Interesting idea and I do agree that contiguous is OK but total is not.
I think I'd suggest a more generous Senate term limit. Three terms (18 years) would allow for someone to see out a complete Presidential super-cycle, for example.
The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.
>The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.
I’m not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but I’m going to challenge the notion that this etymological connection carries meaning. The word comes from Roman Senate, and in that context in Latin “senior” really meant people with higher status rather than age. Latin is full of these weird double meanings. Compare to seigneur in French or señor in Spanish. Also, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.
I know this is eight days later, but I just want to give sincere applause to this comment. I think this is the first time I've seen 'literally' used in what can be described as "correctly" (i.e., in line with the etymological root).
All those using it to mean 'factually' are out there making a farce of the language. A farce!
This is an interesting idea. Would be curious to hear from someone who thinks this is a bad idea (why).
edit: I see the "term limits are anti-democratic" takes elsewhere in the comments, so I guess let me narrow the above ask to "someone who isn't opposed to term limits, but thinks this idea is flawed."
Fill the arena with HR ladies and have them do a battle royal to produce a half decent set of interview questions.
Put the electables in isolation cells fromwhere they one by one end up on the Tee Vee, give voters an app with AYE, NEY and Uhh? The questions are red by the winning HR lady but also appear on the app.
The applicant writes the fizzbuzz etc etc
Then, after the job interview, we give the job to the most satisfying candidate!
It's not necessary but I would also add a series of certificates and diplomas for the voter to show they actually have some kind of idea what the job involves. The level 1 certificate should be supper simple and easy to create. It will grant you 0.1 extra vote power. There could be as many levels as we want but to grow beyond [say] 50 votes should require a mythical effort impossible to attain for 99% while we aim to reserve the right to cast 5000 votes for 1 to 5 people with supper human abilities.
The top 20 should have to explain their AYE's and their NAY's to the Tee Vee audience.
Fill the arena with all the HR ladies, and then feed the winner to a lion. After that you might actually find someone capable of interviewing an applicant.
But compared to what - if Anthropic's models aren't perfect but still better than existing (old school) models, it's understandable DoW still wants to use them (since they're potentially the best available, despite imperfections). I think Hegseth is saying to Anthropic: "that's our call, not yours".
But surely if Anthropic thinks there's a risk that their models might make bad decisions, and the resulting civilian or etc deaths are blamed on them, it's their right to refuse to sell it for that purpose? That's why they had those restrictions in the contract to begin with. How can they be forced to provide something?
I agree they can't be forced to provide something. I just see DoW's reasoning, and I can't fault it.
Anthropic are taking a moral position which is admirable, but in this case it could actually make people's lives worse (if we assume more false positives and fewer true positives, which is probably a fair assumption given how much better 'modern' AI is compared to the neural net image recognition of just a few years ago).
I mean, that's pretty normal right. The product starts out as a bit niche and expensive, and then as it scales in manufactured volume, variants & competitors become available at lower price points.
Yeah, Oracle’s free tier is much more generous than any other cloud provider. They’ve offered that amount of ram for at least a couple years now but we’ll see.
On a trip about 18 months ago I had some Kia soft-roader hire car. I bloody hated the lane keeping (unfamiliar narrow twisty roads are bad enough without the car tugging on the steering wheel).
Conversely the auto-distance thing with cruise control is fantastic - it makes CC usable at way higher traffic densities.
Yes, lane keeping can be quite annoying. I regularly drive a road with side markings but no center marking. The car interprets this as a single lane and constantly tugs my steering wheel into oncoming traffic.
It's a somewhat different kind of ring buffer, because there's just one index, but I used it in my signal processing class for a finite-impulse-response filter.
Choose N to be a power of two >= the length of your filter.
Increment index i mod N, write the sample at buffer position x[i], output sum of x[i-k mod N] * a[k] where a[k] are your filter coefficients, repeat with next sample at next time step.
In Brisbane I think our ticketing system cost overhead is maybe 10%?
The cost of the programme rolling out new ticketing infra (the first major ticketing system upgrade in ~15 years since we first got integrated ticketing, going from a stored-value smart card to also being able to tap your credit card) is roughly the same amount of money as the annual revenue from fares.
So hundreds of millions of dollars to be saved then, and that's just for the periodic upgrades, which are an up-front cost and therefore cost you even more in terms of time value of money.
Then as long as the system is in place you need to pay ongoing costs to repair and maintain the equipment, enforcement against anyone who skips the fare, payment network fees, customer service for anyone with payment issues or damaged cards, connectivity service for anything that needs to be networked, etc.
And the overhead percentage depends on the fares. If it was ~10% when the fare was $5, what is it when the fare is $0.50? Well:
> If fare revenue is now only about $20 million per year, does it even cover the cost of fare collection? The current ticketing system rollout was expected to cost $371m, but ended up at $434m – which appears to cover operations for 17 years from 2018… so $25.5m per year. [0]
