His main policy seems to be to show the world that he's a big man with big genitalia. And in fairness, he is quite successful at that because much of the world thinks him a gigantic dick.
I'm not really joking, because that really does seem to be the underlying philosophy in what he does: it's whatever he thinks makes him the "big man tough guy". Trying to analyse things beyond that just doesn't make much sense.
Not particularly "show the world" because he's been very demonstrably weak internationally. He's a showman who makes very bold sounds, but his actions show that he will give in to China on Taiwan, like he gave into them on Hong Kong, like he gave in to Russia on Ukraine, like he gave into North Korea on nukes...
Now on Taiwan, he's already stated previously that he will _tax_ China if they invade Taiwan. This contradicts long standing US policy of not stating exactly what action the US will take in the event of invasion, and has had the result of pushing up projections of exactly WHEN China will invade Taiwan to be within the next two years, during Trump's presidency.
The only thing that will possibly make this change is as a condition of financial supporter Elon Musk, who needs those NVIDIA cards that come out of Taiwan so he can pursue his religious mission of winning the AI race. And that's only if TSMC manufacturing capabilities can't be dragged out of Taiwan and set up elsewhere in a sufficient timeframe to reduce the impact if China were to invade Taiwan.
> he's been very demonstrably weak internationally
What you or I view as "big man tough guy" doesn't necessarily align with what Trump views as "big man tough guy". In Trump's view, "solving" the problem of Taiwan one way or the other, when so many other presidents have "failed" to do so, makes him the big man. Whether he completely screws over American interests in the process – never mind the people of Taiwan – doesn't really enter in the calculation.
I'm not sure I understand the sequence with the rhino. Is he actually killing the rhino by drilling a hole in its back and lighting a stick of dynamite inside the hole? Or am I reading this wrong? That seems pretty out there.
I would also say absolutely. We've been using pipenv for ~6 years and have managed to build a pretty good workflow around it. But uv is just _so much faster_. So we've started moving everything over to uv and I don't think we'll ever look back.
Migrating is not super hard, we wrote a small script that moves all the information from a Pipfile to a pyproject.toml and it works like a charm.
What they mean is that in Java, for example, a method has to explicitly state which exceptions it might throw as part of its signature. Note that they said "throws", not "throw".
Ah, I understand now. Well, by default Python doesn't declare a return type either yet the tools are able to infer it in many cases; I see no reason why tools like mypy couldn't similarly infer the raised exception types as well.
Plus, the typing annotations could presumably be expanded to include some notification to declare raised exception types explicitly.
Very few of the names stand out to me (being adjacently familiar with the space). However I did search based on your link… (Edit: with the exception of Chris Szegedy, thanks to the reply below for pointing that out)
Most of them seem to have been secondary/tertiary people on the projects listed. Definitely feels a bit like resume padding.
It’s also unfortunate that searching for the first person after Elon nets results for their domestic abuse arrest over any achievements in the space.
Further down, one of the only two women involved is a “creative AI writer/filmmaker”. Not a strong amount of diversity on their roster but also a weird role to highlight.
None of this is to diminish the work the people here do or have done, but it’s a startlingly high valuation for a company without high name recognition technical expertise in this domain.
Elon has traditionally relied on well known expert partners in the areas he’s expanded into, so this feels like an outlier.
Their founding team and first few after that are top top tier. Honestly some of the best engineers at DM. Unsurprising really given that he was offering ~$10M/year in comp.
There is at least one person there at the top of the Technical Team....I don't recognize from the scene, at least his name does not show as author or co-author in any ML papers I can remember reading...a certain Elon Musk.... :-)
Elon is a megalomaniac who fancies himself an engineer (yes he used to be one, but his with then is oft disparaged)
Even if he had the best names in the industry attached, he would always put himself first.
I don’t think it’s wrong he’d do so either , because he has a cult of personality that would make him the biggest feature (positive/negative) of any company he is involved with.
Hence why I specifically only ask for other people on note here.
I noticed that for every movie on the list that I like, I can totally see how others might not. But for most movies that I dislike, I just don't get how people can genuinely enjoy them.
I don't know what that says about anything but I found it curious.
When people like something we don't like, we are shocked that they could disagree with us as to how awful that things is. "Can't you see it?! The dialogue is unnatural, the premise is implausible, the production design looks like it was outsourced to the cheapest contractors money could find and the characters are unrelatable! What trauma must you have endured to actually enjoy that trash?! You poor thing!"
But when it comes to something we like that other people don't like ... well, that's understandable after all. We're unique ;)
You might enjoy the podcast "372 pages we'll never get back". It's basically a bad book club. The title is a reference to the first book they cover which is Ready Player One.
They are on Book 23 or so at the moment, more or less alternating between books by "big" authors like Dan Brown or Sean Penn and super obscure stuff like Harry Potter-Twilight-crossover fan fiction.
The interesting question that often gets overlooked when lumping all these together as 'bad books' is why do some of these 'bad books' turn their authors into multi-millionaires, and not others. For that matter why is it almost only 'bad books' that turn their authors into multi-millionaires.
Ready Player One is no doubt badly written and Bad Art (full disclosure, I didn't manage to finish it), but it is also one of the more successful and beloved sci-fi books from the last 15 years and shouldn't that in a way make it a Very Good Book.
A full circle is 360° and a curved piece makes a turn of 30°, so you need 360° / 30° = 12 pieces turning in the same direction to make a full circle.
Every time you use a piece turning the other way, you need to add an extra piece turning the way you want to complete the circle, so the difference between the directions has to be 12.
Note, however, that not every track with exactly 12 more pieces turning one way than the other necessarily makes a complete circle, straight pieces can cause the ends not to match up.
