If we had really good AI writing, I wouldn't mind if poor authors used that to improve how they communicate. But today's crop of AI are not that good writers.
If we had really good AI writing, I wouldn't mind if poor authors used that to improve how they communicate. But today's crop of AI are not that good writers.
https://www.business-standard.com/immigration/india-post-sus...
>We decided to do something outlandishly simple: take the salary that Steve, Jess, and I were going to pay ourselves, and pay that to everyone. [https://oxide.computer/blog/compensation-as-a-reflection-of-...]
Does everyone at Oxide have the same equity grant?
> Since originally writing this blog entry in 2021, we have increased our salary a few times, and it now stands at $207,264. We have also added some sales positions that have variable compensation, consisting of a lower base salary and a commission component.
#include <X11/Xlib.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define stk(s) XKeysymToKeycode(d, XStringToKeysym(s))
#define on(_, x) if (e.type == _) { x; }
#define map(k, x) if (e.xkey.keycode == stk(k)) { x; }
#define grab(...) const char *l[] = { __VA_ARGS__, 0 }; \
for (int i = 0; l[i]; i++) XGrabKey(d, stk(l[i]), Mod4Mask, r, 1, 1, 1);
int main() {
Display *d = XOpenDisplay(0); Window r = DefaultRootWindow(d); XEvent e;
XSelectInput(d, r, SubstructureRedirectMask);
grab("n", "q", "e");
while (!XNextEvent (d, &e)) {
on(ConfigureRequest, XMoveResizeWindow(d, e.xconfigure.window, 0, 0, e.xconfigure.width, e.xconfigure.height));
on(MapRequest, XMapWindow(d, e.xmaprequest.window);
XSetInputFocus(d, e.xmaprequest.window, 2, 0));
on(KeyPress, map("n", XCirculateSubwindowsUp(d, r); XSetInputFocus(d, e.xkey.window, 2, 0))
map("q", XKillClient(d, e.xkey.subwindow))
map("e", system("dmenu_run &")));
}
}
I have to say, I'm not usually a huge fan of C macros, but it works here so well, it feels so elegant and clean somehow.Then again, maybe we're still operating from a framework where the dataset is part of your moat. It seems like such a way of thinking will severely limit the sources of innovation to just a few big labs.
Provide a harsh and direct rejection explaining why this idea won't work (unless for the real good idea), pointing out potential flaws, market issues, team problems, or execution challenges. Be specific and refer to details from their application. Your tone should be direct, blunt, and slightly condescending (or like Paul Graham that obsessed, counterintuitive, and logical) but provide real constructive criticism with solutions. Keep your response under 300 words.
Companies aggressively protect their own intellectual property but have no qualms about violating the IP rights of others. Companies. Individuals have no such privilege. If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life.
This is exactly what I immediately thought while reading the article. It almost feels like the legal system only punishes general public, while most of these guys are above it.
Index 01 uses silver-oxide batteries.
Why can’t it be recharged?
We considered this but decided not to for several reasons:
You’d probably lose the charger before the battery runs out! Adding charge circuitry and including a charger would make the product larger and more expensive. You send it back to us to recycle. Wait, it’s single use?
Yes. We know this sounds a bit odd, but in this particular circumstance we believe it’s the best solution to the given set of constraints. Other smart rings like Oura cost $250+ and need to be charged every few days. We didn’t want to build a device like that. Before the battery runs out, the Pebble app notifies and asks if you’d like to order another ring."
Uhhh... Huh... Ok. Welp, that's a nope from me then.