You'd think by now Jean-Luc Picard would be a well known example and systems are able to deal with it.
"We call her Carrie, because of the carriage return."
You can also try to give the child NULL as middle name for additional fun.
A patriarchal religion is going to put a male figure in charge of course.
In church I've been saying in the name of the father and the son, not mother and daughter, so that's an easy assumption to make.
Last I heard this is for onboard speech recognition and basic image recognition/OCR so these things can more intelligently listen, see and store what you're doing without sending it to a server. Not creepy at all.
That's why NPU will have high bandwidth memory on chip. They're also low precision to save power but massively parallel. A GPU and CPU can do it too, but less optimized.
In my mind, this is the only correct backdrop for that bowl.
Everything with air taxis is estimated to be an order of magnitude more expensive than the ground version. So far it's pretty much like the difference between flying commercial and flying charter. I guess rich people invest in rich boy's toys.
What you say is correct and is also what is happening. Some have no children, some one of two. The end is fertility rate below replacement rate. Many people that want children stop at 2 because then it becomes too hard to combine with a job and costs too much. If there government wants more children, support is needed.
Voyager uses plutonium 238 which has a half-life of 83 years. So after 50 years, its fuel has decayed too much and it's running out of power. The article didn't make that clear.
Pay women a decent wage per child, like a good part of the average wage per child until the child turns 18. That'll be a clear incentive to get children. Everything else is just ineffective tinkering. In a classic rural setting children were a labor force. In a modern urban setting they're a very expensive hobby with lots of unpaid labor. In a quid pro quo world, pay up. Children are not free. If that's not possible then a growing population is not economically viable in the current system. Better luck in the next system.
Some regimes have tried to force the issue, banning all abortions and contraceptives. The end result was a population that was shrinking more slowly and orphanages overflowing because children were dumped as people didn't have enough money to support them.
Usually civilian targets are avoided because it galvanizes the population's opinion to pro war but in Russia's case it doesn't seem to matter much anymore.
Vance doesn't know that
Global stability of always good for trade and business. The supply chains disruption with covid shows what a bit of chaos can do to businesses, so it's not entirely altruistic.
But I'm aware that this transition away from American dominance can be wild. It's inevitable that fighting for the top dog position will happen. How that plays out with shrinking population is anyone's guess.
and while America has benefited strategically, it’s also taken on substantial costs
It was an empire in all but name and was a bit more than just a strategic benefit, but every empire gets too expensive to maintain and must shrink again.
Last start American politicians started to talk about the cost and responsibilities being too much, EU countries started cozying up to China and it freaked the same politicians that were talking "I invite you to get going without us". Let's see what happens this time.
Insult Musk on Twitter, wait until posts are censored, sue X for not having freedom of speech. How's that for American values?
It was the deal made after world war 2. Europe buys your goods, uses dollar for international trade and reserve currency, buys oil from American companies and trade oil in petro dollars, making American citizens the richest in the world. In turn we have Pax Americana meaning USA beings the world's police, militair bases on European soil, and cooperation in things like climate.
If the choice is made to change that deal, a lot of things will change too. Probably not for the better.