• 0 Posts
  • 253 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • That’s not how it works. What matters is the state of your residency and the state that your paychecks come from. If you get paid in a state you don’t reside in, you have to file in both, unless there’s a reciprosity agreement. Many states will allow deductions for income tax paid in another state. So for example if the state your employer is in has a 4% rate, and the state you reside in has a 6% rate, then you’d end up paying 4% to state A and 2% to state B. It is possible to get double taxed depending on which states are involved.

    So the CEO will at the very least have to file in California.




  • Yeah, ten years ago any apartment complex near campus that had undergone any renovations within the prior 15 years was being marketed as “luxury.”

    Most of them were still cramped places with terrible materials and paper thin walls. The students living in them were frequently heavily dependent of financial aid or their parents had saved diligently for 20 yrs. There were some “elites,” but most of them were international students.










  • I’m not saying normalization is a bad strategy, just that it, like any other processing technique comes with limitations and requires extra attention to avoid incorrect conclusions when interpreting the results.

    Because relative to the population density, there were 100 times as many sightings. Or what am I missing.

    If you were to attempt to trap and tag bigfoots in both areas, would you end up with 100 times as many angry people in a gorilla suit in the small town? No. You would end up with 1 in both areas. So while the tiny town does technically have 100x the density per capita, each region has only one observable suit wearer.

    Assuming the distribution of gorilla suit wearers is uniform, you would expect approximately 99 tiny towns with no big foot sightings for every 1 town with a sighting. So if you were to sample random small towns, because the map says big foots live near small towns, you would actually see fewer hairy beasts than your peer who decided to sample areas with higher population density.

    If we could have fractional observations, then all this would be a lot more straightforward, but the discrete nature of the subject matter makes the data imherently noisy. Interpreting data involving discrete events is a whole art and usually involves a lot of filtering.


  • Simple normalization does amplify signals in low density areas. If a person in a tiny town of 100 reports a bigfoot sighting and another person in an area with 10,000 population also reports a sighting, then with simple normalization the map would show the area with 100 people having 100 times as many big foot sightings per capita as the area with the population of 10k. Someone casually reading the map would erroneously conclude that the tiny town is a bigfoot hotspot and would in general conclude bigfoot clearly prefers rural areas where they can hide in seclusion. When the reality is that the intense signals are artifacts of the sampling/processing methods and both areas have the same number of fursuit wearers.





  • DEMO is not a singular reactor, but rather a class of reactors that are expected to be built using the technologies and lessons learned from ITER. So basically ITER’s main goal is to be a massive international R&D project to pave the the way for individual countries to be able to build their own DEMO plants afterwards. Pathfinding manufacturing technologies for this unique of a system is a big part of why ITER is so expensive. Replicating an ITER like machine should be considerably cheaper.

    Although I personally wouldn’t be suprised if commwealth fusion systems SPARC/ARC leapfrogs ITER/DEMO. Unlike a lot of fusion startups, their approach isn’t particularly novel, which means there shouldn’t be major physics surprises. The higher field intensity afforded by REBCO should mean much smaller and cheaper machines.


  • I’ve seen at least a couple different users with that, but I wouldn’t be able to recall their usernames offhand.

    The notice really reminds me of the Facebook chain posts where people would post a declaration saying that facebook couldn’t use your data/likeness if you share the post text.

    If ai companies are unabashed about scraping and training on copywrited material from litigious companies like the nyt, I really don’t get how anyone convinces themselves that anything they append to their comments would stop a scraper.