They tend to be protective breed like a cute Rotweiler.
Seems harsh to label any of these breeds as aggressive when it stems from human behavior or deliberate training to make aggressive.
Do people that create startups have debt in their own name after the startups fail? Or does the debt go down with the company and does the founder walk away debt free?
Depends on how you set up the company. Usually most startups are done with a limited liability company which usually causes the debt to go down with the company while keeping your personal finances safe.
> The owners of the LLC, called members, are protected from some or all liability for acts and debts of the LLC, depending on state shield laws.
But to start a company you need some cash injection, that can come from your personal finances. Now you could get a personal loan to then inject into your company, which would make you personally liable for said loan. Personal loans are easier to get than company loans (because you can't default on them as easily), but I never heard anyone do that.
Usually you are only personally liable if you commit some sort of crime like fraud.
I don't see many companies interested in this area. Sony has almost given up, Pico has had some major setbacks, and you know what happened to Apple's Vision Pro. There will continue to be investment, but likely by the same big players. There just isn't a lot of money out there, and not many companies can afford this.
Honestly, if Zuckerberg is no longer Meta's boss, they may have already shut down Quest entirely.
I was assuming that VR headsets or AR glasses would become mainstream at some point, like smartphones or tablets, with various Chinese manufacturers competing for the best price. But maybe you are right and that's too optimistic.
They've been around for awhile now and it's still not mainstream. What's holding people back now? Quest is pretty affordable. The quality is pretty good. You think a sleeker form factor will finally tip the scales?
Same and same. It broke my heart a little to read that this essayist got diagnosed at age 11... it's bad enough as an adult, but I can't even imagine dealing with it as a little kid :(
Is there a cure that has been shown to be real in a double-blind trial? Or maybe that has widespread agreement among the medical community? I'm ready to hear it, but I've gone down this road a lot with people saying things like "just stop eating chemicals!" or whatever.
Chron's wasn't an issue I struggled with myself, but I've successfully resolved many wellness and comfort issues through personal experimentation.
Science is slow in general and medical science mostly examines population-wide efficacy rather than individual efficacy, as its these population-wide conclusions that help form guidance for practicioners serving a population.
For any given potential treatment or remedy, an individual may be an outlier whose specific attributes weren't represented or analyzed in that kind of research or whose response would have fallen into the noise floor.
You can certainly choose to only accept those population-scale conclusions, but many of us only have so many decades to try to sort ourselves out.
And further, because of the feedback loop between thought and many autonomic processes in the body, one can even experience real remedy from formally invalid treatments. For an individual, that's all you need.
Yeah, but the challenge is filtering those personal experiments through traps like "regression to the mean" and the placebo effect. And then generalizing them enough to recommend them to other people.
I have no objection to personal experimentation, but the guy I responded to said he knew a cure for Crohn's that "the man" wouldn't let him talk about. That's a pretty dicey claim.
In the general population, there would be a very satisfying schadenfreude in watching the techies make themselves unemployed by their own hubris. I think that's part of the desire for the story to be true.
The other part is that those selling AI want to believe it is as big as the introduction of the internet, and not just another hype train like blockchain.
Any evidence that makes the current hotness seem like a tectonic shift is attractive to those types.
As a developer I've tried to use Copilot and ChatGPT as much as I can to improve my performance, but even with GPT4 I've found that for my workflow the most of the leverage it gives falls into:
* Scaffolding of projects like unit tests or basic wireframes,
* writing or proofreading e-mail
* understanding cryptic legacy code that uses old practices
* saving me having to visit some framework documentation.
But I found it hard to believe it's the reason behind layoffs, as the ceiling of their capabilities it's pretty low when things get complex, and even in some cases can have diminishing or negative returns. Examples of this are hallucinations of APIs or code that is not compatible with the language I'm using. So it becomes like a slot machine, hoping that the next prompt will have a good result.
I think the main advantage of the current iteration of AI, it's like having the old Google back, before SEO and paid articles contaminated the web with useless first results.
It would be difficult to prove that AI as a tool is the direct cause of differences in the job market. It would be equally difficult to prove that interest rates are directly responsible for the same differences.
Both the above comment and the article are making claims about a system that is complex enough that it would be difficult to prove any causal link.
That said, I believe that interest rates are probably a much greater factor in any net decrease on tech jobs than the proliferation of LLMs (which is really what has changed).
That and how the IRS changed the rules for tax purposes. You can't write an engineers salary off in the same year it was paid but rather over 4 years now.
