> Groq raised $750 million at a valuation of about $6.9 billion three months ago. Investors in the round included Blackrock and Neuberger Berman, as well as Samsung, Cisco, Altimeter and 1789 Capital, where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner.
Pretty much every single Microsoft domain I've tried to access loads for a looooong time before giving me some bare html. I wonder if someone can explain why that's happening.
You obviously have never worked a company that spends time arguing about the "definition of done". It's one of the most subjective topics I know about.
Sounds like a company is not adequately defining what the deliverables are.
Task: Walk to the shops & buy some milk.
Deliverables:
1. Video of walking to the shops (including capturing the newspaper for that day at the local shop)
2. Reciept from local store for milk.
3. Physical bottle of Milk.
1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young.
2. The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.
3. Any of various potable liquids resembling milk, such as coconut milk or soymilk.
And when on the receiving end of the deliverables list, it's always a good idea to make sure they are actually deliverable.
There's nothing worse than a task where you can deliver one item and then have to rely on someone else to be able to deliver a second. Was once in a role where performance was judged on closing tasks; getting the burn-down chart to 0, and also having it nicely stepped. Was given a good tip to make sure each task had one deliverable and where possible—be completed independent of any other task.
Well, I think in this example someone else wrote down “buy milk”. Of course I would generally know what that’s likely to mean, and not buy the ridiculous thing. But someone from a culture that’s not used to using milk could easily get confused and buy the wrong thing, to further the example. I guess my point was that it’s never possible to completely unambiguously define when a task is done without assuming some amount of shared knowledge with the person completing the task that lets them figure out what you meant and fill in any gaps
I recently had similar experience where a legitimate text from my insurance company was 100% indistinguishable from a scam text, directing me to a link on allstate.yem.bo. You would think it would be in an insurance company's interest not to train their users to click on scam links but what do I know.
I find the claim (repeated verbatim in some of the comments here) that people with ADHD process stimulants differently particularly specious. Are there any medical studies/not-reddit threads that suggest anything like this?
Essentially the idea is that there is an "optimal" amount of alertness (inverted U curve). People with ADHD start below the optimal point, and stimulants move them up towards the optimal point. People without ADHD are typically closer to the optimal point, and stimulants move them past it.
Someone with ADHD taking a large dose will therefore feel the same as someone without ADHD taking a small(er) dose.
> Compared to [non-adhd] controls untreated [adhd] patients showed increased nocturnal activity, reduced sleep efficiency, more nocturnal awakenings and reduced percentage of REM sleep. Treatment [of those with adhd] with methylphenidate resulted in increased sleep efficiency as well as a subjective feeling of improved restorative value of sleep.
I can't find a corresponding paper studying the effect of stimulants on sleep in healthy adults. I would assume it hasn't been studied because it's common knowledge and it's not worth the risk of making healthy people take stimulants. I also don't think that's the part you were disputing.
It doesn’t happen to everyone with ADHD, but the majority.
The effect itself was prominent/notable as early as WW1, as the drugs were widely used by all parties to help fight fatigue and drowsiness. However, a small percentage of the population would end up with the opposite effect - ending up tired, even sleepy, and often calmer instead of more alert.
It took awhile however, before wider implications of sub-population differences in drug effects like this were studied or applied.
There is no small r party. The point of saying "small r" is to distinguish the political ideology of republicanism[1] from the "big R" Republican Party™
I'll just come clean and explain what I'm doing, and am seeing many others do - as if we all had a meeting (but we didn't) I'm trying to make certain that the Grand Ole Party d1es with Trumpism - that's not hard bc Trumpers truly did takeover that party...
I also want "conservative" and "conservatism" to irreconcilably be connected to Trumpism. Being that nobody has really talked about conservativism for 15 years - a Neocon is essentially Trumper in functional practice regardless. Neoconservatives and their ism was also after conservative - so for real, nobody knows even what that actually is anymore - so it's not hard to bind all these things together, as it politically appears to be now.
I've had some hilarious back and forth with Trumper trolls as I connect Trump with Alpha/Beta/bullshit, the rise of Christian Nationalists and women owned by their husbands with right to cook and be mothers.
I'm trying to take advantage of the best opportunity in my lifetime to take out all the trash of our society.
I'd say that's essentially done and over already actually - there are few things that haven't happened yet, but bc nothing will ever return to normal - ALL those ideas that get connected now to Trump will be lifelong reviled by the vast majority of our ill informed electorate... well, increasingly further and further left informed electorate.
They will no longer have ears for the right's pitch/political take. Small r or otherwise Republicanism is going the way of the Whigs.
I'm actually serious. I think leaders have outlived their necessities and now their downsides outweigh their gains - in general, across the board globally, the majority of leaders are more problematic than their people.
Trump, Putin and Bibi are great examples. How would Russia have invaded Ukraine without Putin? How could Israel attack Iran and cleanse Gazans (I call them that on purpose) without Bibi? How could the US be cancelled by Canada without Trump?
How many stupid American tik toks would it take to topple an 80 year global order??
It doesn't matter. It took only one Trump.
Small r Republicanism - that's also incredibly dated. And I will take absolutely no time at all to explain (confuse) the majority of "non political" people that there is a difference.
Let's do new some new shit maybe?
I want a New America with a parliamentary government with twice the number of Senators, 3 times the Reps, and 21 Supreme Court Justices - the Chief elected in a general election on the off year to the President.
I also don't want out politicians from ever being able to invest in the markets, or owning property while in office, or spending any money out of a personal bank account - ALL expenses are paid by the people, even shit like porn, but WE ALL can pull that account up and see how the political elites and their families spend our money, obviously screened for security shit.
When they leave office they can access all of their earnings made while in office (ought to make them leave faster too ;) They should get a higher salary also and we should build Governor style mansions for the Senator positions and McMansion sized homes for the Reps positions - all befitting their position in our society. Their home goes up for sale tho when they win the election.
Anyways, I'm putting more together - I literally want a new America, a better one, and one free from all the chains of these ideas that have long hindered far more than they ever once helped.
All Red Party stuff is going down with Trump - haha, even the little r
I am a "republican", small "r" as you would say. I pay yearly fee to a "republican association" in a country that is a monarchy, the goal is to end the monarchy. Nothing of it has to do with the US or its Republican party. Get a grip, learn history. Other countries also have shitty political parties using that ethymology ("Les Républicains" in France for instance). Let that ideology burn, and let republicanism [1] thrive.
[1] Republicanism is a political ideology that encompasses a range of ideas from civic virtue, political participation, harms of corruption, positives of mixed constitution, rule of law, and others.
I like the spirit of your efforts. But without simultaneously fracturing and shrinking the power of capitalist elites your ideas wrt to government pay transparency seems destined to fail. Everyone likes making money—even when they already have enough. Sure, pay each politician 1 million dollars a year. They’re still over 100,000 times poorer than the richest in our society. They’ll still be corruptible and liable to influence by the monied elite. They’ll still get gifts in return for favor. And with more positions it’ll be easier to rotate people in and retire them out to receive their bribes held in escrow contingent upon their votes. And my god the amount of pork shoved into bills to satisfy 1300 different representatives!!! If congress wasn’t already in a dead stop before it will be now.
My inner cynic says it’s going to take a violent revolution followed by a complete reshaping of society from the top down. Or a total dissolution of the Union combined with a complete social reversal on money and work.
I can't reply without a book, maybe literally actually which is problematic bc nobody reads anymore books regularly anymore.
A crazy number of people will read crazy long comments tho, so when I noticed that 7-8 months ago, I took to the Internet and started dropping "bite sized" pieces of ideas that I only had crumbs of.
I've been actively contemplating, researching, imagining, discussing, generally working towards a New America - with only what I didn't want it to be as a guide.
That new America has to include an economic system that BOTH motivates and mandates activities that corrects the current imbalance of wealth distribution AND it must also implement simultaneously changes that prevent such an imbalance again fr occuring in the foreseeable future.
I'm about done actually. Motivation was everything. A billionaire is motivated by the pursuit of money - so that's where we get them.
They can be billionaires, but we are going to gamify their pursuit of our collective monies, so much so that between massively increasing tax brackets/rates on those in the upper echelons - we also make them do stuff and things with their money - or they literally hit maximum limits in their bank accounts/investment brokerages - perhaps there is maximum wealth total, so if the taxes don't get it and the billionaires too mentally ill with dragon sickness to spend it on their missions to level up - then they can't claim or accept a single dollar more until they do.
Essentially, I turned regulations into incentives and incentives into regulations tho how exactly is hard to explain - it's not standalone and ought to be utilized alongside an asset value tax - a small tax on the fair market value of any and all assets above x amount, and owned by someone with a net worth of greater than x amount.
Without just explaining more I'll skip to the end.
If assets don't just appreciate in value - tho the ones like single family homes will actually appear to be become negative value by the 3rd or maybe 4th home owned by/between the same property own owner, all directly due to increasing taxes on fees applied to all properties owned by said person
The insane part is you, giving up your power to solve your problems (and encouraging others to). If people voted, it would be much different - it's that simple. If they were politically active, it would be a whole different world - maybe something like the one they wanted.
Instead of doing that, you're spending your energy saying how hard it is.
reply