Blood oxygen saturation is always near 100% in a healthy person. 95% is the low end of normal. Dropping to 90% is considered hypoxemia, and 80% is a medical emergency. So there really shouldn’t be any room to increase it significantly.
In many people a momentary drop to the 80s or even below is not an emergency or anything close to it. Not saying that it is good.
Someone that is awake, sitting up, and struggling to breathe should be considered an emergency regardless of oxygen levels (and in this situation 80% would be very concerning).
EDIT: your comment is otherwise entirely correct, particularly at sea level.
If someone has a company doing an IPO, it’s extremely unlikely that the company was so small that one person did all the work. Why is it a given that one person should retain nearly all of the proceeds of the sale? To answer your question, that person is funneling funds from investors who are expecting returns derived from the labor provided by the undercompensated employees.
Ok, let's follow that logic. If IPO makes CEO much, much richer but generally also makes company and workers better off (but to smaller degree), does IPO make workers more undercompensated? Nobody lost anything for the CEO to gain. Also is "funneling" (that's an interesting choice of word) investors money into company stock a bad thing? Why would it be? I'd say it's a very, very good thing and it's in almost always 100% voluntary to buy stocks.
>If IPO makes CEO much, much richer but generally also makes company and workers better off (but to smaller degree), does IPO make workers more undercompensated?
Yes, obviously. The bulk of work of the company is done by the workers. That is to say, most of the value is generated by the labor of the workers. If a commensurate share of the profit is not returned to the employees, they’ve clearly been undercompensated.
If you spend a month working all day every day on something and then you get paid 5¢, was that fair compensation simply because you're materially better off for having received it? BTW, I made $10,000 reselling your labor.
Where are you getting this idea to at IPOing makes workers situations better?! Citation needed!
Most of the time these public companies do regular mass layoffs just to make their investors happy to do short term stock price manipulation so they can get a bump in their executive salaries. This happens all the time
Sure doesn't seem like an IPO makes anyone but the tops lives easier in my book...
Presumably there's some level of progressive taxation where the top rate is between 0% and 100% that most helps the median person.
The problem is that people with power are largely incentivized to push this rate lower than the optimal-for-the-median-person rate in order to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Multicore workloads do tend to hit RAM bandwidth limits before they hit power constraints. If you do the math, running at max frequency and core utilization would usually imply you could only access a byte or so per core clock cycle. Perhaps a mere handful of bytes for the highest-performance systems with in-package RAM.
Historically most devices were serving antivirus and snooping. Ai is the first time they are being used for actual computing again. They will be kept saturated.
It is like the most important performance figure. When I use an LLM that mostly fits on my GPU, the GPU will run at about 30% of its maximum power consumption - probably because the memory can't feed the ALUs fast enough. Similarly for the part that runs on the CPU, the CPU cores will show 100% utilization but not consume as much power as they usually do under full load. The GUI will also be choppier than usual under full load (noticeable, but not too annoying) presumably because pixel pushing also needs some nontrivial memory bandwidth which is hard to get.
Yes and so we use HBM for AI (among other things), but that's an exception. For things like games or displaying webpages, its not very important and we generally don't put HBM into things for that.
Sleep apnea can indirectly cause weight gain, but obesity—particularly excess fat on the neck—is the main controllable risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea, so it’s primarily the other way around.
It's a very meaningful statement when people claim that thing X's purpose is Y which is good, and therefore thing X is good, even though the actual outcome Z is not Y and in fact may be diametrically opposed to Y. Happens quite often.
I don't know if it really applies to the current thread, but I just wanted to point out that POSIWID is certainly not a vapid, empty concept.
Because the entire structure of the business is designed for approximately the amount of work it currently does and likely has no particular immediate use for twice as much work in most departments.
Your experience of how the world works is usually because of what work you have done. You can't grow twice as many crops, sell twice as many groceries, drive twice as many busses, because of AI - fundamentally there's a consumption problem as well.
Many businesses are not bottlenecked by processes that are computer based.
But the firms in the headlines doing layoffs after layoffs aren't growing crops, selling groceries, or driving busses... They're knowledge work roles in companies selling intangible products and services. It's large corporations doing this much more than SMBs.
They’re also the ones constantly hiring and recruiting because internally nearly everyone benefits to having more people “under them”, and there’s a massive HR/Talent team that doesn’t go into hibernation after a 20% workforce reduction. Organizations want to grow, not because they need to but because it’s in the best interest of nearly all individuals still on the inside.
That's why it's so important that people get some stock compensation, so that when the stock goes up when they finally fire people the incentives are aligned.
And I’m sure those companies also have “backlogs" due to limited labor/labor costs. There are always shelves to face, vehicles with deferred maintenance, and so on.
Obviously, there are limits: I’m not sure what my local grocery store or bus line would do with 100 new workers, but I have no doubt they could put a few people to work right away.
Well, but they aren't doing so right now, because labour has costs.
If your existing labour suddenly gets more productive, there's still a trade-off between cost and benefit to be made. And it would be a great coincidence if the optimal trade-off were exactly at the same headcount as the old trade-off under the old productivity figures.
It's more likely that the optimal trade-off for the business under the new conditions is at some other headcount.
early 2000s so close enough. I know this because for a while, WEP was intentionally crippled in the US for a while because of the archaic encryption laws
Sidenote, does anyone remember a "click here to become an international arms dealer" esque site as a protest of our encryption laws or did I make that up. I swear I heard that somewhere
reply