I'm not fully read up on this but isn't the whole point of this debate that the FCC decided Broadband providers AREN'T utility companies and as such removed the federal regulations around net neutrality.
IE: there isn't any law for California to break by enforcing net neutrality.
As someone that was heavily into Math and science in High School, not learning proper public speaking has been an extreme detriment to my career. IT is honestly the difference between a 75k back room support job and a 100k+ consulting position.
"Knowing" is a super important thing for any person. "Demonstrating" that knowledge is often the key to success and if you can't speak publicly, you can't demonstrate.This is why we also teach handwriting and grammar in schools.
I read what you said and I said it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE without some unknown tech to ignore gravity. Just dropping the materials from the sky would require the expenditure of more material than you drop. That doesn't even take into account burn off in the atmosphere, lifting the weight from whatever rock it is mined on and moving it around the solar system.
When you're dealing with materials, "cost effectiveness" is usually directly equatable to "How much material I get" and for space mining, as far as I can tell, that amount is negative if your delivery destination is Earth.
Apollo 11 was powered by a Saturn V rocket which stood 364 feet (101.5 meters) tall. It weighed 525,500 pounds. And we got 800 pounds back. That is not lacking in cost effectiveness, that is actively expending nearly 1000x the mass you acquire. Unless "moon rocks" are 1000x more useful as a commodity than rocket fuel and steel are, then production mining of the moon is impossible.
No, it's absolutely impossible to mine off world without some way to defeat gravity. Let's say we need Lithium. Currently Chile is producing about 13,000 metric tonnes a year. It takes about 9 months to travel to Mars, so let's say each trip would bring 10,000 tonnes back to earth of Lithium.
We can't currently safely deorbit the ISS which weighs about 400 tonnes, best plan is to drop it onto the ocean and hope it doesn't break anything. So how do you get 25 times that weight to earth in a usable form without nuking the landing zone? Short answer is, as far as I am aware, you don't. That is even ignoring the raw fuel costs of accelerating that much mass.
PUBG is suing Epic, makers of the engine PUBG uses and supposedly collaborators in some way to the development of PUBG. They are suing because they believe EPIC released a startling similar version of their game in a surprisingly short time span AFTER being exposed to PUBG from an insider perspective.
At the very least EPIC have a large conflict of interest in releasing a "copy cat" product in direct competition of a highly successful customer. Whether that is actionable in court, I don't know but I certainly hope not - Fortnite is the better product of the two.
It's such a baffling thing to say. Diversity can be limited only when there is a barrier to entry. Podcasting has one of the lowest barriers of entry of any entertainment medium. By trying to bring in "underrepresented" demographics wouldn't you actually be going against the wishes of those demographics? I mean to say, nothing is keeping black, gay or female people (or any other demographic) from podcasting right now except their lack of desire to do so.
You're right but I never once said that climate change specifically didn't harm the Baobabs, what I did say was that there is no mechanism mentioned only the nebulous "Climate change" which is generally, warmer temps, more CO2. Surely you would agree that for an incredibly heat tolerant, low water species like the Baobab, those two specific factors increasing should at least have no effect and at best be helpful.
You've thrown in a few other red herrings that are not related to my point: "humidity, soil hydrometry, soil acidity, soil NH4 concentration" the article never mentions these as a mechanism for the death of the Baobab so the fact that they could have been, further proves my point. Your pollinator point is flawed because these are not species failing because of lack of reproduction, they are individuals dying.
I want to reiterate that my main point was that there is no claimed process by which climate change killed these trees, only a statement that it did. That just feels dishonest, "Climate Change" should never be seen as some monolithic beast that just makes bad stuff happen, it makes anyone claiming that look simple.
Except that plant life tends to thrive in a warmer, CO2 rich environment. I'm no Baobab expert but "climate change" IE CO2 increase causing temperature increase, should have a positive impact on the growth of many plants.
Saying climate change killed these plants is pretty farcical without defining an actual mechanism.
from the article: "Between 2005 and 2017, the researchers probed and dated âoepractically all known very large and potentially oldâ ". If we're looking for something that changed, researchers poking and prodding the trees is an interesting possibility that the article doesn't indicate has been eliminated as a cause.
I would disagree with you here, social darwinism is absolutely true, it's just that the selection criteria isn't merit, it is actually level of sociopathy, which most reasonable people will agree is not what we want in our "cream".
Exactly What I was thinking. I'm almost wanting this company to just go, yeah ok, give us a settlement number, we'll pay it the moment no oil or oil product is in use anywhere in your city so that no harm is being caused any longer.
The thing is if the market didn't demand it, it wouldn't sell. Admittedly there is a level of homogeneity in the market so there may not be much choice in the matter but as an example, if no one wanted the S7 edge (I didn't) then they would have bought the standard S7 and I wouldn't be stuck with an edge screen on my S8. Sure you can assume marketing drove the sales of the edge but you can't argue with the results. People buy shit that is less practical based on "cool factor".
Professionalism is more about consistency than killing passion, when I deal with one "professional" I should get much the same result and work product as I would if I did with any other "professional" in the same field. That can often result in blandness or lack of passion but it is certainly not the goal. Jokes being subjective are unlikely to ever have a place in a "professional" setting because one person's joke is another's insult.
I'm not too familiar with GNU but if it is indeed a passion project then professionalism really has little place, idiosyncrasy is what makes true passion projects shine and it is a mark of a successful project that it can deliver good product while still remaining weird in its own way.
This is basically what I thought. I really don't want to work with/for an idiot that thinks facial recognition on a bot is a good way to screen for anything. What if the candidate is disfigured or has some other non-normal facial structure, let alone maybe the connection is bad and the visuals get scrambled or any number of other factors.
Sure humans are biased and a "mathematical" way of finding the best new candidate would be nice but even the idea of comparing to an existing workforce is god awful - the best new employee you hire is often the one that is different from your existing team because new ideas and processes tend to promote efficiency.
The problem is that the hand sanitisers people are now using in their home - yourself included - are on par or even the exact same as those that the doctors will use to sanitise you before surgery. If you use hand sanitisers frequently, the only microbes that will survive on your skin are those that are immune to the sanitiser. This means that in a situation where you absolutely must be sterile - say for example when a doctor is cutting you open - there is no way to sterilise your skin because you've nurtured a culture of immune microbes there. It is a developing problem that is similar to antibiotic resistance.
I don't overly agree with the graph because it uses modern fluctuations (which are not smoothed) and compares them to paleo scale fluctuations which can be smoothed over centuries and even millennia however you are incorrect here.
It took blowing the graph out to a pixel level but by my measure, about half of the graphed 61-90 line is below (to the left of) the line showing the average. It isn't a very precise graph but in general XKCD is very effective in using the data that is available to him and he seems to be pretty meticulous when he chooses to present something as "science".
I personally doubt some of the data but have no way to back that doubt up. Even given that I wouldn't claim the XKCD comic is wrong as it presents the data effectively and interestingly.
The paper linked is actually pretty interesting and gives some cool examples, including a floating point overflow that managed to zero out any penalties the AI would receive.
Most interesting is the Tic Tac Toe AI that one by causing OOM errors in it's opponent. All opponents had dynamically expanding boards held in memory so the AI which was encoding moves rather than boards would just fire off a move in the billions of X,Y coordinates and crash its opponent.
I'm a huge fan of evolutionary algorithms - really wish I had the time to dive into them.
Human perception isn't very good. for a lot of people, focusing on the dark road, staying within the road markings, checking out what is ahead on the road - these things would make it possible to completely miss someone wandering into your field of vision.
A great recent example of this is labor declaring a new tax idea. Decent idea to tax a very narrow type of income differently (dividends). Huge public outcry caused them to back down on it. This all happened (suggest, outcry, retreat) over a couple of days.
Our politicians are too spineless to put real change through, instead they just cruise along while infrastructure goes to shit, wage growth stagnates and housing prices sky rocket. I think the last effective PM we've had was Howard - for good (guns) and bad (work choices) at least he got stuff done.
Not exactly true. The government issued a legal and appropriate fine. There are other recourse to have the fine reversed which either failed or were ignored - given he had the chip in hand he could have disputed the fine by proving he had in fact paid for the trip and it likely would have been reversed.
Instead of having the fine reversed he decided to go to court, effectively he is suing the government at this point - the government has no choice but to respond, the guy has a right to his day in court. Turns out the court decided he was wrong so he pays the price.
The Australian fines system is actually pretty nice - there are a bunch of layers to it so you don't get wrongly charged. This guy, unfortunately, appears to be ahead of the times. He's also an idiot for riding a train without a valid ticket and then claiming he had one.
One of the problems I have with the priority that people put on Global warming is that it can be shot down. If you believe global warming is not an issue then C02 is not a pollutant, in fact a higher concentration of C02 is beneficial. Again, that is if you believe global warming is not a problem.
What is a huge problem is smog and other particulate air pollution. There are areas on the planet where the air is nearly unbreathable due to human pollution but every time I hear about environmentalists pushing for improvement it is to stop Global warming.
It is such an odd thing to target Global warming as the big environmental issue because everyone knows one side will dismiss it completely and even if you have support ot fix it, no one really can come up with a viable long term solution. Why not target the pollution that is actively visible and that can be eliminated in years rather than a looming disaster that will eventuate over centuries (maybe).
I looked this up a decade ago so my recollection or reality might be a bit different now but there are roughly two things that side step the false advertising:
The first is that every plan that deals with speed advertises "up to" that speed and usually make it clear that that is the theoretical maximum.
The second is that most of the connections are referred to as some form of "Broadband". Which is defined as somewhere around faster than dial up.
So if your up to 100mbps line is getting 1mbps you're still "up to" and you're still "Broadband" so the ISP is covered. You can switch if you want but you'll need to pay out your 24 month contract that you're locked into.
You're correct, however consider this also: - Many people don't have insurance because the up front cost is too high or does not correlate with the risk mitigated. - Many people choose not to live a healthy life because they prefer the comforts that come with an unhealthy life - even when they are aware of the negative consequences.
When it comes to mitigating "potential undesirable outcomes", people will often choose not to because the personal cost is too high - either in new costs or in reduction of day to day quality of life. When it comes to the planet, those "potential undesirable outcomes" have been so badly over sensationalized that it is impossible to tell what we should actually be worried about. I mean mercury? Really?
Human communication is more (and in some ways less) nuanced than animal. Looking certain animals in the eye has an approximate human equivalent of drawing a weapon. Animals react appropriately to what THEY perceive as a direct threat, not what YOU perceive as threatening.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it's a revenue stream looking for a sucker.
I'm not fully read up on this but isn't the whole point of this debate that the FCC decided Broadband providers AREN'T utility companies and as such removed the federal regulations around net neutrality.
IE: there isn't any law for California to break by enforcing net neutrality.
As someone that was heavily into Math and science in High School, not learning proper public speaking has been an extreme detriment to my career. IT is honestly the difference between a 75k back room support job and a 100k+ consulting position.
"Knowing" is a super important thing for any person. "Demonstrating" that knowledge is often the key to success and if you can't speak publicly, you can't demonstrate.This is why we also teach handwriting and grammar in schools.
I read what you said and I said it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE without some unknown tech to ignore gravity. Just dropping the materials from the sky would require the expenditure of more material than you drop. That doesn't even take into account burn off in the atmosphere, lifting the weight from whatever rock it is mined on and moving it around the solar system.
When you're dealing with materials, "cost effectiveness" is usually directly equatable to "How much material I get" and for space mining, as far as I can tell, that amount is negative if your delivery destination is Earth.
Apollo 11 was powered by a Saturn V rocket which stood 364 feet (101.5 meters) tall. It weighed 525,500 pounds. And we got 800 pounds back. That is not lacking in cost effectiveness, that is actively expending nearly 1000x the mass you acquire. Unless "moon rocks" are 1000x more useful as a commodity than rocket fuel and steel are, then production mining of the moon is impossible.
No, it's absolutely impossible to mine off world without some way to defeat gravity. Let's say we need Lithium. Currently Chile is producing about 13,000 metric tonnes a year. It takes about 9 months to travel to Mars, so let's say each trip would bring 10,000 tonnes back to earth of Lithium.
We can't currently safely deorbit the ISS which weighs about 400 tonnes, best plan is to drop it onto the ocean and hope it doesn't break anything. So how do you get 25 times that weight to earth in a usable form without nuking the landing zone? Short answer is, as far as I am aware, you don't. That is even ignoring the raw fuel costs of accelerating that much mass.
I like this way of spinning it; on average, when compared to AT&T pricing, AT&T caused the price to all Americans to decrease.
PUBG is suing Epic, makers of the engine PUBG uses and supposedly collaborators in some way to the development of PUBG. They are suing because they believe EPIC released a startling similar version of their game in a surprisingly short time span AFTER being exposed to PUBG from an insider perspective.
At the very least EPIC have a large conflict of interest in releasing a "copy cat" product in direct competition of a highly successful customer. Whether that is actionable in court, I don't know but I certainly hope not - Fortnite is the better product of the two.
It's such a baffling thing to say. Diversity can be limited only when there is a barrier to entry. Podcasting has one of the lowest barriers of entry of any entertainment medium. By trying to bring in "underrepresented" demographics wouldn't you actually be going against the wishes of those demographics? I mean to say, nothing is keeping black, gay or female people (or any other demographic) from podcasting right now except their lack of desire to do so.
You're right but I never once said that climate change specifically didn't harm the Baobabs, what I did say was that there is no mechanism mentioned only the nebulous "Climate change" which is generally, warmer temps, more CO2. Surely you would agree that for an incredibly heat tolerant, low water species like the Baobab, those two specific factors increasing should at least have no effect and at best be helpful.
You've thrown in a few other red herrings that are not related to my point: "humidity, soil hydrometry, soil acidity, soil NH4 concentration" the article never mentions these as a mechanism for the death of the Baobab so the fact that they could have been, further proves my point. Your pollinator point is flawed because these are not species failing because of lack of reproduction, they are individuals dying.
I want to reiterate that my main point was that there is no claimed process by which climate change killed these trees, only a statement that it did. That just feels dishonest, "Climate Change" should never be seen as some monolithic beast that just makes bad stuff happen, it makes anyone claiming that look simple.
Except that plant life tends to thrive in a warmer, CO2 rich environment. I'm no Baobab expert but "climate change" IE CO2 increase causing temperature increase, should have a positive impact on the growth of many plants.
Saying climate change killed these plants is pretty farcical without defining an actual mechanism.
from the article: "Between 2005 and 2017, the researchers probed and dated âoepractically all known very large and potentially oldâ ". If we're looking for something that changed, researchers poking and prodding the trees is an interesting possibility that the article doesn't indicate has been eliminated as a cause.
I would disagree with you here, social darwinism is absolutely true, it's just that the selection criteria isn't merit, it is actually level of sociopathy, which most reasonable people will agree is not what we want in our "cream".
Exactly What I was thinking. I'm almost wanting this company to just go, yeah ok, give us a settlement number, we'll pay it the moment no oil or oil product is in use anywhere in your city so that no harm is being caused any longer.
The thing is if the market didn't demand it, it wouldn't sell. Admittedly there is a level of homogeneity in the market so there may not be much choice in the matter but as an example, if no one wanted the S7 edge (I didn't) then they would have bought the standard S7 and I wouldn't be stuck with an edge screen on my S8. Sure you can assume marketing drove the sales of the edge but you can't argue with the results. People buy shit that is less practical based on "cool factor".
Professionalism is more about consistency than killing passion, when I deal with one "professional" I should get much the same result and work product as I would if I did with any other "professional" in the same field. That can often result in blandness or lack of passion but it is certainly not the goal. Jokes being subjective are unlikely to ever have a place in a "professional" setting because one person's joke is another's insult.
I'm not too familiar with GNU but if it is indeed a passion project then professionalism really has little place, idiosyncrasy is what makes true passion projects shine and it is a mark of a successful project that it can deliver good product while still remaining weird in its own way.
This is basically what I thought. I really don't want to work with/for an idiot that thinks facial recognition on a bot is a good way to screen for anything. What if the candidate is disfigured or has some other non-normal facial structure, let alone maybe the connection is bad and the visuals get scrambled or any number of other factors.
Sure humans are biased and a "mathematical" way of finding the best new candidate would be nice but even the idea of comparing to an existing workforce is god awful - the best new employee you hire is often the one that is different from your existing team because new ideas and processes tend to promote efficiency.
The problem is that the hand sanitisers people are now using in their home - yourself included - are on par or even the exact same as those that the doctors will use to sanitise you before surgery. If you use hand sanitisers frequently, the only microbes that will survive on your skin are those that are immune to the sanitiser. This means that in a situation where you absolutely must be sterile - say for example when a doctor is cutting you open - there is no way to sterilise your skin because you've nurtured a culture of immune microbes there. It is a developing problem that is similar to antibiotic resistance.
I don't overly agree with the graph because it uses modern fluctuations (which are not smoothed) and compares them to paleo scale fluctuations which can be smoothed over centuries and even millennia however you are incorrect here.
It took blowing the graph out to a pixel level but by my measure, about half of the graphed 61-90 line is below (to the left of) the line showing the average. It isn't a very precise graph but in general XKCD is very effective in using the data that is available to him and he seems to be pretty meticulous when he chooses to present something as "science".
I personally doubt some of the data but have no way to back that doubt up. Even given that I wouldn't claim the XKCD comic is wrong as it presents the data effectively and interestingly.
The paper linked is actually pretty interesting and gives some cool examples, including a floating point overflow that managed to zero out any penalties the AI would receive.
Most interesting is the Tic Tac Toe AI that one by causing OOM errors in it's opponent. All opponents had dynamically expanding boards held in memory so the AI which was encoding moves rather than boards would just fire off a move in the billions of X,Y coordinates and crash its opponent.
I'm a huge fan of evolutionary algorithms - really wish I had the time to dive into them.
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla...
Human perception isn't very good. for a lot of people, focusing on the dark road, staying within the road markings, checking out what is ahead on the road - these things would make it possible to completely miss someone wandering into your field of vision.
A great recent example of this is labor declaring a new tax idea. Decent idea to tax a very narrow type of income differently (dividends). Huge public outcry caused them to back down on it. This all happened (suggest, outcry, retreat) over a couple of days.
Our politicians are too spineless to put real change through, instead they just cruise along while infrastructure goes to shit, wage growth stagnates and housing prices sky rocket. I think the last effective PM we've had was Howard - for good (guns) and bad (work choices) at least he got stuff done.
Not exactly true. The government issued a legal and appropriate fine. There are other recourse to have the fine reversed which either failed or were ignored - given he had the chip in hand he could have disputed the fine by proving he had in fact paid for the trip and it likely would have been reversed.
Instead of having the fine reversed he decided to go to court, effectively he is suing the government at this point - the government has no choice but to respond, the guy has a right to his day in court. Turns out the court decided he was wrong so he pays the price.
The Australian fines system is actually pretty nice - there are a bunch of layers to it so you don't get wrongly charged. This guy, unfortunately, appears to be ahead of the times. He's also an idiot for riding a train without a valid ticket and then claiming he had one.
One of the problems I have with the priority that people put on Global warming is that it can be shot down. If you believe global warming is not an issue then C02 is not a pollutant, in fact a higher concentration of C02 is beneficial. Again, that is if you believe global warming is not a problem.
What is a huge problem is smog and other particulate air pollution. There are areas on the planet where the air is nearly unbreathable due to human pollution but every time I hear about environmentalists pushing for improvement it is to stop Global warming.
It is such an odd thing to target Global warming as the big environmental issue because everyone knows one side will dismiss it completely and even if you have support ot fix it, no one really can come up with a viable long term solution. Why not target the pollution that is actively visible and that can be eliminated in years rather than a looming disaster that will eventuate over centuries (maybe).
I looked this up a decade ago so my recollection or reality might be a bit different now but there are roughly two things that side step the false advertising:
The first is that every plan that deals with speed advertises "up to" that speed and usually make it clear that that is the theoretical maximum.
The second is that most of the connections are referred to as some form of "Broadband". Which is defined as somewhere around faster than dial up.
So if your up to 100mbps line is getting 1mbps you're still "up to" and you're still "Broadband" so the ISP is covered. You can switch if you want but you'll need to pay out your 24 month contract that you're locked into.
You're correct, however consider this also:
- Many people don't have insurance because the up front cost is too high or does not correlate with the risk mitigated.
- Many people choose not to live a healthy life because they prefer the comforts that come with an unhealthy life - even when they are aware of the negative consequences.
When it comes to mitigating "potential undesirable outcomes", people will often choose not to because the personal cost is too high - either in new costs or in reduction of day to day quality of life.
When it comes to the planet, those "potential undesirable outcomes" have been so badly over sensationalized that it is impossible to tell what we should actually be worried about. I mean mercury? Really?
Human communication is more (and in some ways less) nuanced than animal. Looking certain animals in the eye has an approximate human equivalent of drawing a weapon. Animals react appropriately to what THEY perceive as a direct threat, not what YOU perceive as threatening.