2.8% GDP (and labour productivity) growth doesn’t look that impressive when budget deficit is at 6.4%. A large portion of US GDP is domestic consumption.
modern version of printing money is Quantitative Easing, but the US is in the opposite, Quantitative Tightening mode since 2022. Federal Reserve is essentially taking money out of circulation for the last two years.
On a log scale (you can select this on your graph) we're basically moving on the same trend line as we have been since 1960. Covid caused a big jump but the years of stagnation since then mean we're back to normal.
For that to work Spotify should pay the artist more than it gets from the listeners (bots) who play author’s music. I doubt that’s the case though. Did bots raise track popularity and money was coming from legit listeners? Or did the money come from the advertisers?
I shudder to imagine an AI tuned with individual ad-tech fingerprints, especially one without our knowledge –– and yet, I'm certain it's already mostly developed.
I already have a hard time trusting ChatGPT, etc., but mostly for factual-accuracy reasons.
The potential for LLMs to be tuned to give me responses that I'm likely to like (or manipulate me to buy something) is truly unfortunate.
They figured this out ages ago. this is why you see billboards and ads that simply feature a large logo. The next time you are in the store the primed neurons activate and humans are drawn towards the logos that they have been exposed to
Right, and they are, that's my point. Quality isn't a single attribute of a system, it's a judgement call based on objectives.
The objectives of a business selling software, and that of engineers is something else. Sometimes maintenance, sometimes extensibility, sometimes exploration, sometimes just seeing if something is possible. Quality correlates to the objective, and in my experience, many software engineers have a hard time seeing their code through other perspectives.
There is a lot to be said for getting outside the four walls of a business (or org) to evaluate things. If it's not visible outside those walls (software buggy enough to lose customers) and doesn't introduce significant future risk to the business (competition can move faster than you) it's probably good enough. The real trick of course is predicting and communicating why you think one of these is true. It's an essential problem of commercial software dev.
The other response is correct that this is not ironic. Roughly speaking, irony is when something happens that is the opposite of what you'd expect. A firefighter's home burning down is ironic. Sometimes irony is related to unfortunate or funny coincidences/timing, and it's easy to confuse the two. Alanis's song Ironic famously has a lot of examples of this. Rain on your wedding day--is that ironic? Maybe? You certainly hope there is no rain on your wedding day, but I don't think there's an expectation that there won't be rain. Now if your parents decided to get a divorce on your wedding day, I think that's ironic.
But the parent commenter dilutes the definition further. A project with 2024 lines of code in 2024 is just an amusing coincidence. There's no reason why you'd expect a project in 2024 to not have 2024 lines of code.
I once read that the significant growth of life expectancy could be attributed to lowering rate of child mortality, and that life expectancy for adults has changed less dramatically. If that’s the case, the point that overall life expectancy going from 47 to 72 affected the “grandmother window” is probably inaccurate.
The munition in question is basically on every major platform
> The B61 has been deployed by a variety of US military aircraft. US aircraft cleared for its use have included the B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress, F/A-18 Hornet, A-6 Intruder, A-4 Skyhawk, F-111, F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon and the F-35A. As part of NATO Nuclear Weapons Sharing, German and Italian Panavia Tornado aircraft can also carry B61s. The B61 can fit inside the F-22 Raptor's weapons bays and will also be carried by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
But presumably the bomb has some mount and you would want to validate that and the bomb door/release mechanism. You probably also have some sort of targeting system, guidance control, arming system to integrate all which probably require some sort of validation.
You would probably also want certification to validate the operational characteristics of the aircraft carrying the bomb, e.g. range, flight performance, detection, capacity.
And seriously, it is a nuke, better safe than sorry. If you can test it ahead of time you do that.
To clarify my question, the article speaks about 10+ years of intense effort to certify F35, which probably means more than just new safety protocols or a mounting mechanism.
Further, it says that F35 is the first nuclear capable Gen 5 fighter ever. If it means what I think it does, neither China nor Russia have figured a way to put nukes on their fifth gen fighters, and those guys are not known for being overly cautious when they are behind in arms race.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know that such a distinction goes back to the very first bombs. Only "Silverplate" B-29s were certified to carry atomic weapons. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate>
