My first thought was similar, though followed quickly by "...but it's Apple, so what's the catch?" The relevant extra things to know are that the SSD is soldered, there are no slots for extra SSDs, and choosing a sensible (1TB) drive is >4X the price of buying similar storage at retail. Still a no from me, then.
(The only thing I do often that's CPU-limited is compiling, being faster at that saves me maybe a few minutes in a full working day; I don't care. I am frequently limited by RAM and I really hate shuffling things around to make space on drives.)
My Mac mini M1 is still such a great computer and I really don't need to upgrade, but with the spec bump up to 16GB of RAM, $230 trade in value that Apple is telling me they'll give me, and the $499 education pricing (I'm currently doing a Masters degree) it's too tempting to pass up.
I have been deeply involved with monitoring my diet and nutrition for almost 40 years now.
My own metabolism and body is so different than when I started 40 years ago.
Current nutrition "science" is basically studying ensembles of weakly nonstationary processes and arriving at meaningless averages.
The whole method is completely stupid. It is why it feels like we have basically learned nothing in my lifetime in this field because I honestly don't think we have.
There is a problem too that scientism has a dual meaning.
There is the belief in science as the best means to get at the truth and then the pejorative of using science as a type of orthodox religion. So for the true believer in the pejorative you can't even use the term.
Personally, I think this is a lost cause. Scientism in the pejorative sense is a new religion and most likely we are at the very early stages. Even when it comes to lifting weights, every youtube video pretends to be "based on science".
I might be too old to see it happen but I fully expect at some point in the future instead of a movie getting 5 stars, the commercial will say this is scientifically proven to be great movie. A restaurant will claim to have the best tacos based on science.
This is clearly the road we are on and I don't see a way back. Actual scientist will have to be more and more certain in their language because that is what scientism in the pejorative sense is to the true believer and the cult of the true believer in pejorative scientism is growing.
As a scientist this stuff irks me more than the openly anti-science people- because it deprives science of the whole point- to be able to question and understand things yourself.
I dislike how every food item, exercise, etc. is now “scientifically proven to be optimal.” And if you look at the actual research it will show that some biomarker was higher in some comparison… but who is to say having that higher is better, and that they were actually measuring the only relevant factor out of thousands of possibilities to measure? We simply don't know nearly enough about biology to measure one biomarker and conclude that it proves something is "optimal" for the health of every member of an entire species of complicated organisms over their entire lives. If I'm going to lift weights I don't care how it modulated some level of some immunological molecule the authors were studying because it's what they happened to get funded to measure- I just care if when other people tried it if they got stronger, and didn't get hurt... something I can learn from word of mouth rather than peer reviewed literature. And you will get called “anti science” if you question it… as if questioning things that don’t make sense wasn’t the main point of science. /rant
You wouldn't have to be a professor of music for this.
Chopin has a unique style and it is a waltz.
This would have been a trivial question for any piano music lover.
The only reason I might not have have guessed Chopin first is it seems too obvious and easy if I had been asked. A new Beatles song might be harder to guess than this.
I think it sounds pretty good too but I would want to hear it performed by a pianist who I like the way they play Chopin to judge it better. It sounds quite good considering I don't really like the sound of the piano that is being used.
You can't run a 120 billion dollar bond trading operation with like 4 people.
That amount of money is a huge amount of work to manage no matter what you are trading.
The simple explanation of how they do this is that they don't have anything close to 120 billion to manage.
It is really a sociological and network experiment of how long fraud can persist when the fraud is in the short term interest of all nodes of the network.
I suspect the reason Bernie Madoff was able to persist for so long is that many of the investors thought he was front running trades because of his position with Nasdaq. People tend to be fine with fraud if they are directly benefiting from the fraud and only risking their capital in the process.
Time is not a good measure of non-fraud. That is just a rationalization because any crypto investor has to basically keep the idea of a tether fraud out of their head at this point considering the risk to the ecosystem would be so catastrophic.
What does actually grow in time is the risk to the network.
> You can't run a 120 billion dollar bond trading operation with like 4 people.
They delegate much of those issues to multiple regulated third parties.
The much referenced NYAG settlement in this discussion never shows they were committing massive fraud. There were periods when reserves included assets like receivables or funds temporarily seized by authorities but there was no finding that USDT wasn’t fully backed. The link to that settlement is thrown around with the implication that “see they are fraudulent” for those who don’t read the details.
I used to think exactly like all the anti-Tether people and conspiracies but the fact is that there exists no evidence for massive fraud and much evidence it isn’t.
It is a ridiculous article but did you really expect more?
Journalism is really a type of opinion piece, social lubricant in 2024. The purpose is so you and I have something to talk about and connect when we would not have other wise.
Did either of us learn anything? Of course not but only an idiot would expect to learn anything based on the title.
If I want to learn something I will just browse arXiv myself.
You could even say it started with things like Thomas Paine's pamphlet propaganda.
It seems the problem is we have a system that was born from the printing press and this system simply doesn't work in the age of the internet.
All that really holds it together are these religious sentiments about the inherent good of democracy. Sentiments that have almost nothing to do with lived experience at this point.
It seems to me because of the scaling properties, the internet finds an issue free equilibrium of "vote for me because the other person sucks."
Then it is just a race to get the most views on how much the opponent sucks.
"vote for me because the other person sucks." seems to be indeed the status quo that politicians in all democracies feel.mlst comfortable with. I think we need to add an "execute everyone on the ballot" option so that politicians have to do positive campaign because if their only contribution is making people disgusted with politics altogether, they'd be risking their lives.
A major problem of the US 2 party system is that there really is someone specifically you can point at to villainize. With multiple parties its much harder to say "everyone except us is a villain" (unless you kinda wanna be seen as crazy), in the worst case it's calling out the extremist parties, which still leaves room for many other parties.
I was just looking at a mac book air yesterday but I just can't get over the complete ripoff of a memory upgrade from the base model.
16 gig starting at $599. I honestly don't need to know anything else to buy one.