Are you suggesting that low latency video isn't expensive? That goes against everything I've ever heard from people at streaming platforms. The costs are high enough to be a major competitive moat for some of the biggest companies on the planet (e.g. Google's YouTube).
Have you tried it? Worked first time for me asking a few to build an autonomous super soaker system that uses facial recognition to spray targets when engaged.
Another example is autonomous vehicles. Those can obviously kill people autonomously (despite every intention not to), and LLMs will happily draw up design docs for them all day long.
Saying it has nothing new seems like an uncharitable take. Yes, it has influences (that rust docs dedicate a page to [0]), but PL theory has such a rich body of literature that you can make a similar claim about virtually any language. It's the whole package that matters, and I don't think there's anything "rust but earlier" to point to there. Certainly isn't Ada.
Kagi uses a third party API that scrapes Google results for their searches. Possibly SerpAPI? Either way, Google doesn't get paid because you can't pay for the kind of search access they want.
That depends on how aggressively the current administration follows through on the threats to punish them. The SEC could deny IPO registration, for example.
Given the waning influence of American economic hegemony, this threat looks to be less impactful as time goes on. A stick that is shrinking can still be painful; it will be an interesting decision for the company's directors to make.
Honestly, just start with Wikipedia. It's better than most popular books and completely free.
If you find yourself wanting something better, the next steps up are any of the numerous world history books from Oxford/Cambridge university presses. Beyond that you should really be picking more narrow areas/periods to go into.
Wikipedia is emphatically not the place to start for this field. For chemistry, physics, mathematics and parts of biology, sure - any field which has not (yet) been politicised generally is covered quite well on Wikipedia. History has always been politicised and coverage of historical subjects on Wikipedia reflects and is fully dependent on which faction has captured the subject at hand. Even the ('perennial') sources allowed to be used on Wikipedia have been heavily politicised. If you want something resembling an objective take keep away from Wikipedia for anything which is in any way politically sensitive no matter whether you happen to agree to the factions which rule the roost or whether you oppose them. If you're looking for confirmation of your biases, sure go there but keep in mind that what you're reading there is not history but ideologically biased historical fiction.
The amount of politicization that happens on Wiki is vastly overstated and in my experience usually reflects the speaker not seeing their own political biases.
Take, for instance, approaching history from the perspective of seeking an "objective take". That's great if you want to be on the cutting edge of historical methodologies from the 1930s, but it's something we try to disabuse undergrads of today because it's not very useful. The modern view is that all histories are narratives and the job of the historian is to render our understanding of it as fully and fairly as possible. David Stack's paper is a pretty good introduction [0] to this idea.
And so, take a look at the Human History page on Wiki [1]. There are lots of things I disagree with (the use of the term "Hinduism" for LBA religion, the "Cradles of Civilization" view is a particular choice, etc), but it hits a lot of the right points as well. Seriously, you have no idea how few popular history sources almost completely forget that there's a world outside Eurasia. Frankly, the article as a whole is a perfectly adequate introduction to world history, with lots of branching-off points for the things that interest you.
You can choose to go beyond that with things like the 7.5 volume Cambridge World History series [2], but the sheer amount of text makes that terrible advice for most people. Nor can I recommend pop media because the media with the most production value is almost always the worst informationally.
I wish I could upvote this multiple times. However, I hope nobody takes away from this that all history is purely biased and therefore worthless. Reading a history book should be like having a conversation with a well-informed friend: you should expect them to get most things right, talk with others, and feel entitled to your own opinion. But you shouldn't ignore them because they might be wrong or stop talking to them because you differ with them, and definitely not assume you're smarter and more clear thinking than the expert.
It's really not ideal. Similar systems are common in Central Asia. They make it difficult for travelers to predict journey times, it's unfriendly to tourists, and it's much less accessible to other populations (e.g. the disabled). They also don't scale well to large urban environments or out of the way journeys in my experience.
Yes, like all systems, it has tradeoffs. Although I would argue that some of the downsides you highlight are worse with traditional bus systems (e.g. the Caribbean bus conductors will happily guide tourists, and I have seen them go off-route frequently to drop off someone with limited mobility. Large cities in other parts of the world have managed to scale the system out to fill in gaps with other forms of transit like Lima, Peru)
The GP was arguing that it NEVER works out, and I'm just pointing out that it does work in many places.
I would much rather rely on the Caribbean minibus systems than try to rely on transit in cities like Phoenix.
To standardize a journey time in a scheduled system, you subtract the origin scheduled arrival from the destination scheduled arrival. Map apps will even do this for you automatically. If the bus is unreliable, you add error margin. A demand shuttle system usually has a much larger variance, which means you can't predict that the journey time will be acceptable and you'll find some other way to get around.
How do buses fair in this regard?
You look at the route map and the schedule to decide? Again, map apps make this trivial for regularly scheduled services.
Why is that an acceptable middle ground for you? I trust f-droid apps a lot more than anything installed from the Play store. The same restrictions should apply to Google's store as others.
They aren't. Tesla has logged some 800k total miles with their robotaxi vehicles, including miles with safety drivers. Waymo has logged 200M driverless miles. That's 0.4% of the mileage, with the most generous possible framing.
A compound word isn't just a phrase. The latter is a group of words that indicate a single concept. The former is a new word that has a distinct meaning from the subwords that compose it. "I love you" is an example of a clausal phrase. The meaning is entirely evident from the words that compose it. In contrast, a "hot dog" is not a particularly warm canine, and has its own OED entry [0] as a compound word.
And some of the entries on this list are wrong. "Good night" exists in OED as "goodnight" [1] because there are multiple ways it's used. One is the clausal phrase "I hope you have a good night", which can be modified by changing the adjective, e.g. "great night" or "terrible night". "Goodnight" the bedtime ritual can't be modified the same way, so OED chooses to write it as a compound word without spaces.
reply