My understanding is that the people are conflating the ability to translate and replicate as creativity/learning. Not to say that its not possible but its a long way to go for sure.
So looks like you pay AI to resolve incidents and then pay money and time for engineers to get training on synthetic incident resolutions.
The comparison with Pilots is bit disjoint one cause the domain varies a lot for every company and product. Coming up with synthetic simulations within every domain is like paying money twice for the same thing, why not let the engineers to handle the real incidents in the first place itself. In fact why not spend some more thought into building better systems.
The headline is not wrong, its intentionally worded that way to mellow down the message. Its for the people who use their own custom domains to send emails via google without paying for the workspace by verifying the domain ownership (its a extra cost that google bears now for free). The @yahoo.com or @outlook.com are just to give a face to what other custom domains look like.
The whole point is if you have custom domains then pay for the google workspace if you still want to use it. Couldnt find it right away, from what I recollect it used to be $6 or $8 per email address
That should not be impacted, in fact thats the whole point. tldr; Google is trying to monetize everything, if you have a use case for using personal custom domains then move to google workspace
Started with a theory that it might be a possibility where google as a Ad business is trying to make money for their AI expenses from consumer. However after verifying the results for the items mentioned in the article plus some more and I DO NOT see any discrepancy in prices with either mode.
Dont want to call it clickbait right away, though its possible that it might be there before and Google fixed it OR the Author did not perform an apple to apple comparison, meaning its hard to verify if its same location and machine for both types of searches
Founder Mode is just a marketing slang, not sure if that has much of an impact on business. Putting that aside
Airbnb falls in an interesting category of business. It had the first mover advantage of getting into a market segment which was not regulated and not available for general public. Its a great option in some cases, benefits the economy in areas where regular hotels are not available.
However they do not have anything additional to offer on the top of what they are already offering so far. In other words their services, attractions segment did not get enough attention from the users that the users would pay money for it.
Secondly and most importantly, even though they had an advantage of getting into unregulated market which worked fine for hosts and guests alike, the local and government bodies are trying to get their fair share of taxes from all this transaction. This just increases the costs. On the top of it the big players are investing into Airbnb rentals (big businesses managing rentals) and trying to maximize their profits by any means which is making the whole experience worse for the value of money.
Eating animal is easy, mostly proteins and fat that are also in plants. The main difference I can think of now is that animals have glycogen instead of starch. Glycogen is more branchy than starch, but IIRC it's not so difficult to digest and there is not to much of it anyway.
The animals adapted to eat plants probably have a gut that is too long, so it will be less efficient, and I guess they have to remember to eat their vegetables to avoid problems.
The reverse is harder. An animal adapted to eat mostly animals have a short gut and will not extract all the nutrients from the plants. Also, plants have cellulose that is super hard to digest, so some animals have special parts of the digestive tube to let the food wait and be partially digested by friendly bacteria. (Yes it's gross, unless you think it's almost like free beer.)
If you kill because you are hungry, it seems logical you would eat your prey. If your prey doesn't actually provide nutrients, but killing them eliminates competition to nutrients, the behavior would be evolutionarily beneficial, even if not maximally efficient.
I don't feel like the article is lacking for that. It's evolution at work. There could be monkeys eating animals that can properly digest them due to some mutation or unique gut biomes. Actually eating the animals is an important first step. Monkeys that usually eat fruits are hunting and eating animals when food is scarce, that's an article worthy observation.
I wonder if the original organizers would have much say left if something becomes big enough and successful. It requires a very strong mindset to close something down. Makes me think about the batman movie debacle on some wanting to destroy Gotham city cause they think its beyond repair and then some other ones are hopeful to save it.
I think sharing such ideas openly allows people to converge on similar feelings and experience which eventually leads to people experimenting these for real. We need to take into account that a lot of people reading and writing these kind of thoughts seriously may not be CEO at present but that does not prevents the possibility of them becoming the CEO's in future
reply