Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.
>It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.
So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years...
Looks like good negotiation to me. South Korea’s foreign minister even credited him for his work on the deal (which is still ongoing).
Hate Trump all you want, but fact of the matter is he’s a damn good salesman, marketer and negotiator. It’s how he won the primaries and the presidency. And now it’s how he’s winning diplomacy.
You can have a problem with his tactics, but at this point the results are really starting to speak for themselves.
>Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years...
That's exactly what I think. I can't begin to fathom why anyone would think that he does. Because of the ridiculous tweets?
The obvious reason for the increased discussions between North and South Korea is that China has been less and less supportive of North Korea - a trend that started long before Trump took office - and Kim Jung Un isn't an idiot. Without China's support, North Korea ceases to exist. The only way for Kim Jung Un to survive with any measure of power is to make nice with the South.
Let's also not forget that North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities were recently damaged in an earthquake.
As we say in finance, if you think the world undervalues a thing then you buy it, and if you think the world overvalues a thing then you sell it. Kim's weapons program suffered a significant setback, making it less valuable in his eyes. Meanwhile the rest of the world still places a high value on getting Kim to abandon the program.
In other words, Kim probably has more to gain from abandoning the program than he does from trying to repair the damage. Even if we had a sack of potatoes in the White House, it still makes sense for Kim to try to make a peace deal right now.
Let's also not forget that North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities were recently damaged in an earthquake.
No, their test facilities were damaged. It was a hole in a mountain used to test their warheads, and the hole in the mountain has collapsed.
NK completely retains the ability to produce and launch warheads if they want.
More than likely NK doesn't need to test their weapons anymore. They're a fully capable nuclear power now and they will be bringing that fact to the negotiating table.
> So the South Korean foreign minister is just making things up?
Sure. South Korea’s relationship with the US government (whoever heads it) is important, and fawning—even if false (heck, perhaps especially powerfully when verifiably false)—public praise is a well-known important tool to maintain good relations with Trump.
Technically, Pablo Escobar was a good businessman.
And there's the rub. Economics are amoral. There's nothing inherent in capitalism that says "We only make money in ways that are legal and ethical". Corruption is part of the nature of the beast. This is why we need to regulate markets.
Make a desirable product illegal, and you've improved the profitability of that product's market, by increasing friction. (As an aside - as Peter Thiel points out, in a free market, profits are driven to zero. That's just math. All profitability is derived from friction, from failure of the free market.) Society winds up attracting the least ethical businesspeople this way - the Pablo Escobars, drawn by the incredible profits that illegal products can generate.
Corruption is a similar problem. Politicians, especially executives, wind up with massive monopoly leverage that can reward or punish businesses. This creates a strong incentive to offer personal financial gain to politicians in exchange for favor. The fact that this is illegal only increases the amount of reward that must be offered.
This makes "businessman" politicians exceedingly dangerous. If they're used to shortchanging ethics in the name of profit already, the power of office is far too potentially profitable to resist.
No, remember they tried to solicit interference in our electoral process by a hostile foreign power, but were unsuccessful. Apparently that's better... for reasons which no one seems to be able to adequately explain.
There isn't actually any evidence he is worth 4 billion dollars. (And even Forbes, which barely does any work to verify this sort of stuff, has revised it down to 3 billion)
His actual personal net worth is likely closer to a few hundred million, and almost all of that is from his inheritance. He would be worth more if he had just put all of the money his father had given him into an index fund tracking the S&P 500.
Basically all of his net worth beyond that is in how he values the Trump name as a brand. This doesn't make much particular sense, as the Trump name has not helped Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Entertainment Resorts, etc. etc. etc.
Well, no, they doesn't seem to be true, but he has quite a bit net worth, as a result of generating mediocre returns on family-derived wealth. Unless he negotiated with his Creator for what family he would be issued when sent to Earth, that's not really much of an endorsement of unusually strong negotiating skills.
> and is a president of the US.
Mostly a product of an unusually weak opponent, not negotiating strength (to the extent there is anything arguably unusual about negotiations by Trump on the road to the White House, it's the “who with” and not the “how well”.)
AI won't disappear definitely. However, more graduates will enter market as we move forward. Thus there will be more supply than demand which leads to drop in salaries.
This has happened in many markets in recent years. Don't you recall big data hype around 2007? You would be considered as God if you can barely install Hadoop back then.
Competent big data folks still pull down $300-400k fairly easily. I’m talking about people who _really_ understand the field and have a track record, not “graduates with a degree”.
starts at 400k? where do you get that number? I can imagine a director 3 type position, which would be true for most fields. But interviewing, talking with recruiters, and looking at salaries on glass door, facebook pays a median 130k. Amazon pays closer to the 100k side with a maximum of 165k, an absolute ceiling that shall not be passed. There is stock, but even being equal to base, still no where near a starting 400k
As Elon Musk quipped, in a few years this thing will move so fast you’ll need a strobe to see it. It’s not subject to the human reaction time or mechanical constraints.
It could use spikes and/or go on all fours in “fast” mode. It’s whatever you design. My main point though is not mechanics, but the significantly lower reaction time. Given enough compute, the world that seems “real time” to us could appear to be slow as molasses to a robot. I think the natural thing to do would be to make it move at the speed that provides a good balance between accomplishing objectives and energy consumption. I think that this speed is much faster than what we’re used to with humans. For eg military robots that balance could be further tweaked in favor of quickly accomplishing objectives.
A slightly larger version of Sand Flea seems like a better fit. Disposable, can be deployed relatively cheaply in large quantities, with good camo nearly invisible on the ground, can scale obstacles by jumping. Could be made to carry a fragmentation payload and/or spy gear.
They are also not meant to do R&D. For one thing they don’t pay market rate, so their access to top talent is non-existent. For another, there’s no accountability and no “fear of death”, since the government essentially can’t run out of money. Why try to use resources wisely if you can just tax people, or if that doesn’t work, print more money, and thereby tax their children and grandchildren. No, I’d much rather this risk was compartmentalized.
Another issue is, you’re de facto giving the rest of the world a free ride on US taxpayer largesse. Even better free ride than what they’re getting now: paying a dime on the dollar for newest genetic drugs without spending any money on their development. I’d go along with that in the poor countries like India, but I see no reason whatsoever why I should be paying 5-6x as much as some dude in Western Europe, all while he tries to lecture me about their “free” healthcare. I’d much rather I paid less and they paid the same as me.
But there is a lot of beneficial R&D that, were governments not paying for it, would never have been done. Surely the kind of R&D that is beneficial but would never get done privately should be picked up by government? Without that, less modern computers, less modern aerospace, less modern medicine, less modern lots of things.
No they haven't. There's always been an initial 1 year cliff. This changed in the past year. Source: I joined google less than 6 years ago and had a 1 year cliff.
That's a very unusual deal. Most Google offers were (up until I think August/September 2017) structured as base + target % annual bonus + cash signing bonus with first/second paycheck (which you would need to pay back prorated if you left before a year, but this isn't a cliff) + equity with a 1 year cliff before vesting on a schedule that depended on the exact amount, but varied from annually to monthly.
This was true for new grad offers as well as for most experienced hires. I believe I've heard of different structures for cases where Google was doing essentially an equity buyout, but those were absolutely the exception, not the rule.
checking myrewards, some are on the 20% schedule every 6 months (for 2.5 year for full vest) and some are on the 10% schedule (for 5 year for full vest), and some are on a 5% schedule every 3 months (for 5 year for full vest).
Nothing wrong with chasing money and status, especially in the initial stages of one’s career. If that’s what _really_ makes him/her tick, great. Money especially tends to have multiplicative effect over time, most jobs you take will necessarily pay more than the previous job. But notice the “really”. There’s 45 years of work in a lifetime, and one needs to find a deeper motivation than money and status.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with expecting some money and appreciation to follow genuine achievement, but focusing on those rewards to the detriment of actually making something cool is going to be pretty unfulfilling and unsustainable career-wise, doubly so if you are overt enough that your colleagues notice.
Yeah, you can play whatever game you want in life. However, playing the money game is dangerous, and can easily create attachment and greed. I'm not necessarily preaching about his choice of game -- more about his lack of perspective, really.
Not playing the money game is dangerous as well. Like it or not, money is a potent signaling mechanism. The more you’re able to charge, the better you’re treated, the easier it is to get access to “cool” jobs and projects, and the easier it is to throw in the towel on the shitty ones. I’m not even talking about things like compound interest and the peace of mind that comes with financial independence in your mid to late 30s, even just tactical considerations make it worthwhile to extract as much money as possible from the employers. After all, they do try to extract as much productivity from you as possible, so it’s only fair to reciprocate. There’s no shame in it, and pursuing meaningful work at the same time is far from mutually exclusive.
I heard FB is good as well, though I still don’t get why they need so many people to do what they do. Heck, even MS is probably better than Amazon. I delete all Amazon recruiter emails (of which I receive about 2 per week) as soon as they arrive.
In a for profit company, the point of the people evaluating your policy against needed care is essentially to find ways to deny you as much care as possible. In a universal system, the motivations aren't organized around whether a profit will be made or not and so the public (rather than private) bureaucrats will at least not be actively trying to kill or otherwise immiserate you. As an additional check on their behavior, the organization is directly accountable to elected representatives, very unlike the private system.
And Charlie Gard would have disagreed with Stephen had the court not decided that he should die.
There is another high profile ALS sufferer in the US: Jason Becker, a super virtuoso guitarist popular in the 80s, tragically afflicted at the very peak of his ability. Still alive, still writing music, but can’t move anything but his eyes or breathe. No one sentenced him to death or anything.
Pretty sure there will be a lawsuit. What kind of Gattaca/1984 bullshit is this, the state where everything causes cancer? How did CA techies not rebel about this?
