information about a person
Not only one person, but also their relatives, who didn’t consent to begin with. You of course don’t get all of it, but if you e.g. have the DNA of a parent, then you also get information about their children.
Say for example they have some genetic predisposition for an illness, then their child is probably also more likely to get it. Better hope that in the future there are still laws against using this kind of data for determining health insurance.
Agreed. Reusing the same set of hyped actors across films definitely reduces the level of immersion. Unless ofc the actors can truly transform themselves like Colin Farrell in the new Penguin series to give a recent example.
I think the issue is that nowadays the job of actors in big movies like these is just as much being a vehicle for marketing as it is the acting itself. I’ve heard that the rule of thumb is that Hollywood spends a similar amount on marketing as it does on production. So you want someone with a household name that people recognize, that people associate with a type of movie they like, and that can tour through the media circus and talks shows creating buzz.
Plus it helps with acquiring financing.
So as much as I’d want to see more fresh faces (and more normal people, not the unrealistic Hollywood standards), I doubt it’ll happen.
How do you profit of a company that hemorrhages a few billion a year?
While it runs a deficit you don’t or at least only through increased valuations, which ofc assume that you’ll eventually be able to turn a profit. Will this ever happen for OpenAI, i have no idea, but that is the bet. And for the likes of Microsoft spending a few billions on bets like this isn’t that big of a deal, just look at how much Meta burns in their VR department.
Even Amazon had AWS, which was the absurdly profitable core business at the center of a cost bleeding distribution center.
Uber was running a deficit for a long time until it turned profitable. It’s pretty normal for many new companies to burn money first before they turn a profit. The biggest cost seems to be training new models constantly, and i assume one hope is that eventually this slows down. Then they need to get operating costs down that where i think they currently roughly break even (?) or maybe run a minor loss, but that seems doable, considering the pace at which hardware is still improving.
OpenAI is doing nothing to generate economic value.
I wouldn’t say that it is nothing, but at this very moment it probably doesn’t equal the immense amount of resources poured into it. That said, if things improve both in terms of the quality of responses you can get from models as well as reduced costs to run them, then there is definitely huge economic potential.
You mean when the board of directors wanted to fire him? Considering the recent news of OpenAI transitioning towards for profit i think they got what they wanted from keeping him in charge. Seems like something Microsoft would benefit from and if they’d have gotten a different CEO at the time who knows if it had come to this point.
spoon theory
Thanks for introducing me to a new concept (or at least a term for it), always nice to learn something new.
Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.
Thanks for the link. That is certainly a frustrating development, since they had to sell it for a much steeper discount before as the article mentions.
Importantly they tried to enter the market with a $40 purchase price, when the existing competition is mostly free to play.
My comment was aimed more towards the excessive CEO pay, not the stagnation in worker’s pay.
Probably not the best source (just one of the first Google results), but as an example, if I read something like this:
How much money did Marissa Mayer make while running Yahoo? During her five years at Yahoo, from 2012 to 2017, Marissa’s total compensation, including salary, stock, and bonuses, was $405 million. Verizon acquired Yahoo for a little over $4 billion in 2016. Marissa earned roughly $120 million from the acquisition through a mix of bonuses, accelerated stock options and salary. For example, she was paid a onetime bonus of $23,011,325 once the Verizon acquisition was finalized.
Then it seems to me like the shareholders somehow got the short end, despite being the ones with the power to make changes.
There might be public displeasure about it, but I think behind the scenes India buying Russia oil is expected and at least to some degree accepted (or possibly even wanted).
The bigger thing is Russia not generating profits from those sales, which I am speculating is not the case at the prices India is buying at. The upside of Russian oil still being available to the world market is keeping the prices lower, something Europe is very much interested in.
I am actually still not sure why it isn’t fixed through voting. And I mean shareholder-voting, not public voting.
But after things like Elon Musk’s compensation package getting approved (again) it cleared won’t work through that mechanism either.
If you are considering them, then I would mention that they have regular and “mini” versions, with the only difference being the size of the headband. I’ve tried both and personally prefer the smaller size since it doesn’t protrude so far in the back, despite not having a particularly small head.
Nice, hope it works out for you! Usually brands are consistent within their lineup, so that should make things easier. Mizuno is one of the brands I’ve not tried yet, but might if I find a good deal.
Also since I just got another pair in the mail myself, which kind of helps my point: Found a good deal on a pair of craft shoes (pro Endur distance) and actually ordered in EU45 (a full size smaller than my typical shoes), since the size guide had that listed as equalling 29,5cm. Never had one of their shoes before.
Having them in person now the length seem correct and I have about a thumb width of space. I only have to test if the toebox shape works for my large toe during long runs, but that is something I couldnt really determin in a shop either.
I’ve read somewhere that horse mats made out of rubber are pretty good flooring for home gyms and cheaper than something marketed towards gym use.
If it can take the full weight of a horse standing on it with its small hoofs, then it should have no issues with any weight you might drop on them during lifting.
Most online stores for running shoes have pretty good return policies, so i’d just buy from those that allow returns. But i’ve only had to use returns once or twice between my many orders. Tbh i’ve only ever bought my first pair locally, felt ripped off paying 140€ for a pair of asics gt-2000 and ever since ordered online without issues.
You want them to be comfortable and with roughly 1 thumb width of space in the front. Also lacing matters a lot. I’ve had shoes hurt after a few km running, because i laced them too tightly. Which was fine at the start, but during your run your feet will swell up a bit (that is also what the extra space in front helps with).
As said for me the thing that works is to google a size chart for the model and not go by EU sizes, but cm (or JPN sizing, which equals cm). Those are very consistent between brands. For example my “main” brand is probably saucony where i have a EU46, which correlates to 29,5cm. I had my Brooks Hyperion tempo in EU45,5, which for brooks is 29,5cm. And i had 3 pairs of puma so far (2 velocity, 1 liberate nitro) all in 46 that in reality are actually a bit long, which tracks with the fact that for puma EU46 is 30cm. So i know i ideally want 29,5cm with 30cm being fine (but anything shorter doesnt work).
Beyond that it is just minor fit differences, e.g. altra shoes have wide toe boxes, nike are said to run a bit narrow and so on. Usually you can learn these from a decent review, if they mention it.
That said for this to work you need to either know your shoe size at least once. Either from your old shoes, trying some in store, or you estimate with the guides on online sites (and return if they end up the wrong size).
As for which type of shoes to buy, unless you have a rotation of multiple shoes you’ll probably just want a decent and versatile daily trainer, which basically every brand offers.
I usually get around 1200km out of my pairs, but I also tend use them longer than ideal. Some will last longer than others, e.g. I had a pair of saucony triumph were the foam held up very well.
Generally it is not the upper or outsole that makes retiring the shoes necessary (they’ll still look visually fine), but the midsole going flat. Which is kind of the point for which one buys specialised running shoes: the shock absorption and energy return the midsole foam provides.
For me the sign that a shoe is nearing the end of its useful life is usually that I start feeling the impact more in my knees after longer runs. But imo getting a second pair and still using the older one occasionally let’s you get a bit more mileage out of your shoes. Also helps with comparing new vs old.
Generally I agree that running shoes are expensive, and I was surprised how much it ends up costing if you run serious mileage. But there are ways to save money and I usually spend between 50-80€ on my daily trainers, which is roughly a bit below half of the sticker price.
Buy online, look for sales at the end of the season and before new releases, buy last years models, and be flexible. For buying online to get the size right look at the cm sizing (or jpn sizes that equal cm), which for me so far has always been spot on, where EU sizes very. Also some models are usually good value, like for example the puma velocity nitro (version 1,2 or 3 doesn’t matter too much so, all are solid).
I am also from Germany and get payed for donating thrombocytes at my university hospital. The compensation is actually quite substantial imo at (up to) 75€ per session, which can be done every two weeks. The money is however mean to offset the time required, not the thrombocytes donated. So it is correlated to how long it takes.
You get 15€ (?) for up to 15min (if they have to abort very early for some reason or at your first visit where they just draw blood to test), 50€ for up to 1h (which equals to 1 instead of 2 pack of thrombocytes, usually done at your first real donation or if you maybe dont have enough for 2 on this particular day), and 75€ for anything over 1h (which is the norm).
Timewise the hospital is on the outskirts of the city, so most will have to travel a bit, then you have to fill out forms, have a quick talk with the doctor, and finally depending on your parameters it takes anywhere from ~55-70min to extract, during which you are tethered to a machine (which takes out some blood, then seperates out the thrombocytes with a centrifuge, pumps back the rest, and repeat).
One could get philosophical about the topic, but from a practical perspective the money makes a lot of sense imo:
It costs them a lot of money to investigate new prospects, so you want reliable repeat donors
Each donation already has other costs associated with it. Like for example the kit used during extraction, the staff handling everything and so on. So even those 75€ are just one more expense among many, and from donation to usage probably vanish in the overall costs.
For the donor it is quite a substantial time commitment, especially when done regularly every two weeks. Unlike for example full blood donations you’d maybe do twice a year. And you should be reliable and not randomly cancel at the last second, so ideally it also has priority over some other things in your life.
the small amount of blood that remains inside the machine is sometimes used for other research (if you agree to it, which i do)
From my own experience i can say that i might still do it without, but certainly not at the same frequency. And considering the time and effort required i don’t think anyone could be blamed for doing it less frequently without the incentive. So at least in this case it imo is a fair trade and net positive. Although it does also help that this is a university hospital that directly uses it themselves, rather than a for profit company.
Agreed. The difference is that the prequels were a failure in execution, whereas the sequels failed on a conceptual level.
Kind of late, since i just came around to seeing it. Some thoughts:
I really liked the visuals and i’m glad i got to see it in the cinema on a really good screen, so more or less the best possible experience. But i agree that the Rook animatronic looked a bit off (i’d have to rewatch it again).
As someone else already mentioned i also liked the dystopian setting of the first act.
I liked that they were leaning more into the horror, rather than action genre. But imo unlike the first Alien movie it had a few too many jump scares and overused the xenomorphs. Where the original was able to build tension with what you can’t see, here you had a whole pack of them. And somehow they get mowed down way too easily.
Agreed that there were too many callbacks and easter eggs, rather than letting the movie stand on its own. Especially the Ripley line was just too obvious and imo breaks the immersion into the movie.
Not a huge fan of the third act
What i still don’t quite understand with these kind of buyouts is who lends them the money and who gets saddled with the debt? Surely banks know the drill and wouldn’t want to borrow and hold debt for a company destined to fail in such a way.
Do banks get repaid before that happens and the only people being owed are small contractors and employees? Does the bank repackage the debt and sell it to someone else? Or are the interest payments high enough to just factor in losing part of the money borrowed with high certainty?