Yeah but you can also have a disaster strike in that place (say, a nuclear accident) that will obliterate your real-estate value. Or general society changes that will make a city much less desirable (see the "rust belt"). Of course, nothing is without risk - so in that sense, it's not surprising that real-estate has risks. But that's what I wanted to underline, nothing is "inflation-proof". There's no guaranteed way to preserve wealth (much less increase it). None.
While there is no bulletproof way to preserve wealth real-estate is one of the most sound one compared to others. A nuclear accident can be insured and general social decline happens over many years or even decades that gives plenty of time to react.
Zuckerberg is 49, Sheeran is 169 (Taylor Swift is on 4; Bieber, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé are also more famous than Zuckerberg; the rest in the list are less famous)
Which, by definition, is incomplete when we’re talking about the world. If we examined by country, it would fluctuate wildly. For example, in any country with soccer as the national sport, Ronaldo would crush Zuckerberg in popularity.
Either way, the point (in which I think we’re all mostly in agreement) is that Zuckerberg’s comment falls somewhere between the absurd and the delusional. If you want to pick a different list of names, go right ahead. I’d say Tailor Swift is indisputable, though.
a million ways, but e.g: once in a while, add a "challenge" header; the next request should contain a "challenge-reply" header for said challenge. If you're just reusing the access token, you won't get it right.
Or: just have a convention/an algorithm to decide how quickly Claude should refresh the access token. If the server knows token should be refreshed after 1000 requests and notices refresh after 2000 requests, well, probably half of the requests were not made by Claude Code.
Because of many reasons. It's not practical to have a Starlink antenna with you everywhere. And then yes, cost is a significant factor too - even in the dialup era satellite internet connection was a thing that existed "everywhere", in theory....
> orbital refueling is likely one of the hard parts
It's the most novel and riskiest. I wouldn't say it's hardest. That's launch, reëntry and reüse. They've substantially de-risked those components with IFT-11.
I'd put IFT-12 validating Block 3 as the actual hardest launch next year. If that goes smoothly, I'm betting they make orbit and propellant transfer before the end of the year. And if that happens, I'm betting they get at least one rocket off to Mars before year end.
It's probably a lot easier than the raptors, the plumbing, the launch tower, the launch mount, the belly flop, staging, and the catching. It's probably easier than the pez dispenser.
Add "to most developers" for context and you'll probably get exactly what original claim meant.
It's not a non-statement. Rich Hickey explains it well, readability is not about the subjective factors, it's mostly about the objective ones (how many things are intertwined? the code that you can read & consider in isolation is readable. The code that behaves differently depending on global state, makes implicit assumptions about other parts of the system, etc - is unreadable/less readable - with readability decreasing with number of dependencies).
"to most developers who are most likely to interact with this code over its useful lifetime."
This means accounting for the audience. Something unfamiliar to the average random coder might be very familiar to anyone likely to touch a particular piece of code in a particular organization.
It does fall back to "core values" though - kinda' like with math & axioms. The "why" chain of questions will inevitably lead to something like "because there's inherent value in human life", and this is the point where it breaks down because there's no logical reason to say that. You can probably postulate the contrary and end up with a completely different set of morals that may still be internally coherent but would be very alien to you. Just how you can say "in a plane, through a given point not on a given line, there is no line parallel to the given line" and end up with a weird, non-Euclidean but coherent geometry.
How can you know? One could argue that the entire phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is "people (internally) recognize the contradiction and then perform it"
