In California, California Vehicle Code § 21209(a)(3) expressly permits a motor vehicle to enter a bicycle lane “to prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection” -- among other cases. (The vehicle must yield to cyclists in the lane.)
The vehicle code not only permits cars to enter the bike lane prior to a turn, it requires them to do so (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....). My brother failed his first driving test because he didn’t know that he had to enter a bike lane on the left side of Fell St right outside the DMV (back before they separated the bike lane).
I hope that means yield to cyclists ahead of them. To me the whole point of getting in the bike lane is to avoid cases where the cyclist going straight is in a blind spot during the car's right turn. As a cyclist I'll sometimes get into the car lane at intersections to make sure I'm seen. seems like the car being required to let the bike behind them go straight is exactly what you'd want to avoid
Merging into the bike lane before turning right is safer for cyclists. Drivers are supposed to do shoulder checks when changing lanes (I mean they're also supposed to do them when turning but you know) so they likely won't hit a cyclist when merging into the lane.
Once the car is in the bike lane, any bike going straight is forced to remain safely behind the car until the car completes its turn.
In a way, DeepSeek Prover's subgoal decomposition is a partial-step towards error/proof-state feedback. (DS Prover breaks down a proof into subgoals and attacks each subgoal separately with batched sampling, then puts the pieces back together.)
This is distinct from the approach of the previous SOTA for an open-weights model (Kimina Prover) which generated at the full-proof level.
While it was very impressive to see Kimina's ability to generate medium-length proofs (think AIME-level problems) without sub-goals or feedback at intermediate steps, it's likely that at least subgoal decomposition will be required for longer proofs (think IMO-level problems.)
I certainly agree that where and how error/proof state feedback is best incorporated (training data synthesis / reward function / CoT during inference / etc.) is a fascinating area of research. (It's rumored that GDM's AlphaProof does use proof state / lean feedback already.)
Video mirroring and video out support: Up to 4K HDR through native DisplayPort output over USB-C or USB-C Digital AV Adapter (model A2119; adapter sold separately)
I believe Elon said they were targeting SN8 for a high altitude flight with 3 raptor engines, hopefully later this year. Various parts are already under construction.
I've often heard people say that we know that these radio waves are 100% safe because the heating effects of non-ionizing radiation at these doses is not a significant risk.
However, the article itself mentions that "novel EHF [medical] therapies" use only slightly higher (and also "non-ionizing") radio frequencies.
Per the Wikipedia article on EHF therapies, this seemingly similar radiation appears to have studied, proven biological effect: "Low intensity (usually 10 mW/cm2 or less) electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency may be used in human medicine for the treatment of diseases. For example, 'A brief, low-intensity MMW exposure can change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors.'[14] This treatment is particularly associated with the range of 40 – 70 GHz.[15]"
Can someone explain to me how we are so confident 5G is safe, if similar, 40-70 GHz radiation at 10mW/cm2 has been shown to
"change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors"?
Why shouldn't there be risk of similar effect at slightly lower frequencies and somewhat lower power?
(To be clear, I believe 5G to be safe with very high probability. But I wish I better knew how to reconcile this information and explain it to others who are much more skeptical.)
The Wikipedia section should probably be changed to be more critical as discussed on the talk page. EHF therapy has mostly seen study in Eastern Europe where it has been shown to be effective in a range of small studies for treating skin diseases, TB, and cancer(!) however these results have not been replicated elsewhere and the evidence for non-thermal effects from this radiation seems very flimsy.
Researchers are quite confident that 5G is safe because besides heating and ionization (see my other post in this thread), there is no known mechanism by which it could be harmful. I know, you cited Wikipedia and that has scientific references [14] and [15] in it. But, what Wikipedia doesn't tell you is that those sources are not quite uncontroversial.
I hate to bring up the same reference again, but here it goes [1].
The following paragraphs cite directly from the article [with emphasis mine]:
A number of researchers, many in Eastern Europe, have expressed interest in the therapeutic application of mmWave radiation. MmWave therapy has been widely used in Eastern Europe since the 1970s [86]. Strikingly high success rates have been reported in the treatment of gastric ulcers, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory sickness, tuberculosis, skin diseases, and even cancer [6], [87]. Typical treatments consist of daily skin exposure of 15–30 min for 5–15 days with PD levels under 10 mW/cm 2 at three common frequencies: 42.2, 53.6, and 61.2 GHz [90]. The mechanisms of mmWave therapy are not known. Nevertheless, some hypotheses have been explored in cellular and molecular levels in recent years as discussed in the “Reported Effects on Gene Expression,” “Reported Effects on Cel
lular Proliferation,” and “Reported Effects on Biologi
cal Membranes” sections. Despite the large number
of patients treated with mmWaves in Eastern Europe,
this therapeutic technique has not been accepted by
Western physicians and scientists.
It is also important to note that many of the reports
summarized in this section have not been independently
repeated and confirmed. Historically, some attempts to
repeat reported effects have been unsuccessful [8], [91].
While this is not to discount any one of the studies sum-
marized here, it is important to recognize that studies
involving biological samples inherently produce vari-
able results and (depending on the circumstances) may
have a number of uncontrolled or uncontrollable vari-
ables. For this reason, major decisions on public policy or health care should not typically be made based on
reports that were not reproduced independently.
My takeaway from your comment is that studies like [14] and [15] are very likely poorly done (like another comment describes early studies of acupuncture).
In any case, I'd expect that in within a few more years, these sorts of conflicting and controversial results should be further disproven.
The article states that 5G signal doesn't penetrate the body far enough to be able to touch the most important organs. mmWave 5G in the 28 GHz band is significantly attenuated by a window, let alone skin.
10 mw/cm2 for critical tissue doesn't happen. The power levels by the time the signal reaches important body tissue are much, much lower than that.
The linked source doesn't contain the word "5G" but it talks about radiation from 30 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz (30 kHz - 300 GHz). This encompasses 5G by a very large margin. The article makes the following conclusion about this frequency range:
> The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.
"The [WHO] Working Group classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans, ..."
2) You're gonna love this ... phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.
So we're a long way from proving phones are safe.
You would even be excused if you thought there was a conspiracy to cover up the risk, because nobody is trying very hard to test them as commonly used - against the ear or in your pocket next to your skin for 16 hours a day.
If cell phones caused cancer then almost everyone would have cancer, because for over a decade almost everyone has been using a cell phone.
If cell phones caused cancer then we would see increasing rates of cancer in areas most exposed to radiation from cell phones, like skin and head. What we actually see are that the deadliest cancers are lung, colorectal, breast, and pancreatic. With the possible exception of breast cancer, these are all illnesses that occur deep in the body, where they are least likely to be affected by radiation from cell phones.
At worst we can say that if cell phones cause cancer, they do so at a rate that is indistinguishable from the existing incidence of cancer.
> phone mfgs. test the in-use radiation pattern at 3" to 4" from your ear. In other words, exactly how people don't use a phone.
In most modern phones the antenna is at the bottom (or at the very least the iPhone and Samsung Galaxy line - but I think also most other). That's a few inches from the ear.
I was a bit surprised to learn this and now keep my phone right-side-up in my pocket, to keep the EM radiation source away from the balls.
There's a big difference between personally trying to fund the US government (which doesn't scale) and his saying that people in or near his position should have to pay higher taxes.
If you doubled the amount of taxes Bill has personally paid over his lifetime, it would amount to a few tenths of a percent of a SINGLE YEAR of US government tax revenue.
I suspect Bill is saying that he-- and other very top earners-- should have paid more.
US Bank took away next day transfers to a bank account via routing/account number (ACH) as they are pushing Zelle more. They also dropped the (previously higher) transaction limits on 3-day routing/acct numb/ACH down to the $5,000 3-day limit on Zelle.
It’s frustrating when they take away a perfectly good service just push their new thing harder.
I've had the "opportunity" to read several 4+ page resumes like this. (Current record is 9 pages!) Candidates are definitely not doing themselves any favors. I expect that you used source control at your software engineering job. Listing it as a bullet point on your resume is just wasting your space and my time.
Another favorite is people who don't trim down previous experience. Every time I add a position to my resume, I go back over every other position and remove or compress bullet points based on what I think is important from that job now. And, of course, I've completely removed things like irrelevant college summer jobs. This is the main mechanism that allows my resume to still fit on a single (!) page.
The problem is that, to use your example, if a job requires Git there might be an automated filter looking for the keyword Git. A good rule of thumb is that if it's in the job description it should be in your resume somewhere.
Individual technologies should just be listed somewhere. There's not enough space to waste an entire line for a single technology. Your bullet points should be talking about how you used technology to deliver business value. Not how you used a technology to do the thing that everyone does with that technology.
On several occasions I would have ended up writing a multi-page resume as well if recruiters/job ad websites hadn't told me explicitly not to do so. One easily ends up worrying that you need to show off a tower off knowledge.
For my next job hunt I definitely concentrate on the things relevant for the kind of thing I'm looking for. Especially adding bullets about things one dislikes backfires eventually after taking a position. At some point one will get asked to work with exactly that stuff because nobody likes doing it
This template follows where mine has ended up. I forget where I sourced the material from but it suggested listing the worthy contributions to the company with action verbs like "integrated large payments system responsible for millions in revenue". It's a very concise sentence that clearly explains the value you brought to a previous company. I used to have a resume like 'proficient in MS Word' which some companies do care for but they can usually suss out important things during a phone screen. We're also the types that largely self learn though so the "what you know" becomes more irrelevant than "what value you brought to the company based on what you know or have learned along the way". It's a subtle change that seems to have much greater impact.
My resume is ultimately more than one page, not much more, but it reads very quickly. In the source material I vaguely recall you have seconds, like maybe 30-90 to really hook the reader. Long paragraphs read much more slowly than concise yet robust bullet points. If you want to pack absolutely everything on your resume, keep the unimportant stuff towards the end. I list time travel as one of my interests at almost the very end of my resume. Getting comments on it let me know someone was either skimming for an interesting phrase or really read all of it.
I disagree completely. I've worn several hats at every job I've worked at, each one demonstrating a different skill set. I will reword, change the order of, or even completely delete or swap out bullet points under jobs to highlight the skills that a particular req is looking for.
If you're "just another developer" applying to a "just a developer" req, then yes there's probably no reason to tweak. For anything else, you should absolutely be reconfiguring your resume to highlight your relevant skills.
Cover letters are not really in style right now. But, even then, it still helps to align your resume to what you write in the cover letter. It wouldn't look good to talk about all this good stuff in the cover letter, and it has no visibility in your resume.
I disagree with that assertion. When looking for my current position, I had a much higher response rate when each resume was tailored to the position.
Tailoring, in this case, meant relatively minor tweaks - if it was a more engineering role I'd highlight those skills and contributions whereas with the more data science-y roles I'd highlight more relevant aspects. I think it's very arrogant to think that a single resume is appropriate for every job application.
> For many applications, making a transcription seems like an unnecessary step and source of errors. Skipping transcription when the user doesn't need it (most cases where I use it) would seem like a way to get some gain, but perhaps at the reduction of debuggability.
Agree. What's really needed is research into (and development supporting) how to combine the expertise from a speech recognition layer with the next layer in a machine learning process. That higher layer contains the domain specific knowledge needed for the problem at hand, and still leverage a speech layer focused on a broad speech data set and speech-specific learning (from Google, Microsoft, the community, etc.)
Today, how richly can information be shared? I see with Google's speech API you can only share a very finite list of domain-specific expected vocabulary.
Why not have speech tools at least output sets of possible translations with associated probabilities? Do any of the top tools allow this?
Then you could at least train your next level models with the knowledge of where ambiguity most exists, and what a couple of options might have been for certain words or phrases...
In California, California Vehicle Code § 21209(a)(3) expressly permits a motor vehicle to enter a bicycle lane “to prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection” -- among other cases. (The vehicle must yield to cyclists in the lane.)