Which requires them to explicitly ask your age outside the bounds of qualification for a job (over 18 etc). Which ends up opening them to age discrimination lawsuits.
It does not require them to ask about your age, just the year in which you took the SAT. As other commenters have pointed out, this can range from 12 to 17.
Also, they could just ask for your SAT score and any relevant info (if you took it during COVID from your car, etc.) and then you could disclose whatever context you wanted.
While I generally agree with you that employers should absolutely not be asking for this sort of information, they're still going to be able to make a very good guess at your general age by the dates of your education and employment.
Unfortunately, there isn't really a viable way to prevent employers from finding out your age from your resume/CV.
I don't kid myself into thinking that employers can't tell roughly how old applicants are. If they're asking for SAT they could also ask for college transcripts/graduation info. That's going to reveal the approximate age of many candidates right there. Finding out what year you took the SAT will add 0 info in most cases.
If a big company in dominant position is allowed to gobble up any and all upstart competitors that's bad for competition, and it is the FTC's job to preserve competition.
It sounds like you are actually upset at Congress, which created FTC and gave it the power to decide if you can sell your startup. FTC is just doing the job prescribed by Congress.
I do love it. Companies don't exist solely to enrich their founders, they exist to provide a benefit to society. There needs to be a balance, of course, but if allowing a sale does not benefit society, then we should not allow it.
> your startup
You're under the misconception that companies "belong" to individuals. Companies are legal frameworks that society has decided upon. We could legally decide that M&A just isn't allowed, ever, if we wanted to. (I don't think that would be a good idea, but I hope you see my point.)
Reductionist. Your phrasing it like the onky options are full central planning and libertarianism. Theyre both wrong. You need the free market to do what it is capable of, and regulate it when its isnt. The free market was going to let monopolies form. We have all already agreed thats bad. Khan's policies just updated that to the tech sphere
Actually, the owners not being on the hook when payroll comes due and the business is out of cash is exactly the protection that society has extended to incorporated businesses. But I'd be happy to horse trade unregulated m&a activity for owners, boardmembers and executives having full liability exposure, financial and criminal.
I’m not sure why everyone is positioning this as a “gotcha”. I may be off base, but was it advertised as 100% autonomous? I’m just impressed with the form factor, dexterity, and battery life. Feels like everyone’s grasping at straws to cast the event as a failure.
I agree. Also, especially in the extremely crowded and noisy context - what would have been the chances to have the demo working so well?
In fact, even if the robots worked very well autonomously, you would still have wanted a way to ensure that the demo is successful - the same way Steve Jobs did with the iPhone demo, Larry Ellison did with the Oracle servers demo, etc.
So many stories like that in the history of famous product launches.
The one thing that bothers me a little is that if you look at the robots dancing, they are only moving the upper body; their feet are always on the ground. I would have liked to see them having enough ability to dance and move the legs too… then, again, maybe the gazebo they were in was just too space-constrained, or it was just too risky to do that in the demo - given the crowd, and all the chaotic party context. When you set up a demo, you have to account for the edge cases where your product glitches, not just for what it mostly does very well.
Anyhow, these are all AI issues (as opposed to mechanical ones), and, at the pace AI is evolving, it is not hard to see how these types of issues get ironed out over the time horizon leading to the launch.
The Optimus demo did do a great job at actually making people see a world in which robots just roam around and interact with humans everywhere. .
Mechanical and electrical engineering are real work, too. Demonstrating progress on the physical machine might be interesting even if its software isn't done yet.
Given that the event was about the 'future of autonomy', yes people were expecting that products presented are autonomous. A lot of people were duped and a lot of media coverage assumed it was all autonomous.
But hey, it's coming from a company that's selling something called Full Self Driving for the past 10 years, so the deception is not really that surprising.
Makes you wonder how Trevor Milton feels about all this - after all, they only stated in the infamous video that the truck is 'in motion' - never advertised it's 100% an 'autonomous motion' :)
Clearly a rorschach for people. The cars were driving autonomously and the improvements in Optimus’ form factor were impressive, so to me it seems pedantic to complain that the bar tending and rock paper scissors weren’t 100% autonomous.
Are you a Trevor Milton fan? I didn’t see as much merit in his body of work.
Not a fan of Milton at all. The guy belongs in jail. But so do Musk with his lies and deceptions about Tesla.
Btw, are we so sure that the cars shown were driving autonomously and not remotely operated ? Not that it's difficult to have a self-driving car in a cinema studio these days... But for all Musk said, 'there's no people in them', 'as you can see, the cars just going by with no people', 'fully autonomous' (like FSD ?).
(Don't get me wrong - it's a good company, that did achieve some impressive things in the past. But there are clear Enron vibes to me).
While India is building the infrastructure to not starve and drown they will not have sufficient exploitable labor to "grow" as translated into building and manning sweatshops and factories.
Former GE investor here - everything you've said is spot on.
Our modus operandi was that a growth equity investment should _never_ go to zero. The new portfolio thinking has shifted to the right: 1/3 make 1-2x, 1/3 make 2-3x, 1/3 make 3x or more.
