Agent Smith was a virus. Humans are mammals. That's why the females produce milk. Consuming and spreading out is what mammals do. The problem is we're a little too good at being mammals.
I don't think their objective is to create the optimal environment for plants. It's to create the optimal environment for people. This of course means having sufficient CO2 for plants, so we can kill them and eat them and build furniture from them. However we don't care about them enough to make it optimal. We don't even care about them enough to stop killing them for food and furniture. That would make our lives very difficult after all.
This is true of european grey wolves. Only the timid ones that know to stay away from people survived. There are some arctic wolves that never developed this fear because they managed to live far from people. There's a video somewhere of them coming across people and being curious but not afraid or at all aggressive.
If he's like GRRM, does that make me fictional? And if I'm aware I'm fictional can I start breaking the fourth wall like Deadpool? If so, which direction is the fourth wall? I want to start breaking it and talking to the audience.
I'm referring to the parent post which appears to be taking all men and women regardless of age group. This means at the extremes we can take the very strongest women, be they athletes or female body builders or whatever and compare them to bedridden nonagenarian men.
I have never come across anyone claiming the strength distribution curves don't have significant overlap. When people claim men are stronger than women, aren't they just referring to stats like mean, median, maximum, etc.?
I wondered that. Then I thought maybe he means current fossil fuel use is being 'subsidised' by future generations since ultimately they would 'pay the price' for it. People can be difficult to make sense of sometimes.
But what happens if we attach it upside to a cats back and flip it? Does the cat land on its feet or upside down? What if attach toast with jam on one side? Does the toast still always land jam-side down in accordance with murphy's law?
We assume as little as possible to deduce as much as possible. This is the general principle we follow. In special relativity, Einstein started by assuming the velocity of light, and the laws of physics generally, are the same in all inertial reference frames. At this point, he is not trying to produce an exhaustive list of when it is OK to say the speed of light is the constant 'c'. He wants to make the absolute minimum of assumptions to make his conclusions.
So can we say the speed of light is absolute? Here are some links:
I don't see how this post relates to mine. Morals have nothing to do with systematic trading. I'm certainly not denying lives are at risk either. My post was to summarise to what extent policy could influence algorithms employed by quant funds.
If you want to discuss this from a moral perspective, then of course it's selfish for current generations to ignore these problems and leave future generations to suffer.
My point is there needs to be a sufficient financial penalty imposed on corporations who contribute disproportionately to climate change if we want to change their behaviour. If screwing mother earth is profitable, and a viable option for investors, then of course that's what they'll do. It's no good, giving them this option and then acting disappointed if they exercise it. Lawmakers need to understand the beasts they are governing and how to influence them to get the results they want. Appeal to their wallets, not their morals. That is more in line with how they measure their performance.
It would certainly have set a better example had they made a point of video conferencing rather than flying however we must be mindful of the 'tu quoque' fallacy.
You're correct that typically trading algorithms do not explicitly factor in climate change. Liquidity provision algorithms or short term statistical arbitrage algorithms are largely indifferent. However if there is a large enough financial penalty for impacting the environment or climate change, then this data feeds into fundamentals models, and would be traded on. Trend models would then pick up on this as should discretionary traders.
In your frame of reference, the sun does orbit the earth. It's intuitive because it's literally true in the frame you're in. If we take a more natural frame to use for studying the solar system, one in which its barycentre is stationary, then we get the more familiar result of the earth going round the sun. This does not mean that a geocentric frame is never appropriate. The speedometer in a car is measuring the car's speed in this frame, for example. If it was instead measuring the speed at which it orbited the sun, then every car would be breaking the speed limit all the time. Saying the sun orbits the earth is no more ridiculous than saying a parked car is stationary, yet people are ridiculed for one and not the other. The ones to ridicule are the ones claiming the only valid viewpoint is geocentric.
In the scenario I described, there was a 'ruling class' with political power who controlled how resources were distributed, and could potentially control who lives and who dies. My question is why would they use that power in the way you're describing? What do you think their goals are exactly, and how does 'abandoning' people help toward these goals? Do you not think you have more power over people if they're dependent on you than if you cut yourself off from them?
Do they have more of an incentive to abandon people, and look like jackasses, or provide for them, with their abundance of resources, and be seen as heroes? If the premise is that wage slaves are now obsolete, then the ruling class no longer needs to keep them poor. That was only necessary when the only way to get someone to do the less desirable jobs was to keep them poor enough that they'd otherwise starve. In this scenario, there are robots to fill this gap, so the ruling class may as well keep people happy and have someone to admire the statues they build of themselves, keeping their egos inflated. They'd still that buzz of having power over people, since the recipients of their services have a lot to lose by not complying.
Slashdot Mirror
Agent Smith was a virus. Humans are mammals. That's why the females produce milk. Consuming and spreading out is what mammals do. The problem is we're a little too good at being mammals.
The great oxygenation event, caused by cyanobacteria, killed off a lot of anaerobes if that counts.
Getting rid of some species is even counter productive. Toxorhynchites is a mosquito that eats other mosquitoes but does not drink blood.
It's referring to biodiversity. You won't see much speciation in 5-10 years.
Saved from whom?
I don't think their objective is to create the optimal environment for plants. It's to create the optimal environment for people. This of course means having sufficient CO2 for plants, so we can kill them and eat them and build furniture from them. However we don't care about them enough to make it optimal. We don't even care about them enough to stop killing them for food and furniture. That would make our lives very difficult after all.
This is true of european grey wolves. Only the timid ones that know to stay away from people survived. There are some arctic wolves that never developed this fear because they managed to live far from people. There's a video somewhere of them coming across people and being curious but not afraid or at all aggressive.
If he's like GRRM, does that make me fictional? And if I'm aware I'm fictional can I start breaking the fourth wall like Deadpool? If so, which direction is the fourth wall? I want to start breaking it and talking to the audience.
So is he basically like George R.R. Martin? He doesn't live in Westeros himself, but he can still kill of his characters whenever he feels like?
Tell me about it. It takes me a whole year just to get round to the other side of the sun and back.
Consider an object P positioned at (x,y,z) at time t. I'm just gonna write this event as (x,y,z,t). How do you feel about this?
I'm referring to the parent post which appears to be taking all men and women regardless of age group. This means at the extremes we can take the very strongest women, be they athletes or female body builders or whatever and compare them to bedridden nonagenarian men.
I have never come across anyone claiming the strength distribution curves don't have significant overlap. When people claim men are stronger than women, aren't they just referring to stats like mean, median, maximum, etc.?
I wondered that. Then I thought maybe he means current fossil fuel use is being 'subsidised' by future generations since ultimately they would 'pay the price' for it. People can be difficult to make sense of sometimes.
But what happens if we attach it upside to a cats back and flip it? Does the cat land on its feet or upside down? What if attach toast with jam on one side? Does the toast still always land jam-side down in accordance with murphy's law?
We assume as little as possible to deduce as much as possible. This is the general principle we follow. In special relativity, Einstein started by assuming the velocity of light, and the laws of physics generally, are the same in all inertial reference frames. At this point, he is not trying to produce an exhaustive list of when it is OK to say the speed of light is the constant 'c'. He wants to make the absolute minimum of assumptions to make his conclusions.
So can we say the speed of light is absolute? Here are some links:
Move the planet further from the sun and celebrate the extra week as 'robot party week'?
I don't see how this post relates to mine. Morals have nothing to do with systematic trading. I'm certainly not denying lives are at risk either. My post was to summarise to what extent policy could influence algorithms employed by quant funds.
If you want to discuss this from a moral perspective, then of course it's selfish for current generations to ignore these problems and leave future generations to suffer.
My point is there needs to be a sufficient financial penalty imposed on corporations who contribute disproportionately to climate change if we want to change their behaviour. If screwing mother earth is profitable, and a viable option for investors, then of course that's what they'll do. It's no good, giving them this option and then acting disappointed if they exercise it. Lawmakers need to understand the beasts they are governing and how to influence them to get the results they want. Appeal to their wallets, not their morals. That is more in line with how they measure their performance.
It would certainly have set a better example had they made a point of video conferencing rather than flying however we must be mindful of the 'tu quoque' fallacy.
You're correct that typically trading algorithms do not explicitly factor in climate change. Liquidity provision algorithms or short term statistical arbitrage algorithms are largely indifferent. However if there is a large enough financial penalty for impacting the environment or climate change, then this data feeds into fundamentals models, and would be traded on. Trend models would then pick up on this as should discretionary traders.
Presumably they're referring to the postulates of special relativity but instead of saying 'inertial' they've said 'non-accelerating'.
In your frame of reference, the sun does orbit the earth. It's intuitive because it's literally true in the frame you're in. If we take a more natural frame to use for studying the solar system, one in which its barycentre is stationary, then we get the more familiar result of the earth going round the sun. This does not mean that a geocentric frame is never appropriate. The speedometer in a car is measuring the car's speed in this frame, for example. If it was instead measuring the speed at which it orbited the sun, then every car would be breaking the speed limit all the time. Saying the sun orbits the earth is no more ridiculous than saying a parked car is stationary, yet people are ridiculed for one and not the other. The ones to ridicule are the ones claiming the only valid viewpoint is geocentric.
In the scenario I described, there was a 'ruling class' with political power who controlled how resources were distributed, and could potentially control who lives and who dies. My question is why would they use that power in the way you're describing? What do you think their goals are exactly, and how does 'abandoning' people help toward these goals? Do you not think you have more power over people if they're dependent on you than if you cut yourself off from them?
Do they have more of an incentive to abandon people, and look like jackasses, or provide for them, with their abundance of resources, and be seen as heroes? If the premise is that wage slaves are now obsolete, then the ruling class no longer needs to keep them poor. That was only necessary when the only way to get someone to do the less desirable jobs was to keep them poor enough that they'd otherwise starve. In this scenario, there are robots to fill this gap, so the ruling class may as well keep people happy and have someone to admire the statues they build of themselves, keeping their egos inflated. They'd still that buzz of having power over people, since the recipients of their services have a lot to lose by not complying.