> where you have control over your estate via the will, maximally until some time after the death of a specific named person who was alive at the time of your death. (which I find a strange stipulation)
This is a compromise of allowing some of your wishes to be fulfilled after your death while preventing long term 'dead hand' control over property and resources. You can set up a foundation dedicated to "thing" but can't control what that foundation does until the end of time.
We probably don't want to live in a world that is controlled by the wishes of someone gone for 500 years who had a view of the world completely at odds with the present. It centralizes power and ties the hands of those living in the present.
I agree its good for it not to be infinite. I just find it strange that the length is based on gambling at the time of your will which person you can name will live longest. Why not a fixed amount of time?
I guess it's so you can provide stipulations to etc care for your newlyborn for their life or something, idk
It depends what you use it for. Abrasives can use pretty much any horrible misshapen brown rock of roughly the right size.
But there are also applications for larger flawless crystals in things like diamond windows, semiconductor substrate and microtomes. Recently you can even buy a diamond 3D printer nozzle for extruding abrasive materials like carbon fibre. These require better processes than the ones that churn out abrasive diamonds.
A rising tide lifts all boats. The demand for industrial diamonds is insatiable. And for bigger grits. This leads to people learning how to make bigger and stronger diamonds. Eventually some of the knowledge and tech will percolate to the jewelry side.
I've run into something similar twice now in the last month. A candidate pauses or says 'let me think about that' on a relatively simple question as if to give an LLM time to respond. After the pause they give an overly long detailed answer - again like an LLM response.
One candidate was absolutely stumped and could not answer why and when they became interested in technology. They couldn't say anything about themselves personally. It was baffling.
Why is nobody being open about that? Because I suspect the appetite for that is low. Germany is about closer to Russia than we are—how many Germans are willing to go die in Ukraine?
A recent poll suggests Germans are currently marginally in favor of sending peacekeepers.
The point of a peacekeeping mission is -of course- to prevent further war by means of deterrence (though there's always still a small risk, of course), so hopefully no one goes to die there.
Currently Germany just had elections, so a clear unified statement from the new-government-in-formation is not yet available.
How this works is pretty common knowledge. The world has been using peacekeepers for quite a while. But you know that and you know you are just concern trolling.
The pro-Ukraine people I know have been pitching our support as “just sending them old weapons we don’t use anyway.” Even the risk of U.S. soldiers on the ground would be a massive escalation of our commitment.
Wow what a slimy tactic. Those people are taking in regards to 'the amount of dollars sent'. You know you are misrepresenting that in your above statement. Completely disingenuous just like I said about your previously. You are a concern troll.
Manhattan is a better example - there is no fast alternative route between the city and airport, and that's why you see a lot of helicopter transfers. I can see this working in a lot of US cities where public transport is poor and the airport is far away - Seattle, LA, Bay Area etc.
You sort of have to marinate yourself in the ideas of the book. But the big one is that you should have a very limited API. And each API function should do a lot of things. So a very narrow set of deep APIs make for the best programs. The other thing was indirection. Try avoiding it as much as possible. Languages which allow easy access to functions or lambdas or blocks being pass around, usually end up with 4 - 5 levels of function calls to get anything done. That makes things really complected together and makes it hard to reason about later.
I keep reading this, but I haven't been able to find much data on intentional vs. accidental consumption with the exception of people who thought they were taking heroin. Do you have any sources on how many deaths can be attributed to laced or misrepresented non-opiates (e.g. marijuana, adderall, mdma)?
I don't think this is someting that is well recorded. I mean the way these encounters are documented there isn't necessarily a box to tick that is "meant to take a different illegal drug but accidentally got fentanyl". I speak anecdotally from having been party to tens of thousands of acute care admits and a lot of public health operations. You see "a lot" of "I just smoked a joint" or "we thought we were getting LSD/X/oxy etc" in teenage fentanyl ODs that recover. Also having had exposure to the drug dealing side via public health interactions and community support groups, my visibility into it has told me these are not careful meticulous people as a whole.
Some of them are, some not as much. There are certainly more obvious poetic devices like a "murder of crows" yet there are still many other collective nouns that are more "legitimately" part of English - pack, herd, pod, flock, swarm, and school for example. You don't have to know these terms as using 'group' would be understood - but they are common enough in books / documentaries.
This is a compromise of allowing some of your wishes to be fulfilled after your death while preventing long term 'dead hand' control over property and resources. You can set up a foundation dedicated to "thing" but can't control what that foundation does until the end of time.
We probably don't want to live in a world that is controlled by the wishes of someone gone for 500 years who had a view of the world completely at odds with the present. It centralizes power and ties the hands of those living in the present.