The key difference in your example and the comment you are replying to is that the commenter is not "defending the decision" via a logical implication. Obviously the implication can be voided by showing the assumption false.
Hello, TCS assistant professor here: he is legitimately respected among his peers.
Of course, because I am a selfish person, I'd say I appreciate most his work on convex body chasing (see "Competitively chasing convex bodies" on the Wikipedia link), because it follows up on some of my work.
Objectively, you should check his conference submission record, it will be a huge number of A*/A CORE rank conferences, which means the best possible in TCS. Or the prizes section on Wikipedia.
I don't deny that his output is highly valued among AI researchers.
Provocative as my question may be, the point I wanted to make is that his most highly cited paper that I already mentioned is suspiciously very in line with the OpenAI narrative. I doubt if any of his GPT research is really independent. With great salary comes great responsibility.
I quite enjoyed it.
You're in a different part of the world and only have access to lead level data from your local population. You spot an anomaly in a cultural subgroup. Then through extensive guesswork you pinpoint a cause to a specific additive to a spice often consumed by folks in this culture.
I would say that qualifies as a detective story.
But anyway, lead chromate is not a pesticide. The level of harm from pesticides containing heavy metals vs lead chromate is different. You're probably much much less likely to see lead poisoning levels in your blood just by consuming food treated only with pesticides.
Salaries in general (not just of software developers) are tax deductible in many countries. This is desirable because we do not want companies to be paying taxes on revenue.
In the US, unless you are a C Corp then you probably also pay taxes on net income of some form. C Corps have some different accounting, where dividends are double taxed unfortunately.
Small business owners are very impacted by the R&D schedule.
In SF and LA those numbers are nowhere near to being 50%. And I guess the wording is important, since many people can crash on a couch for the first few months and then are considered previously housed by the self reporting survey question.
The survey was done across California -- not just SF and LA. Either way, wikipedia claims that 37.7% of SF residents were born in California which is slightly closer to 50% than the 25% figure you quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#...).
The survey also states that "Most participants (87%) were born in the United States. ... Two-thirds (66%) were born in California."
I still don't understand why the survey is statistically impossible.
