Another thing is that it seems you are sampling with replacement. I placed a circle in a rural area (where I grew up) and in one round I got the same street for 3/5 of the selections (and there were 10+ streets within the radius).
People have called Tacoma Tacompton for a long time. Tacoma has come a long way over the last couple decades and is now one of the fastest moving real estate markets in the country.
For those who have never heard of the Hilltop shootout:
Can someone explain to me why this should be an entirely new company (subsidiary) rather than folding DeepMind's capabilities into Verily and Calico? Are these different groups siloed from one another within Google?
Verily has done a bunch of things, only a few of them really stuck around. Project Baseline (which pivoted from clinical to covid), Debug, a few spinoffs with other drug companies. Most stuff revolves around physical objects with sensors, intended for a mixture of lab and clinical settings. They make some software, for example Terra (a scientific research platform mostly for genomics/bioinformatics).
Calico does basic life science research and publishes it, https://calicolabs.com/publications and also has private partnerships. They are pretty secretive so it's hard to know but most of the research is about using mouse models to understand fundamental details of aging biology, the long game being to make Larry Page live forever.
If you're not a customer of a bank and you come to cash a check (that isn't drawn on that bank) then you are going to pay a fee (if they will even cash it). I assume check cashing businesses charge a similar fee.
It would be great in principle if the USPS could cash checks for free, but they are also taking on the risk of the check being bad.
Presumably someone could take other positions to hedge away all of the other holdings in the fund so that (to a first order approximation) their only exposure is SpaceX, right?
Hm, I'm not so sure that just because the definition of a bijection is technical that it is not intuitive.
I'll start an enumeration of the rationals
1 1/3
2 1/4
3 1/5
...
If you can prove that you can do this, is that really so non-colloquial? It is certainly what we mean by "as many" for all finite sets, so what is wrong with doing this for infinitely many sets?
If every whole positive number is a fraction, but not every fraction is a whole positive number, then colloquially, I wouldn't define them as having "as many" elements as each other. Now, if you want to say they have the same cardinality (and you define cardinality as existing a bijection), then I would agree fully.
Wouldn't there be exactly twice (or twice + 1, if you allow negative fractions) as much fractions, since fractions are represented as two positive numbers (plus a bit if you consider the sign).
(The encoding could be "represent both numbers in binary, put the denominator in the odd bits (LSB = first bit), and the numerator in the even bits" so 2/3 => 10/11 => 1110 => 14)
The thing is that you could also use this kind of logic to show that there are more natural numbers than there are natural numbers. For example, you could associate 1 with all of the numbers from 1 to one million, and still have enough numnbers 'left' to associate each of 2,3,... with distinct natural numbers above one million.
