Or, in another world, the official US CPI definition (https://www.bls.gov/cpi/) is 16.3% based on energy prices.
I strongly suspect this definition strongly correlates with what most people call inflation (my fuel bill went up! and strangely, not heading to work wasn't really an option).
If everything has an oil component to its price i.e. energy to produce it or transportation to move it, a (large) price increase in one commodity would produce a general price increase.
But not that 16% level. If the cost of a good is 10% oil then it will increase 1.6% from the oil price.
People seem to have very odd views on inflation. “Eggs have doubled in price therefore real inflation is 100%”
The basket of goods and different figures are all there, build your own basket if you want and come out with your own inflation level. Don’t just gut feeling it.
Now there are legitimate issues — if the cost of 1kg of pasta hasn’t changed, but it is no longer available int he shops near you, then that’s a problem.
> a (large) price increase in one commodity would produce a general price increase.
Nope. Because if you spend more on one commodity, you necessarily spend less on other items. Spending less means less demand, and corresponding price reductions.
This is the Law of Supply and Demand at work.
Which also explains inflation - more money dumped into the economy, without a corresponding increase in the goods & services in the economy, devalues the money (see Law of Supply and Demand), which we call "inflation".
Money is not "special", and is subject to the LoSaD just like everything else.
Look what happened to Beanie Babies' prices when Tyco flooded the market with them. What do you think would happen to the price of Ferraris if Ferrari quadrupled production?
Why do you think Argentina's inflation is way down? It's the reduction in deficit spending. Do you think the Weimar Republic's trillion-to-one was caused by oil prices?
Almost as if currency should be backed by a rare commodity that requires the same stuff that causes inflation to increase supply.
If printing value-free money wasn't how we are ruled, we could even come up with a diversified scheme where an alchemist could discover a way of turning silicon into gold and it wouldn’t affect the economy much.
I could've sworn that malpractice insurance cost is viewed as one of the driver's of high health care costs, and that it's expensive precisely because medical lawsuit payouts are large...
Sir this is a Wendy's, I mean a discussion about autonomous vehicles. The benchmark for the autonomous vehicles in the USA is in comparison to humans in the USA. That means autonomous vehicles need to go ~5,500 person-years worth of driving between crashes to equal the mean driver. The mean US driver is a very high bar to reach for technology, that is why Waymo has just maybe barely reached that bar after nearly two decades and billions of dollars.
> "~5,500 person-years worth of driving between crashes"
That's between fatalities, not between crashes. The reported injury rate is 62 times higher than the fatality rate, and the overall police-reported crash rate is 170 times higher than the fatal crash rate.
You are correct, I missed the adjective on my second use. As my points were exclusively about fatal crashes and I never mentioned the injury or crash rate at any point and previously used 5,500 years exclusively in relation to fatal crashes, it should be obvious that I intended to mean that and my point still stands with that correction.
I'll very happily (as a significant benefactor) take this century's medicine over the last. And the one or two centuries before that aren't even worth starting to think about. So something must be working wioth mainstream medicinal research.
That is a weird (modern?) delusion. Without children, our species disappears in <100 years. And the last of those years would be painful for those still alive.
Those who are having and raising children are the ones doing the most for the next generation.
No, I am not saying that in a negative way. I have kids and I love them deeply.
I am saying that the people who have kids now are aware of how much effort it involves, so they consider it "part of hobbies" (as in, interesting things), not as part of "chores".
Modern society requires that, otherwise people just have no kids.
And yes absolutely, the government overlooks entirely all the work that goes into parenting now. The standards have raised enormously.
I guess you view what would be the worst crime against humanity ever to be committed (and yes, I really do mean to include all the previous ones in that statement) to be an acceptable answer to “oh, we have no more smart bombs, let’s just kill everyone in this country”?
Not committing a crime against humanity is not “good will”.
Not killing someone when one can (in a not them or me situation) is not “good will”, it’s one of the most basic ethical principles. I’m surprised you need to ask this question.
> Like, of course you can prevent all memory safety errors by using a garbage collector. That has been known since the 90s.
No, it's been known since GC was invented.
> In fact, there was a good two decades after Java released where all the research on memory safety just stopped, because the standard answer became "use a GC".
Yeah, my understanding (which is not from first-hand experience) is that a huge part of the origin of Rust was that there was a lot of research in memory safety techniques that had been going mostly unused by mainstream languages, so the idea was "Why not try to make a language using some of it?"
AT&T was already doing that as language to replace C, Cyclone.
AT&T even had a full OS, where C only had minor role, the microkernel and Dis VM/JIT, with the whole userpace implemented in Limbo, designed by the creators of UNIX and C.
Good reminder that memory-safe alternatives to C aren't new. Rust may have won more because of ecosystem and timing than because it was the first to address the problem.
All the safety improvements of 21st century wannabe C replacements, were already available in NEWP(1961), PL/I (1964), Mesa (1976), Modula-2 (1978), PL.8 (1982), Ada (1983), Object Pascal (1986), among many other lesser known ones.
However none of them had an OS available in source code for the symbolic price to send tapes around to universities.
Additionally, the remark that the UNIX and C authors themselves did not stop there, and their latest mark on the computing world was the Go programming language, after Limbo, and the acknowledgement that designing Alef without a GC was a mistake.
Probably they would not had to reboot Plan 9 OS design into C.
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that there were never any memory-safe alternatives to C before Rust (and re-reading my comment, I still don't think it sounds like that's what I was trying to say, but if that's how people are reading it, then I didn't do a good enough job of making that clear). I was trying to say that my understanding was that Rust was trying to take advantage of research ideas that had been introduced in the past decade or so but hadn't been applied much, which is a more narrow claim than it being the first one to try to tackle the problem at all.
As the parent comment indicates, it seems like there might have been more languages that were less known that did try to apply some of these ideas, so maybe I'm misremembering the history that I had heard, or maybe I did remember what I heard right, but the people who originally expressed it were similarly unaware that some of it had been tried already. Hearing more context about the time period I was referring to is definitely interesting, and I appreciate it being shared!
*nod* They're from before I started bookmarking rigorously, but in the early days of Rust, there was a sentiment in the blog posts from the people developing it that the point of Rust was "to give good ideas a second chance" and that Rust was intentionally boring and un-innovative.
For homework: if you make homework results not count towards the final grade, then there's no reason to use an LLM - the point then just becomes to have practice problems and feedback on how well you are doing.
This is what my university (EPFL) was doing ~40 years ago. And yes, some students didn't bother with the homework, and mostly paid the price at the final exam...
The open source policy described above was in place 16 years ago (I went through it to continue working on some existing projects), and I doubt it was very new then.
This is clearly something done in official capacity, during working hours, with the knowledge and support of his manager, who announced the CLI.
It says "This is not an officially supported Google product" because it's a DevRel sample/experiment, just like dozens of other Google repositories made by Google employees as part of their job.
That's because from what i gather so far it is a google repo with other tools using the same api they kept it in there since and even had it announced by the guy's manager at the time.
You know this GitHub account might be more official than I thought? Maybe the problem is more to do with their approval process, which I guess negates a lot of my comments.
I strongly suspect this definition strongly correlates with what most people call inflation (my fuel bill went up! and strangely, not heading to work wasn't really an option).