Absolutely! Hyped-up vaporware like genAI and blockchain speculation should be nuked from orbit. Glad we agree this all garbage.
Here is the original fabric because that apparently doesn’t get linked in an article about solving who is on said fabric
Thanks for citing for me. This is exactly what I was referring to!
Walk me through this.
Before Spotify, I’d buy a record (physical or digital) and listen to that. I pay the artist once. After Spotify, I buy a record and listen to it on Spotify. I pay the artist the normal record price and there’s a long tail from stream payouts (unless they don’t reach the payout threshold).
Before Spotify, if someone heard a song and didn’t buy the record, they didn’t pay the artist. After Spotify, if they still don’t buy a record, the artist now earns from stream payouts.
Finally, before Spotify, if someone bought a record but stopped buying after Spotify, the artist loses that record purchase. This is definitely bad. Was Spotify the real reason? Would something other than Spotify have pulled them away? What levels of fame are materially affected by this?
Do artists have to pay to be on Spotify? Is that the issue?
Quoting my response from elsewhere:
… FAANG. Hiring 500 engineers and bragging about it something you can do when you’re just interested in shareholder value not customer experience.
I wouldn’t hire the guy in the article because I haven’t seen strong candidates come from FAANG and I’ve been very happy to lose the people I did to FAANG because they weren’t good engineers, they just knew how to leetcode and tunnel vision trivia.
I’ve been using Terminator for years primarily because it’s portable. It predates a lot of the portable terminals in vogue right now. I haven’t really noticed a difference in using any of the newer ones so I haven’t switched. There’s some endowment effect there and sunk cost dotfiles.
If there’s a good comparison someone knows about that I should scope to understand what I’m missing I’m always curious!
This is the natural extension of what I was trying to say. There’s no need for accountability because that spends money that could be better spent on saving the world. The opportunity cost of doing literally anything other than saving the world is more than one life so we’re fucked if we do anything else.
Every time I think I can comprehend stupid people with lots of money shit like this happens.
Usually there’s continued testing and inspections and service members continue to attempt to climb the ladder. Again, assuming your hypothesis is correct, you’d need data that inspections are either dropping or decreasing, testing is dropping or decreasing, and requirements to move up have been reduced. Do you have that?
I don’t trust their website given Pai’s involvement. Did you find an external source that talked about their funding of stations? The about you quoted (that I read several times to try to parse) really just highlights they funnel money to lobbyists.
What about Oracle made it work for you over others? Have you looked at the minors like Linode or DigitalOcean?
thesmokingman
joined 2 years ago
OP said that, given A and B, they would prove A -> B via negation, meaning the truth table you built does not yet exist and must be proved.
OP is not trying to use language, OP is trying to use propositional calculus. Using language unattached to propositional calculus is meaningless in this context.
No, it’s not. Textbook modus ponens is when you are given A -> B. We are given A and B and are trying to prove A -> B. Never in any of my reading have I ever seen someone say “We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.” I mean, had I graded symbolic logic papers, I probably would have because it’s a textbook mistake to write a proof that just has the conclusion with none of the work. As the in group, we may assume A -> B in this situation; OP was taking some new tools they’ve picked up and applying them to something OP appears passionate about to prove our assumptions.
I was responding to OP. Why are you getting mad at me instead of getting mad at OP? OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea. You have proven my point incredibly well.