And if you traded just on P/E metrics alone, you'd underperform the market massively.
What's the use of a low P/E? So the dividends will have a good yield without hurting cashflow, right? Well, what if dividends are taxed more than capital gains? What if the company can redirect that profit into capex so they grow faster than the market? In this case, investors like a company that can keep growing at maximum pace, so that when the saturation point comes (which may be a long time with Amazon - maybe they end up dominating all markets), the dividends will be far more rewarding.
It wasn't relevant or necessary to dump the whole argument for climate change in that response - just to establish that it's more than isolated weather events.
It's not, nobody said it was, and you don't even believe your strawman so why post it?
The article is about the wide-spread pattern of heat records, individually which are weather events, in aggregate and over the course of years form a pattern of climate change.
You aren't using 'direct' correctly. More people are not heating the planet up directly, and hence your call to action about population is unsubstantiated. If you double population but quadruple resource efficiency, you do less environmental damage.
Didn't British Petroleum get fined over 20 billion USD to the US when they messed up in the Gulf?
Didn't Volkswagen get fined 2.8 billion USD to the US when they messed up their emissions?
I think the use of passive voice is to indicate that there was significant decimation by Spanish-borne diseases rather than than actual extermination by the conquistadors.
This is speculation, but in principle we can get retrograde orbits if an asteroid -- even one on a "normal" orbit direction -- passes in front of a planet (relative to its path in orbit) and gets slingshot back around exiting at a ~200-300 degree angle. Whether this is possible in practice depends on the relative asteroid speed and mass of planet.
I don't get the hype about self-awareness. It's only feature is that you have a representation of your 'self' in the environment; it doesn't grant you superpowers, more autonomy, or agency. Selfishness doesn't follow from self-awareness, not without a survival selection process or additional programming, so none of the traits we usually attach to it are good assumptions.
Fair point.
If you model the problem assuming we'll definitely know we've hit on an artifact each core sample that runs through an ancient city, and that both core sampling and city distributions are uniform, and core samples are arbitrarily large depth, then yes... you'd need only 0.99^n=0.5 => n=70 core samples to have 50% chance of hitting one.
I believe the first assumption is the least probable.
The paper addresses this geological impact paradox. For the signal to be obvious in the geological record, it has to be sustained, but for a civilization to persist long enough to be obvious in geological time scales, they have to be in equilibrium with the environment.
They didn't state 1% odds; they said 1% of earth is currently urbanized, and they implied much less chance of finding a similar 1% coverage by our exposure to old earth surfaces.
Also near-water locations aren't static over millions of years.
The hidden signs of civilizations in jungles are found because they are on our present geological surface, and can be exposed with LIDAR scans.
From TA, it seems unlikely to ever hit on an old civilization's urban areas:
"the current area of urbanization is less than 1% of the Earth’s surface (Schneider et al., 2009), and exposed sections and drilling
sites for pre-Quaternary surfaces are orders of magnitude less as fractions of the original surface."
Not wrong, and now amusingly you've lost all credibility.
It's an "ought-question" rather than an "is-question". You don't understand what science is if you think it provides answers to ought-questions.
Apple is behind in the AI race, and wants FB's engineers. That's the puzzle piece that makes this coordinated (and incredulous) attack by Woz & Cook make sense.
These voices are quite a far cry from the results of the original wavenet paper. I suppose a lot of computational tradeoffs happened, but these are Siri-level, not human level.
>> The tech industry has a persistent problem with gender inequality.
That's as valid as to say that women have a free will problem that prevents them from choosing to occupy all areas of employment in the same numbers as men. Is it as big an outrage that the coal mines are under-represented by women?
Particularly when sampling at extremes of distributions (CEO level being one), outcomes are heavily distorted by any intrinsic bias (in choice, importantly) that slightly shift the mean of that distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you traded just on P/E metrics alone, you'd underperform the market massively.
What's the use of a low P/E? So the dividends will have a good yield without hurting cashflow, right?
Well, what if dividends are taxed more than capital gains? What if the company can redirect that profit into capex so they grow faster than the market? In this case, investors like a company that can keep growing at maximum pace, so that when the saturation point comes (which may be a long time with Amazon - maybe they end up dominating all markets), the dividends will be far more rewarding.
If they did that I'd go a lot more often. But why should I pay the ad-watching tax when I paid for a ticket?
You don't need unanimity of idiots, you just need a "reasonable consensus" of experts.
It wasn't relevant or necessary to dump the whole argument for climate change in that response - just to establish that it's more than isolated weather events.
It's not, nobody said it was, and you don't even believe your strawman so why post it? The article is about the wide-spread pattern of heat records, individually which are weather events, in aggregate and over the course of years form a pattern of climate change.
You aren't using 'direct' correctly. More people are not heating the planet up directly, and hence your call to action about population is unsubstantiated. If you double population but quadruple resource efficiency, you do less environmental damage.
Didn't British Petroleum get fined over 20 billion USD to the US when they messed up in the Gulf?
Didn't Volkswagen get fined 2.8 billion USD to the US when they messed up their emissions?
I think the use of passive voice is to indicate that there was significant decimation by Spanish-borne diseases rather than than actual extermination by the conquistadors.
This is speculation, but in principle we can get retrograde orbits if an asteroid -- even one on a "normal" orbit direction -- passes in front of a planet (relative to its path in orbit) and gets slingshot back around exiting at a ~200-300 degree angle. Whether this is possible in practice depends on the relative asteroid speed and mass of planet.
I don't get the hype about self-awareness. It's only feature is that you have a representation of your 'self' in the environment; it doesn't grant you superpowers, more autonomy, or agency. Selfishness doesn't follow from self-awareness, not without a survival selection process or additional programming, so none of the traits we usually attach to it are good assumptions.
Wouldn't 5 trillion comparisons take only about 2000 seconds on a modern processor, even without multithreading or SIMD optimizations?
Fair point.
If you model the problem assuming we'll definitely know we've hit on an artifact each core sample that runs through an ancient city, and that both core sampling and city distributions are uniform, and core samples are arbitrarily large depth, then yes... you'd need only 0.99^n=0.5 => n=70 core samples to have 50% chance of hitting one.
I believe the first assumption is the least probable.
The paper addresses this geological impact paradox. For the signal to be obvious in the geological record, it has to be sustained, but for a civilization to persist long enough to be obvious in geological time scales, they have to be in equilibrium with the environment.
You might like "The Nameless City" by HP Lovecraft.
They didn't state 1% odds; they said 1% of earth is currently urbanized, and they implied much less chance of finding a similar 1% coverage by our exposure to old earth surfaces.
Also near-water locations aren't static over millions of years.
The hidden signs of civilizations in jungles are found because they are on our present geological surface, and can be exposed with LIDAR scans.
From TA, it seems unlikely to ever hit on an old civilization's urban areas:
"the current area of urbanization is less than 1% of the Earth’s surface (Schneider et al., 2009), and exposed sections and drilling sites for pre-Quaternary surfaces are orders of magnitude less as fractions of the original surface."
So sand is good evidence?
Plastic wouldn't stick around for eons when bacteria are quickly evolving to eat it up. But where is the space-junk?
Not wrong, and now amusingly you've lost all credibility. It's an "ought-question" rather than an "is-question". You don't understand what science is if you think it provides answers to ought-questions.
"Losing touch with reality" -- makes the implication that someone has an authoritative perspective on reality.
Apple is behind in the AI race, and wants FB's engineers. That's the puzzle piece that makes this coordinated (and incredulous) attack by Woz & Cook make sense.
These voices are quite a far cry from the results of the original wavenet paper. I suppose a lot of computational tradeoffs happened, but these are Siri-level, not human level.
>> The tech industry has a persistent problem with gender inequality. That's as valid as to say that women have a free will problem that prevents them from choosing to occupy all areas of employment in the same numbers as men. Is it as big an outrage that the coal mines are under-represented by women? Particularly when sampling at extremes of distributions (CEO level being one), outcomes are heavily distorted by any intrinsic bias (in choice, importantly) that slightly shift the mean of that distribution.
When facts are deemed discriminatory, you know that ideological rot has set in.
300 million is the hurricane damage to a single yacht.