Crime rates are not independent of incarceration rates and durations (bbviously, since incarceration is a mechanism to deter crime). We could say 'the incarceration required to reduce crime rate to x is much higher/lower in country y'.
Yes, but public transit does create value - the question is who captures it.
BART likely created huge profits for people who owned land in the areas it services - house prices and rents would have increased substantially. Public investment, private profits. Subsidies in the form of low-cost fares like this are just further welfare for the landowners.
Interestingly, about a third of BART's cost was acquiring land - if/when that same land is cleared and sold on market, the project would have operated at an enormous profit. Certainly, BART's current assets would far exceed 'total fares collected'.
That's a minuscule amount of the value it creates. And that's a problem, and a problem we can only fix by privatizing it. But most of the value it creates is for the landowners around it. And that's why successful transit companies are also real estate developers. Even in our own history, that's how private transit worked before we killed it.
This seems like a meaningless distinction to me. 'Overreliance on AI' implies the humans relied on the AI too much. You aren't even disagreeing with the article.
It didn't matte who/what looked at the maps - the maps were at least 11 years old and showed what was, at the time, a barracks. Nobody bothered to check for newer maps or verify it was still a barracks.
No, that's not what the poster wrote. See this part:
> "AI" doesn't really seem like the culprit -it's a scapegoat.
So the analysis was that AI has been a scapegoat. That's correct.
The implication is that it was indeed HUMANS who made the decision,
and now the US government tries to shift away the blames from
their decision onto "AI made a mistake, not we did". It is just not
logical to assume this was a mistake in the age of mass surveillance
and sniffing on everyone at all times.
GP says AI is not the culprit, but that actually agrees with the article + headline - which also blame the humans. Nobody in the article is scapegoating AI at all.
If you are both referring to some other claims by US gov made elsewhere (none are in the article), it might be useful to cite them.
A system programming language needs to match hardware where mutability is associated with memory addresses, something functional languages can afford to abstract away.
1) Dirac actually developed big parts of Lie Theory and its application in relativistic particle physics, without using the mathematical formalisms at all (until later on).
His work was subsumed/beautified by mathematicians after the fact (30s), an 'optimization' really which helped to extend and understand it further, not to discover it. The Gell-Mann prediction mirrors Dirac's own positron (non)prediction closely but was done without Lie formalisms.
The applications of Lie theory in relativistic fields theories began even earlier, with the Noether/Klein/Hilbert/Einstein collaboration in 1910s.
2) Continuous symmetries are a convenience and not essential to particle physics IMHO.
e.g. It's obvious we can swap positive and negative charge and get the same physics. That's a discrete symmetry. But in gauge theories the symmetry is not +ve <-> -ve, but rather the continuous rotation of the unit circle in a complex plane. electron becomes positron via complex numbers. It doesn't mean there's a complex electron with +-ie charge, but it does work better with relativistic Lagrangian fields theories where phase changes are continuous and frame dependent. Noether's methodology of using an invariant action integral leverages the Lie theory very effectively, but there are other ways to skin that cat though.
3) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I doubt the standard model and the perturbative methods (renormalization, etc) underpinning it would be to Dirac's liking.
It's good game theory. You're much more likely to be able to bully a Northern Baptist Conservative Council of 1879 members into joining your cult than anybody else.
You could predefine your event handlers within your context, then call 'enter framework' and pass your event handlers as arguments. this is continuation passing style
Might as well go back to ye olden days and put 100% of your memory in a giant preallocated block and instead of stack locals you just use the block. No allocation cost at runtime, cheese benchmarks by making the super arena.
> Might as well go back to ye olden days and put 100% of your memory in a giant preallocated block
I do that for the Playdate: statically allocate most of the large structures and tables in global variables, and don't call malloc or free after initialization is done.
I also put some things on the stack, not so much because I need to dynamically allocate or free something, often it's because I get lower access latency to the stack compared to main memory (because stack lives inside ARM's tightly coupled memory).
There are languages with first class continuations, is if every function is async and every call is await. In that context, everything can be stack allocated and every reference to stack memory stays valid always. The cost is that stack is now non-linear / not a contiguous array.
reply