In theory the “reasoning” part doesn’t need a knowledge update.
Cost/benefit maybe the knowledge update only needs something every 5 years.
Basically I can see a world where inference is provided and consumed at cost. I can’t see one where customers are willing to cough up billions for a slight increase in the knowledge base.
Is it? It’s vital to the tech giants marketing and trillion dollar valuation. But I don’t think it’s vital to most of their clients anymore.
All the AI companies are running at loss
That is if you include training. Look at deepseek for an idea of inference costs. At that level AI coding is sustainable (but not worth $2tn).
This sounded like an accident
Is there a way to be anti-zionist without practically wanting all jews to leave the area where Israel currently is?
There could be an argument for a return to 1947 borders that includes full demilitarisation.
Our server adds a pain vector
Really? What’s one of those then?
Is latency at audiojack levels?
But the capital provided by the owners is what is used to backstop the insurance and ensure the pot always exists. The amount of capital needed is calculated by the actuaries but supplied by the owners.
This is why I’m confused why you listed both an interest on capital and an actuarial adjustment.
Yes, you need to hold enough money to cover more/larger claims than expected, but doesn’t the return on capital cover that part?
Aren’t the risk and the actuarial adjustment the same thing?
From the buyers point of view I agree it is risk reduction. But it is gambling from the sellers point of view.
Insurance is gambling. You pay more in premiums than you get back in repayments after crashing. The house always wins.
Yet without Insurance business doesn’t function. Loss of expensive cargo or equipment wipes out the company.
Ok, let’s try this differently.
In your opinion, why are the allies of the US turning away, and why is this permanent (i.e. more than just Trump)?
I’m giving explaining that the US allies are turning their backs because checks and balances are failing, providing examples of those failures as requested.
You are arguing about the difference between the 4th and 14th amendment.
The lurking jury can decide who is the bad faith sealion.
Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points
Ctrl + f “abortion”. Not there
Ctrl + f “computer”. Not there
Argument falsified.
we can confidently say that check has not failed.
Judge Clarence is still sitting. The check has not succeeded. Therfore the check has failed.
I’m sorry, I can’t make this simpler for you to understand.
The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states
Your argument is that the word abortion doesn’t explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.
He can still be impeached
And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.
It says nothing about abortion.
It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.
It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.
He is still a judge. Check has failed.
Like what? Which checks are those specifically?
Let’s take a look at Justice Clarence Thomas. Conservative billionaires have treated Thomas to “at least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”
He should be impeached, but that check has failed.
The existence of faults is an assumption of inevitability, not a promise that they can’t and won’t exist.
You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed
It protects an individual’s right to privacy, it doesn’t say anything about abortion
Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.
Do you have any statistics?