The cost of the request is often based on how many man hours it will take to fulfill. Different agencies have different rates / different capabilities for performing the document search itself. Some agencies may also reflexively deny requests, which would require a lawyer to sue them to get resolution if you believe the denial doesn't legitimately meet legal exception requirements.
The title of the job opening says computational chemistry, but the details indicate they're looking for someone with credentials in one of a few different computation / simulation specialized fields. If I had to guess, it seems possible they think those types of simulation design skills may be useful for simulating user social behavior somehow?
No, it's really about material science and biology, just read further in the ad:
Responsibilities
• Follow the latest progress in computational science such as material and biology.
• Solve real-world problems in material and biology, with computational approaches such as molecular dynamics, quantum chemistry, and machine learning.
• Optimize and speed up classical molecular dynamics and quantum chemistry algorithms with artificial intelligence and high-throughput computational methods.
and we thought spam calls were bad, now instead of extended warrantys and political surveys, my dog is going to be calling and texting me every 10 minutes asking for treats and belly rubs
Just pulled “Hound of the Far Side” off a shelf last night after not looking at a Larson comic in a long time - reminds me of the one where a car of cows are driving by a field of humans yelling “yakkity yak yak” out the window
I am pretty sure they are exploring AlphaFold, potential growth opportunity. ByteDance has been exploring games, education, online office suites and many more.
Yeah, this isn't really that different than quant hedge funds hiring theoretical physics PhDs. It's not like you're actually going to be doing Yang Mills field equations to trade some stocks. They just need a guy to run some linear regressions, and can afford to find someone really really overqualified so they don't screw up.
Not sure if these people are overqualified as much as the fact that people who check the box on paper are generally unqualified. Generally good people can only really do math up to a few years below the highest level that they learned in school. If you actually need someone to do basic linear algebra you probably want somehow who took classes that went well beyond the freshman/sophomore level that everyone has.
Well if you have a mathematics undergraduate degree you would have taken classes "that went well beyond the freshman/sophomore level that everyone has."
I don't see why it's necessary to have a potentially unrelated PHD to do basic linear algebra.
I'd suspect someone who was self-taught in mathematics wouldn't have a disconnect between apparent and actual ability either; teaching math to people who primarily need it to pass an exam is a very different process from learning the same material out of personal interest.
All much too complicated, they are just interested in someone coming up with more "what happens if you put mentos into coke"-type reactions for their content creator's inspiration..
From here, I looked up pictures of anchors who worked in that time period, and I see Eric Slocum (now deceased) and Margo Myers who did evening news together in that time frame, and look quite similar to the people in the video.
EDIT: someone else identified Keith Eldridge, who definitely looks like a match for the video.
Don't know about their definition for this article, but the US Constitution doesn't define credentials required to exercise freedom of the press. Everyone in America gets that right. Literally anyone can be a journalist by acting as one, even if they don't have an audience.
Epic went this route to inflict maximum PR damage, they could've sued without willfully violating their contract which hurt their legal case as they've now entered into the lawsuit with unclean hands which was one of the considerations used to deny their injunction for Fortnite.
This is untrue. Their harm was of their own making which was why the Judge dismissed their injunction:
> The Court finds that with respect to Epic Games’ motion as to its games, including Fortnite, Epic Games has not yet demonstrated irreparable harm. The current predicament appears of its own making. Epic strategically chose to breach its agreements with Apple
How can purposefully violating someone's contract be a prerequisite for bringing a lawsuit against the organization whose contract you're violating? Where is the legal argument backing up "They needed to do it this way"?
There hasn't been a hearing on an injunction yet, that happens later this month. The hearing that HAS happened was on a temporary restraining order, which was to keep Apple from doing anything UNTIL AFTER the injunction hearing.
The difference is important, the temporary restraining order's effects are only limited to that August-September time window, and the hearing itself had limited argument, and very little preparation time (Epic presumably thinking Apple wouldn't be so aggressive, and would want to drag things out, which they do, but they're also probably hoping to force a settlement as soon as possible). Part of Epic's legal team's arguments was that there is binding legal precedent that "self inflicted harm" was not disqualifying of any of their claims in an anti-trust suit due to the standing hurdle (of note: a similar anti-trust suit filed by an Apple user was thrown out without a trial on grounds that the customer was not able to sufficiently demonstrate Apple's practices harmed them; standing is a very big hurdle), but Epic's lawyers messed up and forgot to file that case brief in the documents they submitted before the restraining order hearing, so the judge made no determination then. They indicated it would be included in the injunction hearing filings. Basically, everything the judge has determined so far could change at the end of the month.
> Part of Epic's legal team's arguments was that there is binding legal precedent that "self inflicted harm" was not disqualifying of any of their claims in an anti-trust suit due to the standing hurdle
I think you've misunderstood this part of the hearing. The cases they attempted to cite said that the doctrine of "unclean hands" is not a valid defense in an antitrust claim. It's unrelated to standing or whether their injury was self-inflicted for purposes of the TRO and the judge said in her ruling that it wasn't relevant to her analysis. [1]
> a similar anti-trust suit filed by an Apple user was thrown out without a trial on grounds that the customer was not able to sufficiently demonstrate Apple's practices harmed them
If you are referring to Apple v. Pepper note that this ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court and the case is still ongoing. [2]
That's correct, the ruling was for the TRO. But this still doesn't answer why "They needed to do it this way", i.e. why was their willful subversive violation a prerequisite for their lawsuit against Apple & how can that be advantageous to the party committing the violations?
So far it hasn't been. It appears obvious their approach was to first inflict PR damage & garner public support prior to commencing legal action.
> a similar anti-trust suit filed by an Apple user was thrown out without a trial on grounds that the customer was not able to sufficiently demonstrate Apple's practices harmed them
Which case is this? Epic’s complaint [1] only mentions the word “standing” once and seeks broad restraints on Apple’s “conduct” that go beyond the enforcement of one TOS clause. I can see why strategically, Epic thought it was best to build the record by breaching its contract with Apple first, but it’s not clear that this was an essential precondition to the lawsuit.
Apple Inc vs Pepper. It was filed very early in iOS's life, got thrown out in 2013 after years of wrangling (by this same judge?), I didn't realize this part, but it went all the way up to SCOTUS in 2019 after getting thrown out, where they said the district court was wrong to dismiss the case, and it looks like it is actually still technically ongoing since that Supreme Court ruling, but I have no idea what the status is because I can't find reporting on it past the SCOTUS ruling. So yeah, there appears to be an open question of whether Epic could have filed suit without the theatrics.
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected. They can already show harm and can sue to get those fees back. They did not need to do anything else.
On that "try different treatment modalities" note, for talk therapy (which is very often not handled by a psychiatrist, but by a psychologist), don't be afraid to find someone else if you feel your therapist isn't helping. Having been in and out of therapy for half my life, I've had therapists I really related to, and ones who actively made me feel worse. That being said, it can take a few sessions to figure out whether you're going to get along with your therapist. I recognize that many people might simply not have other options, and it can take months to find a replacement, but trust me when I say that sunk cost fallacy thinking of "oh, it took me 2 months to get my first appointment, and now I need to find someone else who I'll also have to wait 2 more months to see" is a trap.
Absolutely. Also note that any primary care doctor or psychiatrist will have a list of psychologists or therapists to refer.
Making medical appointments, especially therapy appointments, has never been easier now that Coronavirus has pushed everyone to adopt virtual health appointments. You can find a provider and book appointments from an app on your phone in most cases. The appointments are handled virtually as well. No need to pick up a phone to schedule something. No need to get in the car to drive somewhere.
So I agree iOS walled garden is an issue, but the 30% thing isn't the sole problem there, and really all digital game platforms with the exception of the Epic Games Store uses that same rate. The big difference on PC for developers (besides the literal technical differences between Windows and MacOS) is that you can choose to not use a store at all (self host on your own website), or to be on a bunch of different stores at once.
