I think Bloomberg’s at fault: “cut a deal” isn’t usually that ambiguous because it’s clear which state transition is more likely. But here it’s plausible they could’ve been ending some existing training-data-sharing agreement, or that they were making a new different deal. Also the fact it’s pluralised here makes it different enough to the most common form for it to be a bit harder to notice the idiom. But since we can’t change the fact they used that title, I would like HN to change it now.
That is mind blowing, but it’s not immediately obvious to me that it’s equivalent for n > sqrt(INT_MAX). Is it? And if so, is the compiler somehow smart enough to know that?
Microsoft and Apple preceded the dot com bomb by several decades. (Microsoft 1975, Apple 1976)
Amazon was a company that was around and survived the dot com bomb (founded in 1994, roughly around the time of the beginning of the bubble) [though its stock took about 7 years to recover]
I don't get it. The article's title is that the ranchers have become allies to jaguars and pumas.
But nothing in the article supports that view. What has changed are cattle ranching practices that reduce the opportunity of attack. Everything that the article talks about is "How did cattle ranchers adapt to an ever present threat of pumas and jaguars without killing them (for reasons that are not well discussed beyond a reference to a government mandate)" rather then "We're best buds now!" or even "We have found utility in the jaguar and puma population that benefits us".
It seems the adapted practices are beneficial on their own, but it sounds like they would be beneficial without jaguars and pumas.
If the goal is to maximize ranching, I think you're right. But if the goal is to maximize the economic opportunities in Costa Rica it probably is not the best decision. When I hired a tour guide there he pointed out that Costa Rica could easily install dams to create vast fresh water reservoirs and generate some power as well. But because the country doesn't do this they have ecosystems people come to visit their from around the world. So by choosing not to maximize for one thing they retain another at little to no cost. After all, free flowing rivers don't cost much to maintain.
The tourism industry is important to them. So perhaps by finding a way to co-exist with big cats, it's a net positive to the ranchers because they probably don't want Costa Rica to be a nation with only 1 industry. If they can produce enough beef (or whatever animal they want to raise) to satisfy domestic and export desires then there probably is not much of a need to expand the industry at all costs.
> In spite of the recent incident, Durán says that since 2018 he’s been able to see the benefits of jaguar conservation on his ranch firsthand. He’s now one of the most active cat defenders. In December 2023, he became a park ranger and helped three former hunters do the same. This transformation is an example of how improving data collection and carrying out interventions based on evidence in the communities benefit both humans and cats.
I guess the point is that ranchers don't blindly hate big cats. They hate suffering large economic losses due to big cats. Once they aren't suffering the losses, they're happy to have the cats around.
What the article seems to suggest is what economists have always known. People react to incentives (and so do animals). Ranchers do not have blind hate for cats but rather care more about their cattle than the cats. By making few changes that are profitable for them cats can co-exist. But that does not make them allies.
This has been such a frustrating limitation of all the big AR platforms. For years, my company has wanted to make an AR app for a certain industrial use case that scans QR codes. Neither Meta nor Apple allow it! We had to give up and do AR on an iPhone instead. Think about that - the iPhone has more powerful AR than the Apple Vision Pro for every developer except Apple.
Step 1 of reverse engineering anything: Figure out the make and model of the thing. ;)
"Employee badges" can be implemented in a number of ways, from simple broadcasted rfids down to having secret challenge responses that aren't breakable without going down the jlsca route since the secret is on the device and never leaves it.
So, step 1: figure out what exactly the model your 'employee badge' is using and what protocol it uses. There's probably some marking on it that should give you the manufactuerer at least.
