Doesn't work for that site. Archive/Whatever only works if a site lets Google have free access so Google can index it and that one (like most off-brand news blogs) doesn't.
What it shows you is a progress report of what it is doing on the server. If you queue something for it to archive and close your browser and then come back later the page will be archived.
Instead of the ones(10^0)-thousands(10^3)-millions(10^6)-billions(10^9)-... system followed in most other parts of the world, the Indian numbering system uses ones(10^0)-thousands(10^3)-lakhs(10^5)-crores(10^7)-...
So, for example, half a million subscribers (500,000) would translate to 5 lakh subscribers (5,00,000).
It's the Indian English convention for placing commas in numbers -- one comma after the first three digits, then one comma after every two digits thereafter. e.g.
If only it were that simple, Marc Andreessen's interview in the NY times put it best. The wealthy in tech were hurt by the anti corporate youth movement that resulted after the 2008 crash. They (the wealthy) didn't understand why so many employees were so against them, they then saw the Biden gov continuing that anti corporate stance as DEI and other initiatives to potentially control AI and crypto. The tech billionaires hitched their wagon to Trump as a way to 'survive' regulation and saw another opportunity to compete with each other through who had most sway over the most easily bought president since the teapot dome scandal.
That may be true for people like Andreessen, who just put their corporate interests above everything else without much ideological underpinning (which is already bad enough). But then you have people like Peter Thiel who literally believe that Tech companies should rule the world. Operations like DOGE attempt to dismantle government institutions so that more power is shifted towards Big Tech.
Gov job in tech is like any other job, the best employees who can work together successfully to solve problems is best optimized over a wide area (spatially). There are other benefits of strong employee rights and stability in work, ability to transfer to other departments a pretty simple process (which opens the type of work you can do while still being employed so much easier), and good health/retirement packages. These are motivators for people to want to stay with the Gov when already hired in, but to new and existing talent that have more options, the lack of remote and/or telework can be make or break. If we actually want a Gov that can perform, because people do that work and thus would want good people, we should be not artificially constraining ourselves on how to achieve that goal.
The civilian government agencies spent 248B on contract services in 2023 [1]. Not all of that was professional services, but I expect that we will see an increase in that number as more services are contracted out and a decrease in direct government workforce; a government contractor can still work remotely.
The mindset for acquisition is typically anything not core to an agency's mission should be bought on the open market at the lowest price technically acceptable. This tends to select against small businesses who can provide stellar services but can't just cut rates willy nilly for extended delivery time periods.
In effect, government contracting is a large jobs program.
Government often goes too far. You should outsource not things that are not your core values, but things you cannot trust someone else to do. Maintenance often needs to be something you do in house because you cannot trust someone else to take care of it. That someone in house will of course outsource the labor (toilet clogged once - the in house person uses a plunger - if that toilet clogs often they call a plumber to fix what is wrong), but you need someone in house to decide if you need to hire the labor in the first place, otherwise you end up paying a plumber to replace a toilet that works fine but got too much put into it one time.
i only performed a quick read of the paper but couldn't find how many humans they used to generate their expected human performance, this seems to be the main content:
> To ensure that we did not overfit PaperQA2 to achieve high performance on LitQA2, we generated a new set of 101 LitQA2 questions after making most of the engineering changes to PaperQA2. The accuracy of PaperQA2 on the original set of 147 questions did not differ significantly from its accuracy on the latter set of 101 questions, indicating that our optimizations in the first stage generalized well to new and unseen LitQA2 questions (Table 2).
> To compare PaperQA2 performance to human performance on the same task, human annotators who either possessed a PhD in biology or a related science, or who were enrolled in a PhD program (see Section 8.2.1), were each provided a subset of LitQA2 questions and a performance-related financial incentive of $3-12 per question to answer as many questions correctly as possible within approximately one week, using any online tools and paper access provided by their institutions. Under these conditions, human annotators achieved 73.8% ± 9.6% (mean ± SD, n = 9) precision on LitQA2 and 67.7% ± 11.9% (mean ± SD, n = 9) accuracy (Figure 2A, green line). PaperQA2 thus achieved superhuman precision on this task (t(8.6) = 3.49, p = 0.0036) and did not differ significantly from humans in accuracy (t(8.5) = −0.42, p = 0.66).
look at those for loops! should look into fft-based correlation, can even do so with melon transform for scale and circular harmonic transform for rotation
IVAS is still too clunky and not worth the ROI to get that level of funding, expect it to get canceled unless congress greatly increases the Defense budget or changes acquisition practices
> I'm a clinician who works in child development pathology, which is why I commented.
sounds like you take research at it's word instead of understanding the fundamental ideas and concepts that are being explored...classic white coat thinks the book is right and everyone else is wrong
well....yea you can be high performance and _just_ focus on what you're interested in, but agree - pushing yourself to be leadership without being a supervisor to _build_ 'the high performing culture that can deliver something great' is really special
reply