Fundamental research shows progress on timescales that are incompatible with most "free market" timelines, i.e. the stock market does not want a company to spend 10 years developing the science for something that only pans out after that time period and vastly prefers short term success.
Why would it be consistent with the scientific mainstream? Unless there's evidence that scientific reports and material are specifically up-weighted during training and prioritised somehow, whatever an LLM says will be only consistent with its training material, which could have any proportion of fake articles, Reddit posts, Quora responses, encyclopedia pages and joke blogs
Tangentially related to the idea of "apply a random rotation matrix" is one where you apply a random matrix to a set of points to preserve distances between them but transform them into a lower dimensional space. This is captured by the JL Lemma [1].
It has more to do with the nature of the industry and firm. If your TC yearly is all cash and exceeds 500k, asking 100k of that as buy in is not too different from being granted stock options as an outcome. They could just reduce your TC by 100k one year and replace it with equity in the pool.
Well, they have the funds do they not? I don't think there's a class of wealthy real estate investors from DPRK eager to get into the condo market in South Florida. In that context it makes perfect sense to focus on China. Still, given the expansive jurisprudence on targeting specific races, and the general allergy we have in American politics to doing anything even adjacent to that idea, it would've been better to draft a more expansive policy for the bill.
Personally I think foreign real estate investment is bad, and should be severely dealt with. I don't think it's fair for rich foreigners to essentially park cash in American housing. That specific sense that this activity is wrong can be generalized into a better policy solution, where we don't have to pretend that it's only bad when the Chinese or the Russians or whoever does it. It's also bad for private equity to do this, but that's a separate topic.
The "mass market" in almost every country outside of NA is already adopting EVs, and a large part of that has been Chinese cars which aren't sold in the US due to protectionism and regulations. Take a look at EV adoption across EU or Asia or anywhere else really (BYD in Brazil for example), and you'll see the same story everywhere. It is pretty much a NA centric perspective that "EVs aren't there yet" cause the definition of "there" is bulky pickup trucks with 1000 mi range.
I am a US consumer so I am looking at the US market. If you read my original post I am spending time and money to thoroughly evaluate the EVs in my price range. I can't go and buy a Chinese car in Europe so why should I be concerned about whats going on there? You are doing what I alluded to in my original comment: You are overlooking at how actual consumers are satisfied with ICE and are not seeing enough benefits to switching to EVs yet.
It exists in the US as well (Zelle), except due to the super high number of banks, not all will have feature parity / have it enabled. The major banks like Chase support QR code scanning for instant transfers, smaller ones might require a phone number or email input via keyboard.
It will exist soon in the US since FedPay was rolled out this year. It will take a while for banks to support it, but my guess is everyone will support it as replacement to ACH.
I don't think Venmo will die since there is a need for app to provide nice interface. But Zelle has been lobbying against FedPay since it will destroy them.
