It was kind of fun doing this math back when I was a freelancer. An hour saved would literally produce more money than the order cost. But really, it would have been better to save the money by making food ahead of time.
I've always struggled with this thinking. Yes, you have finite hours in a day and if you spend an hour going to get food then you can't necessarily also be doing freelance work. But if you planned on working 8 hours to earn X dollars, you can still work 8 hours after spending an hour going to get food and still make X dollars. Sure, that hour has to come from somewhere so maybe it's lost leisure time or an hour of sleep. I guess it makes sense if you're trying to work every waking moment; and I can appreciate that some choose to and some have to.
> Sure, that hour has to come from somewhere so maybe it's lost leisure time or an hour of sleep.
Well, if you value an hour of your sleep or entertainment less than $15 dollars (if, for instance, you like to cook), then sure, spend it on cooking instead. Many of people would rather not, and their revealed preferences show it pretty clearly.
Ya I dont get this argument. Takes me all of 2 mins to grab my lunch in the morning. It's also not a greasy burger that shortens my lifespan and physically disable's me.
The whole point of food delivery is for the occasions you can’t (e.g. sudden illness, or time management mishaps) or don’t want to (laziness/tiredness) cook or drive to grab a takeout. You pay a premium for the convenience, someone else takes care of it. Nothing wrong with that, no “suckers” in the general scheme.
From what I've seen its the fat lazy devs at work that order chipotle for lunch rather than walking downstairs to get it themselves. Mostly the younger ones too that are right out of school and should be saving their money.
0 to 1 is part of why the first Curiosity cost so much. If they kept the technology alive in practice, launching a new one every year doesn’t sound unreasonable.
In fact, that kind of standing order for a new Curiosity every year is exactly how you would keep the technology alive in practice.
They issued statements like that... aaand then built a copy of the rover for the same cost as the original one. And it only took them 10 years to do this :)
Yeah, build-to-print at the small scale of space missions never really works in practice because requirements always change and small changes in requirements tend to have big design impacts.
This is a good question and there is a real practical answer. The tomb is not in a Pyramid but deep in a mountain reachable by a narrow stairway. You'd have to cut away or dig through the mountain to come close enough for a metal detector.
Clearly wasn’t a “planet” — failed catastrophically at clearing its neighborhood. The Royal Astronomical Society should be ashamed for publishing something so un-scientific. /s
An interesting consequence is that cybersecurity researchers and hackers are now AI researchers.
The prominent game right now is about the classes of attacks that AI can recognize both to exploit and to remedy.
Implicitly, that creates a new highly valuable class of vulnerabilities: the ones that AI for whatever reason is unable to readily see. Understanding those two groups will be paramount and will lead to better AI.
I feel somewhat skeptical of the methods as they were superficially described in this article. Will need to read more later. However, I also have been aware of the demise of sturgeon and I really hope we will get to see their populations return.
I hypothesize that with more people on a daily basis encountering information and claims that require those skills, there will be a time in the future when those skills are much more enhanced.
reply