn't automated has nothing to do with ensuring that jobs exist, but rather that the cost of automation is higher than the cost of labour. This is what op is talking about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

> You are friends with all the senior TLs, so can get them to review your code, but this is not a high-leverage use of time.

And then, tying back to ops comment, the engineer gets pinged for their bad metric, because of this additional review.

And a *lot* of people want to use Siri while driving, when they can't access the phone, at least not legally.

> When boolean is an enum, the compiler does exactly what I expected – the == false condition checks if the value is equal to 0, and the == true condition checks if the value is equal to 1.

> However, when boolean is actually _Bool, the == false check is transformed into != 1, and the == true check is transformed into != 0 – which makes perfect sense in the realm of boolean logic. But it also means that for a value of 255, hilarity ensures: since 255 is neither 0 nor 1, both conditions pass!

So a value of 255 also makes both checks fail for the enum, but because of the ordering of the code, it was expected to evaluate as != false.

Had the check: ``` if (sprtemp[frame].rotate == false) ```

been written as: ``` if (sprtemp[frame].rotate != true) ```

then it would work for the `bool` type, but not the `enum` type, at least in C23 mode. Assumedly the C++ mode (effectively) treated the boolean as an enum, or possibly as `false == 0`, `true != 0`.

> Building on theoretical work by Dietzfelbinger and Walzer [8], we propose a novel practical approach, the binary fuse filters. They are conceptually similar to xor filters, and they rely on nearly the same simple code.

In the "The Mechanism of Extraction" section, how is that image made? It is nicely laid out, and has a nice "hand-drawn" feel. This is a good format for many technical drawings, but I have not found any tools that could create this.

When the AI gets "good enough", and the review becomes largely rubber stamping, and 50% is pretty close to that, then you run the risk that a good percentage of the reviews are approved without real checks.

This is why nuclear operators and security scanning operators have regular "awareness checks". Is something like this also being done, and if so what is the failure rate of these checks?

I would love to try antigravity out some more, but last I don't think it is out of playground stage yet, and can't be used for anything remotely serious AFAIK.

Based on their timeline, full credit to Beyerdynamic!

Partial credit to Airoha, they took a long time to initiate the communications, but once they did, they seemed to take it seriously.

No credit to Sony and Marshall, as they either didn't, or effectively didn't, respond.

Unknown credit to Bose, JBL, Jabril, EarisMax, MoerLabs, and Teufel, as they don't appear in the timeline.