Yes, but the way i read the chart it doesn’t differentiate between degrees of ideology; Just a binary “what percentage of the age group votes liberal vs conservative”. So at 0 there is a 50/50 there are equally as many liberals as conservatives, but it doesn’t provide any information how strong this ideological views are.
Inherent factors could explain different ratios of conservativ vs liberal views in men vs women of that age group, but not drastic changes to such a gap. I’d also rule out brain development as a factor simply based on differences between countries. Human populations do have variances, but not to such a degree when it concerns something this fundamental.
This may have affected my younger brain’s susceptibility to extremist views
Or for a positive spin “openness to new or different ideas and values”
Fdroid has automatic updates since this year.
If by that you mean biological differences, then no way. Genetics don’t change on this sort of short time scale. It’s almost certainly socio-economic factors.
edit: to clarify genetics for something with the generation time and growth like humans, if we were looking at bacteria you could of course easily see major shifts like resistances to antibiotics in much shorter time frames.
Only if the trend between women getting more liberal and men getting more conservative cancel out. If you have a graph like South Korea where young women vote moderately more liberal, but young men become drastically more conservative, then it still results in an overall shift towards conservative values.
My guess (based on no hard facts, bust purely speculation): This statistic is for the age group of 18-29 year old. Young people tend to be more liberal and grow more conservative as they age.
There might also be a political or economic component, but i think age is the primary reason why these graphs mostly show a liberal bias for the samples.
What i still don’t quite understand with these kind of buyouts is who lends them the money and who gets saddled with the debt? Surely banks know the drill and wouldn’t want to borrow and hold debt for a company destined to fail in such a way.
Do banks get repaid before that happens and the only people being owed are small contractors and employees? Does the bank repackage the debt and sell it to someone else? Or are the interest payments high enough to just factor in losing part of the money borrowed with high certainty?
information about a person
Not only one person, but also their relatives, who didn’t consent to begin with. You of course don’t get all of it, but if you e.g. have the DNA of a parent, then you also get information about their children.
Say for example they have some genetic predisposition for an illness, then their child is probably also more likely to get it. Better hope that in the future there are still laws against using this kind of data for determining health insurance.
Agreed. Reusing the same set of hyped actors across films definitely reduces the level of immersion. Unless ofc the actors can truly transform themselves like Colin Farrell in the new Penguin series to give a recent example.
I think the issue is that nowadays the job of actors in big movies like these is just as much being a vehicle for marketing as it is the acting itself. I’ve heard that the rule of thumb is that Hollywood spends a similar amount on marketing as it does on production. So you want someone with a household name that people recognize, that people associate with a type of movie they like, and that can tour through the media circus and talks shows creating buzz.
Plus it helps with acquiring financing.
So as much as I’d want to see more fresh faces (and more normal people, not the unrealistic Hollywood standards), I doubt it’ll happen.
How do you profit of a company that hemorrhages a few billion a year?
While it runs a deficit you don’t or at least only through increased valuations, which ofc assume that you’ll eventually be able to turn a profit. Will this ever happen for OpenAI, i have no idea, but that is the bet. And for the likes of Microsoft spending a few billions on bets like this isn’t that big of a deal, just look at how much Meta burns in their VR department.
Even Amazon had AWS, which was the absurdly profitable core business at the center of a cost bleeding distribution center.
Uber was running a deficit for a long time until it turned profitable. It’s pretty normal for many new companies to burn money first before they turn a profit. The biggest cost seems to be training new models constantly, and i assume one hope is that eventually this slows down. Then they need to get operating costs down that where i think they currently roughly break even (?) or maybe run a minor loss, but that seems doable, considering the pace at which hardware is still improving.
OpenAI is doing nothing to generate economic value.
I wouldn’t say that it is nothing, but at this very moment it probably doesn’t equal the immense amount of resources poured into it. That said, if things improve both in terms of the quality of responses you can get from models as well as reduced costs to run them, then there is definitely huge economic potential.
You mean when the board of directors wanted to fire him? Considering the recent news of OpenAI transitioning towards for profit i think they got what they wanted from keeping him in charge. Seems like something Microsoft would benefit from and if they’d have gotten a different CEO at the time who knows if it had come to this point.
spoon theory
Thanks for introducing me to a new concept (or at least a term for it), always nice to learn something new.
Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.
Thanks for the link. That is certainly a frustrating development, since they had to sell it for a much steeper discount before as the article mentions.
Importantly they tried to enter the market with a $40 purchase price, when the existing competition is mostly free to play.
My comment was aimed more towards the excessive CEO pay, not the stagnation in worker’s pay.
Probably not the best source (just one of the first Google results), but as an example, if I read something like this:
How much money did Marissa Mayer make while running Yahoo? During her five years at Yahoo, from 2012 to 2017, Marissa’s total compensation, including salary, stock, and bonuses, was $405 million. Verizon acquired Yahoo for a little over $4 billion in 2016. Marissa earned roughly $120 million from the acquisition through a mix of bonuses, accelerated stock options and salary. For example, she was paid a onetime bonus of $23,011,325 once the Verizon acquisition was finalized.
Then it seems to me like the shareholders somehow got the short end, despite being the ones with the power to make changes.
There might be public displeasure about it, but I think behind the scenes India buying Russia oil is expected and at least to some degree accepted (or possibly even wanted).
The bigger thing is Russia not generating profits from those sales, which I am speculating is not the case at the prices India is buying at. The upside of Russian oil still being available to the world market is keeping the prices lower, something Europe is very much interested in.
I am actually still not sure why it isn’t fixed through voting. And I mean shareholder-voting, not public voting.
But after things like Elon Musk’s compensation package getting approved (again) it cleared won’t work through that mechanism either.
If you are considering them, then I would mention that they have regular and “mini” versions, with the only difference being the size of the headband. I’ve tried both and personally prefer the smaller size since it doesn’t protrude so far in the back, despite not having a particularly small head.
I think it’s a 13 not 18 and references the assassination attempt