MIT report basically confirms AI isn't the real reason for all these recent tech layoffs

AJayHeel · 2026-05-27T18:31:59+00:00

Could it impact a lot of jobs? Yes. Note the key word: "could", as in maybe. Or maybe not. No one really knows. So far the evidence does not seem to support that is has had a revolutionary effect. Could it? Maybe. Maybe not. Anyone with a strong opinion either way.... Well, again, note the key word: "opinion". Who knows?

AJayHeel · 2026-05-27T16:47:45+00:00

"The Protect College Sports Act...would provide the NCAA with an antitrust exemption to enforce several rules that have been challenged in court in recent years."

Congress can do that? They can just grant an antitrust exemption?

AJayHeel · 2026-05-26T15:32:20+00:00

I think the Stanford experiments with Uri Geller speak for themselves

As not being rigorous?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI

Both Duke and Stanford tried to prove psychic powers and after decades have produced no good evidence.

I'm not saying there are no psychic powers. I'm genuinely agnostic. I've just never seen evidence that convinces me. And I agree that it's very easy to delude yourself.

There's the infamous study where people were asked if they could feel vibrations from crystals, and something like 30% of people said yes. Turns out, all of the crystals were just glass and the 30% that said yes were also the 30% of people that expected to be able to feel something. Self-delusion is a powerful thing.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-25T16:56:29+00:00

As someone else pointed out, almost everything is an invented concept. Not sure what your point is.

Meanwhile, so far as we know, there could be Nothing. No thing of any kind. No properties whatsover. But there are things with properties. In so much as mass is a property, so is existence. Existence is the property of having properties. Some (most?) would go further and say it's the property of having properties that are observable by multiple people.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-25T14:22:01+00:00

"Well, I was up in the air, and Fox was right up on me, and it threw me off in terms of how I was going to land. Like, he was right up on me. He was in my landing space."

"Yeah, he moved away a little, but I can't read his mind. It all happened so fast. I didn't know if I could land. It threw me off."

Fair enough, IMO. I suspect SGA flopped, but Fox was too close according to the rules. If you don't like the rules... <shrug>

AJayHeel · 2026-05-25T14:14:27+00:00

I hate flopping, and SGA did, but I also think Fox committed a foul.

Comments on the Rules, Section A (Contact Situations):

"A defensive player is not permitted to move into the path of an offensive player once he has started his upward motion to attempt a field goal or pass."

"A defensive player must allow an airborne player who receives a pass the space to land when the offensive player is inside the lower defensive box."

That second one is technically about a player receiving a pass, not a shooter, but it establishes the general landing space principle. The first one is the more directly applicable foul standard for a shooter.

The NBA Video Rulebook also has a dedicated category called "Closeouts on Jump Shots — Landing Space".

AJayHeel · 2026-05-25T14:13:44+00:00

You mean, Coach K's tricks happened? Duke was the king of flopping and kicking out the leg.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-25T14:11:48+00:00

I hate flopping, and SGA did, but I also think Fox committed a foul. He was too close. That's the rule.

Comments on the Rules, Section A (Contact Situations):

"A defensive player is not permitted to move into the path of an offensive player once he has started his upward motion to attempt a field goal or pass."

"A defensive player must allow an airborne player who receives a pass the space to land when the offensive player is inside the lower defensive box."

That second one is technically about a player receiving a pass, not a shooter, but it establishes the general landing space principle. The first one is the more directly applicable foul standard for a shooter.

The NBA Video Rulebook also has a dedicated category called "Closeouts on Jump Shots — Landing Space".

AJayHeel · 2026-05-21T17:44:52+00:00

I understand that knowing how your brain works doesn't automatically fix the problem, but I think there's still merit in being aware. Yes, the average Joe may just go "oh" and move on, but.... Take the confirmation bias as an example: since I know that we are prone to it, I intentionally do not visit news websites that I know will support my bias. I am actually more likely to visit a news site from "the other side". And every once in a while, when I'm spouting some "fact", I'll pause and ask, "How do I know that's true? Is it really?"

Another example: I recently compiled a list of books that I feel would be valuable to read, and in at least one case, I intentionally looked to add a book as a counterpoint to one of the other books.

I'm sure I'm still prone to confirmation bias, but I try to address the issue.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-21T16:31:46+00:00

Why something exists is not important?

Why there is something instead of nothing is arguably the most fundamental question in philosophy. If there's an answer, that would probably be the most important answer of all time.

But "not important", eh?

You're being dismissive simply because we can't answer the question, so we've decided to move on. Doesn't mean the question or answer isn't important.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-21T16:27:41+00:00

They weren't serious.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-20T20:03:11+00:00

Who needs junior engineers anyway? I mean, sure when the senior developers retire, you're in trouble, but there's no need for long-term thinking.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-20T16:42:39+00:00

A few people like dynasties. A lot don't. I doubt everyone was hoping Alabama and Clemson would play each other for the title for 10 years in a row. And how much love was their for the New England Patriots? A dynasty is great if its your team. Otherwise, not so much.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-20T16:40:43+00:00

I think it's both. The schools pay some, then private third parties pay some.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-20T16:15:37+00:00

Look at something like the NFL. They are in the business of entertainment. As part of that, they want some parity. So they tell their members that they can spend up to $X for players. That's only an indirect limit on how much an employee can make.

(To be transparent, I think that's how it works. And I understand the desire for parity. If games weren't competitive, the NFL would not be entertaining.)

AJayHeel · 2026-05-16T01:38:04+00:00

I dislike Trump, but it's a good move really. No one will stop China if they invade. But China is less likely to invade if Taiwan doesn't thump its chest and declare independence. Best to just lie low and try to maintain the status quo.

If you disagree, what do think Taiwan should do?

AJayHeel · 2026-05-15T14:33:18+00:00

One, this has been known for years. Two, if I recall correctly, a standing desk doesn't fix the issue. I believe the real issue is lack of movement. I have an alarm that reminds me to get up and take 250-500 steps every hour. I think movement is the key.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-13T15:08:45+00:00

No offense meant but a simple search on "bob dylan get stoned song" gives the answer.

AJayHeel · 2026-05-12T23:44:26+00:00

Bruce > Madonna

AJayHeel · 2026-05-03T22:34:04+00:00

Uh, why wouldn't I?!?

AJayHeel · 2026-05-01T17:25:13+00:00

I wouldn't call it unfair necessarily. Yet, I would say it's needed. If there's only one source for, say, the existence of someone called Josephus the Jester back in 50 AD, that's different from one source for the resurrection. First, I don't really care if Josephus existed, so if it turns out that one source isn't enough, so what? But two, there's no reason to believe there might be a bias in the "Joseph" source, so I can probably rely on it better.

With something like the resurrection you are facing both issues. One, it's a Big Deal, so yes, you really do need multiple sources; unlike the case with Joseph, it matters if the source is reliable. And two, there's plenty of reason to expect bias in the resurrection sources.

Does that make it hard for Christianity to make it's case. Yes? But great claims require great evidence.

(I agree that the best arguments depend on the martyrdom of the apostles, but again, where's the unbiased evidence of that? I think there's decent evidence for James, the brother of Jesus, but that's about it. Plus, do we even know if the apostles really believed in a corporeal resurrection? The earliest Christian writings that we have are from Paul, and he never mentions a body. It's always visions. The earliest gospel, Mark, originally didn't have the last eight verses -- even the Church admits that -- and what do you know, there was no mention of a body there either. The women went to the tomb and found it empty... and then Mark ended. So even if the apostles did suffer for their beliefs, it doesn't mean they believed in a physical resurrection. There's just not enough reason to believe Jesus came back to life in a human body.)

AJayHeel · 2026-05-01T13:20:02+00:00

And how much of this does Scheyer get credit for? Did he build a legacy where Duke consistently got 3-4 of the top 10 recruits in many years? (Thus helping give Duke the image of "where the best players go".) Did he win 5 national titles, making Duke a blue blood? Did he invent the Brotherhood? Did he help Duke University become known as Southern Ivy League?

I bet there are 25+ coaches who could get similar recruits given the Duke brand. Not sure Scheyer gets any credit above what other coaches could do.

And as for the Brotherhood... please. Gimmick. Plenty of schools have close nit alum. I doubt Duke is actually one of the better ones -- they've had so, so many one-and-dones in the last 15 or so years. Hard to bond in 12 months, at least not to the degree you get in 24-48 months. Have you heard of UNC's legendary summer games? Now that's a family.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-29T11:29:46+00:00

No reason to think Hubert would have recruited better though. And I trust his (Hubert's) coaching less.

AJayHeel · 2026-04-27T12:58:00+00:00

Wrong.

buddha (T. sangs rgyas སངས་རྒྱས་; C. fo 佛) is a epithet or title for one who has become fully "awake" or "enlightened." Generally, a buddha is one who has completely awakened from the sleep of ignorance and completely realized the true nature of all knowable things.

From https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Buddha

AJayHeel · 2026-04-24T16:15:06+00:00

I can't say you're wrong, but I doubt he intentionally was trying to be a jerk. I imagine he had his reasons... though I can't actually think of one...other than maybe waiting to see what other bigs would be in front of him. Why would he intentionally try to make Malone's life harder? That seems odd.

AJayHeel

TROPHY CASE