RAM too. They want +$1K to go from 64GB to 128GB, with no other spec changes. It's a way of segmenting the market -- those who actually need it are willing to pay a lot more (e.g. for AI / 4K videos).
There is at least scarcity in that there are probably few M chips in the 128GB bin. NAND is commodity by comparison. You’re probably right though about market segmentation. Some people will pay that happily. Or perhaps it’s to push people to iCloud storage.
Nice job! As a US-based consultant, I've found it's always best if you immediately suggest a contract. This way you can ensure it starts with terms favorable for you.
I've also found it's pedagogically helpful to have two versions of each contract, a consultant-favored and consultee-favored. This way you can understand how each clause may be tweaked to benefit each party. For example, this book does this (US-based): https://www.amazon.com/Consultant-Independent-Contractor-Agr...
> helpful to have two versions of each contract, a consultant-favored and consultee-favored
Or, even better, instead of having only two versions of a contract, we can offer this choice on individual clauses within the contract. On some clauses the parties may choose to go with consultant-favored option whereas on some other clauses the parties may choose to go with client-favored option. This is what we ended up doing with the generator :)
In actuality, the Chinese company can't half their prices. So instead of paying $0.50 for a Chinese bolt, consumers now will pay $1.00.
Unfortunately the US bolts will not be plentiful enough. They'll also have to import steel to meet new demand, increasing their price. So ultimately you'll still buy the Chinese product but it will now cost double the price -- $1.00 after tarrifs. Hence the price of everything that has a bolt will increase.
Why can't they? You think Chinese products are priced to perfection via competition? Or maybe their government had a hand in it, or they learned to price to what the market will pay..
I guess we'll find out... Either it'll be what makes sense to me, or what some writer told you.
Sure, let's suppose they go down some. For the same reasons you'll still end up paying more for the same Chinese products, which will raise domestic prices.
Undergrads who care about learning and research will take the most challenging classes, do research with professors, and surround themselves with other strong students who will push them.
Even at top universities, very very few freshmen are capable of doing high-quality research immediately. They'd be better served learning the foundations inside and out with a cohort of similarly strong students to challenge them.
To agree with you: I've worked with several really brilliant undergrads doing and publishing great research. But all of them were rightfully undergrads. Even if they were actually capable of doing great research, they benefited from the breadth.
If you have bright enough undergrads, you change the curriculum for them within their field of expertise, so that they still get the breadth of things outside it while not wasting time with things they know. You let them not take as many classes, take graduate courses, do more research, take more courses from other departments in related areas but with different perspectives, and so on.
When I was an undergrad, in physics, there was a professor in the department who had done his undergrad there and was legendary, as was quietly mentioned in awe, for not taking any undergraduate physics courses while there; the department had let him skip all of them, and instead take graduate courses and do research.
I'm not sure that's a simple argument and can't imagine many would agree.
Undergrads who do research generally aren't very good at research yet. A major reason is they either lack or don't fully understand the pre-reqs, which they progressively and cumulatively learn during undergrad. A student can be incredibly smart, but acquiring a strong rigorous math background will still take years.
About pre-reqs: third and fourth year PureMath classes at UofWaterloo consisted of math I already took in HighSchool in Romania: group theory, ring theory. Plus some calculus I already read in high school out of curiosity: measure theory and the Lebesgue integral. Another Romanian guy at UofW was auditing 4th year classes while in his first year (he is now a math professor at an American university)
I can see a committed and gifted student being able to get most of the pre-reqs for doctoral studies in America or Canada while in high school.
If you don't know the foundations well, you don't belong in a postgrad program. That's the reality and how it currently works. Undergrad teaches you those foundations.
Anyone can try doing research, even undergrads who half-know the foundations. However, trying research doesn't mean you have the background to do great research or to succeed in a postgrad program.
Learning a specific technology for a single project may have a short half-life. However, good coders aren't defined by tech knowledge, but by their deep understanding. If you can make great presentations in Powerpoint, everyone knows you'll still make good presentations in Google Slides.
Exactly. It's like the difference between thinking about tech proficiency in terms of "being good at C++" vs. being good at software engineering and being language agnostic.
I am not sure about that example. A lot of people learn to use a specific piece of software and memorise how to do stuff and are therefore confused by the slightest difference.
This is like saying if you have nothing to hide, you should consent to police searches. What is found only provides more possibly coincidental evidence to use against you (just as DNA provides evidence about your potential health).
The article's main point seems to be that students cheat with AI; hence, universities must "resist" AI to preserve critical thought.
Although universities are certainly against cheating, the responsibility has always been on the student not to cheat. Universities do not oppose useful technologies simply because they may be misused for cheating.
Put another way, the role of a university is to "discover and invent the future." In this light, universities will be more interested in developing AI than so-called "resisting" it. This is especially since it has already yielded breakthroughs in science, e.g. a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for protein prediction.
