On average, there is only 1 hydrogen atom per several cubic km in the Universe. By that statistic, humans don't exist. The lesson here is, please don't use averages unless you actually understand what they represent. The median population density is higher in the USA than Japan or South Korea.
Almost like that in rural around here. 1Gb fiber to your cabin in the middle of a forest for $100/m, but in the city, only 100Mb cable for the same price. Main difference is the fiber actually gives you stable speed and not down as often. My brother was staying at a friend's house on a farm. So much land they couldn't see their next neighbor. 80Mb/80Mb fiber for $80/m, but at the time in the city, the fastest cable was 30Mb/3Mb but it was a few $$ cheaper.
yes the study is not about "a lot" but about "any consumption"
I don't know about that. They just say people who drink 8 drinks per week or so. I know people like this. They drink all 8 drinks on Friday night. Maybe they should have tracked the amount consumed at a higher resolution than a week.
The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%)
I think they have a different definition of "occasional drink" than most people. They say "no safe levels", but seem to focus on people drinking themselves drunk. I get the feeling that they are not excluding the bias of many people who enjoy drinking a little too much, and instead of getting a causational link, they have a strongly correlated link.
Both sides are correct and both sides are wrong. You need both creativity and knowledge, but the creativity is more important in the long run in my opinion. You need to be creative in order to break down the problem in order to properly identify the problem. If you can't describe the problem, then you can't solve the problem. This part takes creativity because there is never a perfect fit. What you get is several "standard" ways to solve a problem, each with trade-offs. Quite often, the different ways are incompatible with each other and if you choose the wrong one, you're going to have a horrible time digging yourself out of a huge hole.
Many seems to think you need knowledge in order to find the answers to a problem, but I disagree. I have little knowledge, but I can describe the problem. To Google! If I can describe the problem, I can search for the answer. The biggest issue I tend to see with people who "know" a lot is that they only know what they know and nothing else. They have a hammer and everything is a nail. They will find the closest answer to their question and run with it as if they have 100% confidence.
Many times I can't find an answer fast enough, and I just create my own solution. Most of the time, my solution turns out to be one of the answers, just not as polished and ideal. I self-taught myself multithreading before I even had a computer. By the time I got a computer and started to learn how to program, it turned out my solutions to "threading problems" already had terms like "race condition", "pipelining", "atomic"... I didn't need to be taught these ideas, they were self-evident when I looked at the hypothetical problems in my head. The benefit of having pre-knowledge is it would have taken less time and I would have had better engineered my code instead of organically optimizing it as I thought about these problems.
Personally, I prefer the creative aspect, biased because I have a disability that hampers my memory. Anecdotally, people with lots of knowledge tend to suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect and "I got a hammer". Scientifically, there is a knowledge/abstract-reasoning tradeoff. Beyond a certain basic amount of minimal knowledge, the more knowledge a person has, the worse their reasoning. Reasoning peaks in teens and cliff-dives in most people's 3rd decade. A small subset continue to get better at reasoning throughout their life, but they all seem to have learned how to purposefully forget.
By entering the room without permission they're assaulting you. Having been house cleaning for a hotel, you always damn well made sure the room was unoccupied before walking in. Strong firm knocks. Wait for any sound. Slowly open the door and announce yourself. From the door way, assess that the room is empty before entering. Do a walk-through to make sure the room is empty, then proceed to do your work.
Barging into a room is how you get charged with breaking-and-entering.
They're not getting cash from the whims of some infinitely rich person. They're getting cash from venture capitalists that see no real losses. All of Tesla's "losses" are in the form of heavy investment into infrastructure. Even if Tesla closed their doors, the investors could sell off the assets for more than the amount they invested. Investing into Tesla is very low risk with a currently high return in the form of owning some portion of the very valuable assets.
$2.5tril is about half a year of costs and subsidies for fossil fuels. Seems difficult to get numbers from an official source, but the articles I'm finding are claiming between $2tril and $5tril per year spent on fuel. So we spend 6 months of fuel costs to build a 100% renewable grid, then we start saving $2tril/year. What's the issue? That's ignoring the low end estimated $100bil/year healthcare costs caused by pollution from fossil fuel power plants.
Every year li-ion batteries get 10% cheaper and less polluting to create. Silicon li-ion is just starting production and is a pretty big improvement in every way. I see no reason to rush it, but we should be making a stronger effort.
This new tech was announced several years back and the first round of commercial production starts later this year or sometime next year. I forget when. Uses silicon. 30% high capacity and charges 8x faster, in the lab. In other labs, they forwent the faster charging and made it have 3x the cycles.
I wish programmers made correct code. Usually "fails" silently. I quoted "fails" because they can't even define how it should work in the first place. It's easy to tell if some code is crap by asking the person who made it "what should your code do if X happens", and they can't answer.
Host files are a waste of time because you can trivially block ad domains with a decent edge firewall like pfSense or pi-Hole. Not only does every device on your network benefit, but the domains are dynamically updated daily.
1) No addons/extensions 8 seconds to load all of the scripts
2) No addons/extensions 1 second to load the contents of the page
3) Block 3rd party scripts 800ms
4) NoScript 40ms
I love learning new trends not because I want to be trendy, but because the trend is being done for typically a good reason. Learning the ideals of the latest buzzword helps me look at the problem from a new vantage point. There is no one cure, there is only many different views of the same problem and each view has its strengths and weakness.
Understanding ideals is more important than following them. I highly enjoyed my TDD book. I don't do TDD at all, but the mindset the book has given me and allowed me to make better code that is more well factored and easier to unit test.
One of the developers of TDD even says that 100% test coverage is a code smell. It's a mostly impossible ideal for all but the simplest projects. Even one of the main agile proponents is saying that agile is being used incorrectly in a way that makes things worse. The problem is everyone wants an answer to the issues of programming that can be solved by knowledge and practice, until it become rote. The very notion of "rote" has a name in programming, "cargo cult".
some people just don't get it (e.g. bugfixing involves shuffling code around untiil it inexplicably works again)
I like to say "throwing code at the wall until it seems to work". Lots of emphasis on "seems". I swear, most programmers can't even define how their code is designed to work, yet alone what situations cause it to not work. Really? fk'n A. If you can't tell me how your program is supposed to work, how to do you know if it is working?
Just yesterday, I was working on a 15 year old internal service for the first time. This service was used by nearly everyone in the company. Hundreds of programmers using it over the past many years. I was looking at some example code on how to use it, and the code struck me as "strange". The logical inconsistencies of how the data was being treated gave me the feeling of logically incompatible semantics. Within 20 minutes of using the service for the first time, I found a bug that has been corrupting data for the past 15 years. I could see records in an undefined state that were inserted back in 2002. The reason why the code seemed logically inconsistent was because it was. How do hundreds of people look at this kind of stuff and not notice?
These personal anecdotes happen to me all the time. It's becoming a running joke that I can cause mature code to break just by reading it. Don't get me wrong, I love the people who I work with. I've learned to look at this in a more positive light. I can provide a unique skill to the company. It takes all kinds. As positive as I try to be, I can still get frustrated and need to vent.
The problem with programming is when the reasoning of the typical person is virtually non-existent. Programming isn't hard and the "complexity" is only a result of one's inability to understand the fundamentals.
Every other profession deals with everyone not being a genius by forcing them to memorize and repeat. That's fine for professions where the rules are written by nature and immutable. In computing, the rules are written by the coder. The problem is when the coder writes spaghetti rules. A simple example is when someone makes a service that has ambiguous results and you can't tell the difference between functioning and failing. This is incredibly common. Ambiguity is only one symptom.
There is a reason why they say programming requires strong abstract reasoning. The one skill that can't be taught, peaks in the teens of the typical person, and inversely related to knowledge. Some people get better at abstract reasoning over time, but most people get worse. Why? Because focusing on memorizing everything decimates reasoning skills.
Look into twice exceptionalism. It is quite common for people with mental disabilities in one area to compensate by having increased abilities in other areas. It's not because they're a genius, it's because they're forced to use their brain in a different way. Anyone can be good at reasoning, but why use reasoning when you can just memorize the answers? That's the issue with programming. People use knowledge and experience as a crutch. It's natural because it's easier than actually thinking for most people.
I see it all the time. Programmers start off fast, writing lots of code but are not consistent in every minute detail. These inconsistencies slowly snowball into a ball of mud. Being able to remember the code is fine for small projects, but doesn't scale well. Then you get people talking about how hard programming is, because they don't use reasoning to create well factored code that looks like a fractal. Instead they create a mess that requires you to have specific knowledge. Well designed systems can be reasoned about without knowledge, because seeing a small part of a fractal can tell you much about the overall macro-shape.
A common factor among people with strong abstract reasoning is the ability to forget. Most people with strong reasoning have taught themselves how to forget, I have no choice in the matter. You to can teach yourself to forget. Psychology has been increasingly researching abstract reasoning in the past decade and the more they look into it, the more it seems like a very small portion of the population seems to be very good at it, and not because they're special, but because of what boils down to the unscientific term "personality". They tend to have "strange" quirks that are part of their daily lives that exercises their reasoning.
I don't see how caving in to monopolistic demands will help Netflix's case. Can't have your cake at eat it to. Either you drop the the content or you turn into cable.
Don't get me wrong. I love the whole plasma stuff. I learned a lot from reading and watching EU content. The problem I have is when the official sources of EU have that 1% crazy bullshit that is a barefaced lie. The first time I saw something so horribly wrong that anyone with a basic science background and feeble logic abilities could deduce was utterly incorrect, I assume was a slight miswording like a missing/extra negative modifier. Nope. Same bat-shit crazy claims mixed very lightly throughout the rest of the content.
A person with zero background in any science but strong critical analysis would spot the errors in the logic. Vast amounts of cognitive dissonance buried deep inside of otherwise very plausible ideas.
My uncle got burned out on some strong drugs in the army. He was very bright and was offered a completely free ride by several ivy league universities. My grandma had guardianship over him because he was incapable of taking care of himself, wouldn't let him go. The first time I met him, he was talking to me about some really interesting science stuff. He had me hooked for nearly an entire week. But by the end of that week, I could see the crazy very clearly. EU reeks of the same. Genius creativity with a small bit of crazy that is difficult to detect at first. Give it a week and it becomes apparent.
Relativity only has issues only in theory and primarily in the quantum realm. This does mean it has it's limits when it comes to predictions, meaning it is not the be-all-to-end-all. Every test ever implemented that could prove or disprove Relativity has always come out in its favor. Make a test that it can't pass and then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until there is a test that shows Relativity to be wrong, we will continue to assume it's correct, and every test that it passes will reaffirm how correct is actually is.
I am not stifling discussion, I am pointing out discussion that claims Relativity to be wrong in areas that have already been tested and proven correct. Discussion EU isn't a discussion of logic, it's a discussion of zealous belief attempting to poorly masquerade as science. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck, but I could be wrong. If you want people to stop thinking you're all crazy, then stop acting crazy and telling lies. What truth might be mixed in is completely lost by the way it is being communicated.
I've spent a few hours on YouTube watching EU crap. Hurts my head to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Herp-a-derp, Relativity proves EU is correct.... And EU can prove Relativity is wrong... derp.. Alex Jones make better entertainment, he's mostly consistent.
We can't talk about EU because the people defending it go all REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when you don't believe EU as infallible truth. It's just like dealing with Flat Earthers.
Slashdot Mirror
On average, there is only 1 hydrogen atom per several cubic km in the Universe. By that statistic, humans don't exist. The lesson here is, please don't use averages unless you actually understand what they represent. The median population density is higher in the USA than Japan or South Korea.
Almost like that in rural around here. 1Gb fiber to your cabin in the middle of a forest for $100/m, but in the city, only 100Mb cable for the same price. Main difference is the fiber actually gives you stable speed and not down as often. My brother was staying at a friend's house on a farm. So much land they couldn't see their next neighbor. 80Mb/80Mb fiber for $80/m, but at the time in the city, the fastest cable was 30Mb/3Mb but it was a few $$ cheaper.
It's a problem for farmers and if you think you can grow your own food, go right ahead.
yes the study is not about "a lot" but about "any consumption"
I don't know about that. They just say people who drink 8 drinks per week or so. I know people like this. They drink all 8 drinks on Friday night. Maybe they should have tracked the amount consumed at a higher resolution than a week.
After a certain point, you're better off using some energy to cryogenically cool the cables.
Even the occasional drink is harmful to health
The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%)
I think they have a different definition of "occasional drink" than most people. They say "no safe levels", but seem to focus on people drinking themselves drunk. I get the feeling that they are not excluding the bias of many people who enjoy drinking a little too much, and instead of getting a causational link, they have a strongly correlated link.
Both sides are correct and both sides are wrong. You need both creativity and knowledge, but the creativity is more important in the long run in my opinion. You need to be creative in order to break down the problem in order to properly identify the problem. If you can't describe the problem, then you can't solve the problem. This part takes creativity because there is never a perfect fit. What you get is several "standard" ways to solve a problem, each with trade-offs. Quite often, the different ways are incompatible with each other and if you choose the wrong one, you're going to have a horrible time digging yourself out of a huge hole.
... I didn't need to be taught these ideas, they were self-evident when I looked at the hypothetical problems in my head. The benefit of having pre-knowledge is it would have taken less time and I would have had better engineered my code instead of organically optimizing it as I thought about these problems.
Many seems to think you need knowledge in order to find the answers to a problem, but I disagree. I have little knowledge, but I can describe the problem. To Google! If I can describe the problem, I can search for the answer. The biggest issue I tend to see with people who "know" a lot is that they only know what they know and nothing else. They have a hammer and everything is a nail. They will find the closest answer to their question and run with it as if they have 100% confidence.
Many times I can't find an answer fast enough, and I just create my own solution. Most of the time, my solution turns out to be one of the answers, just not as polished and ideal. I self-taught myself multithreading before I even had a computer. By the time I got a computer and started to learn how to program, it turned out my solutions to "threading problems" already had terms like "race condition", "pipelining", "atomic"
Personally, I prefer the creative aspect, biased because I have a disability that hampers my memory. Anecdotally, people with lots of knowledge tend to suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect and "I got a hammer". Scientifically, there is a knowledge/abstract-reasoning tradeoff. Beyond a certain basic amount of minimal knowledge, the more knowledge a person has, the worse their reasoning. Reasoning peaks in teens and cliff-dives in most people's 3rd decade. A small subset continue to get better at reasoning throughout their life, but they all seem to have learned how to purposefully forget.
By entering the room without permission they're assaulting you. Having been house cleaning for a hotel, you always damn well made sure the room was unoccupied before walking in. Strong firm knocks. Wait for any sound. Slowly open the door and announce yourself. From the door way, assess that the room is empty before entering. Do a walk-through to make sure the room is empty, then proceed to do your work.
Barging into a room is how you get charged with breaking-and-entering.
You don't lose your 4th amendment right just because someone else owns the property. Otherwise you'd have issues with renting.
Very low then. Sun's surface is 100,000 less dense than Earths atmosphere at sea level.
They're not getting cash from the whims of some infinitely rich person. They're getting cash from venture capitalists that see no real losses. All of Tesla's "losses" are in the form of heavy investment into infrastructure. Even if Tesla closed their doors, the investors could sell off the assets for more than the amount they invested. Investing into Tesla is very low risk with a currently high return in the form of owning some portion of the very valuable assets.
$2.5tril is about half a year of costs and subsidies for fossil fuels. Seems difficult to get numbers from an official source, but the articles I'm finding are claiming between $2tril and $5tril per year spent on fuel. So we spend 6 months of fuel costs to build a 100% renewable grid, then we start saving $2tril/year. What's the issue? That's ignoring the low end estimated $100bil/year healthcare costs caused by pollution from fossil fuel power plants.
Every year li-ion batteries get 10% cheaper and less polluting to create. Silicon li-ion is just starting production and is a pretty big improvement in every way. I see no reason to rush it, but we should be making a stronger effort.
This new tech was announced several years back and the first round of commercial production starts later this year or sometime next year. I forget when. Uses silicon. 30% high capacity and charges 8x faster, in the lab. In other labs, they forwent the faster charging and made it have 3x the cycles.
I wish programmers made correct code. Usually "fails" silently. I quoted "fails" because they can't even define how it should work in the first place. It's easy to tell if some code is crap by asking the person who made it "what should your code do if X happens", and they can't answer.
Host files are a waste of time because you can trivially block ad domains with a decent edge firewall like pfSense or pi-Hole. Not only does every device on your network benefit, but the domains are dynamically updated daily.
I got different results
1) No addons/extensions 8 seconds to load all of the scripts
2) No addons/extensions 1 second to load the contents of the page
3) Block 3rd party scripts 800ms
4) NoScript 40ms
I love learning new trends not because I want to be trendy, but because the trend is being done for typically a good reason. Learning the ideals of the latest buzzword helps me look at the problem from a new vantage point. There is no one cure, there is only many different views of the same problem and each view has its strengths and weakness.
Understanding ideals is more important than following them. I highly enjoyed my TDD book. I don't do TDD at all, but the mindset the book has given me and allowed me to make better code that is more well factored and easier to unit test.
One of the developers of TDD even says that 100% test coverage is a code smell. It's a mostly impossible ideal for all but the simplest projects. Even one of the main agile proponents is saying that agile is being used incorrectly in a way that makes things worse. The problem is everyone wants an answer to the issues of programming that can be solved by knowledge and practice, until it become rote. The very notion of "rote" has a name in programming, "cargo cult".
some people just don't get it (e.g. bugfixing involves shuffling code around untiil it inexplicably works again)
I like to say "throwing code at the wall until it seems to work". Lots of emphasis on "seems". I swear, most programmers can't even define how their code is designed to work, yet alone what situations cause it to not work. Really? fk'n A. If you can't tell me how your program is supposed to work, how to do you know if it is working?
Just yesterday, I was working on a 15 year old internal service for the first time. This service was used by nearly everyone in the company. Hundreds of programmers using it over the past many years. I was looking at some example code on how to use it, and the code struck me as "strange". The logical inconsistencies of how the data was being treated gave me the feeling of logically incompatible semantics. Within 20 minutes of using the service for the first time, I found a bug that has been corrupting data for the past 15 years. I could see records in an undefined state that were inserted back in 2002. The reason why the code seemed logically inconsistent was because it was. How do hundreds of people look at this kind of stuff and not notice?
These personal anecdotes happen to me all the time. It's becoming a running joke that I can cause mature code to break just by reading it. Don't get me wrong, I love the people who I work with. I've learned to look at this in a more positive light. I can provide a unique skill to the company. It takes all kinds. As positive as I try to be, I can still get frustrated and need to vent.
The problem with programming is when the reasoning of the typical person is virtually non-existent. Programming isn't hard and the "complexity" is only a result of one's inability to understand the fundamentals.
Every other profession deals with everyone not being a genius by forcing them to memorize and repeat. That's fine for professions where the rules are written by nature and immutable. In computing, the rules are written by the coder. The problem is when the coder writes spaghetti rules. A simple example is when someone makes a service that has ambiguous results and you can't tell the difference between functioning and failing. This is incredibly common. Ambiguity is only one symptom.
There is a reason why they say programming requires strong abstract reasoning. The one skill that can't be taught, peaks in the teens of the typical person, and inversely related to knowledge. Some people get better at abstract reasoning over time, but most people get worse. Why? Because focusing on memorizing everything decimates reasoning skills.
Look into twice exceptionalism. It is quite common for people with mental disabilities in one area to compensate by having increased abilities in other areas. It's not because they're a genius, it's because they're forced to use their brain in a different way. Anyone can be good at reasoning, but why use reasoning when you can just memorize the answers? That's the issue with programming. People use knowledge and experience as a crutch. It's natural because it's easier than actually thinking for most people.
I see it all the time. Programmers start off fast, writing lots of code but are not consistent in every minute detail. These inconsistencies slowly snowball into a ball of mud. Being able to remember the code is fine for small projects, but doesn't scale well. Then you get people talking about how hard programming is, because they don't use reasoning to create well factored code that looks like a fractal. Instead they create a mess that requires you to have specific knowledge. Well designed systems can be reasoned about without knowledge, because seeing a small part of a fractal can tell you much about the overall macro-shape.
A common factor among people with strong abstract reasoning is the ability to forget. Most people with strong reasoning have taught themselves how to forget, I have no choice in the matter. You to can teach yourself to forget. Psychology has been increasingly researching abstract reasoning in the past decade and the more they look into it, the more it seems like a very small portion of the population seems to be very good at it, and not because they're special, but because of what boils down to the unscientific term "personality". They tend to have "strange" quirks that are part of their daily lives that exercises their reasoning.
I don't see how caving in to monopolistic demands will help Netflix's case. Can't have your cake at eat it to. Either you drop the the content or you turn into cable.
Don't get me wrong. I love the whole plasma stuff. I learned a lot from reading and watching EU content. The problem I have is when the official sources of EU have that 1% crazy bullshit that is a barefaced lie. The first time I saw something so horribly wrong that anyone with a basic science background and feeble logic abilities could deduce was utterly incorrect, I assume was a slight miswording like a missing/extra negative modifier. Nope. Same bat-shit crazy claims mixed very lightly throughout the rest of the content.
A person with zero background in any science but strong critical analysis would spot the errors in the logic. Vast amounts of cognitive dissonance buried deep inside of otherwise very plausible ideas.
My uncle got burned out on some strong drugs in the army. He was very bright and was offered a completely free ride by several ivy league universities. My grandma had guardianship over him because he was incapable of taking care of himself, wouldn't let him go. The first time I met him, he was talking to me about some really interesting science stuff. He had me hooked for nearly an entire week. But by the end of that week, I could see the crazy very clearly. EU reeks of the same. Genius creativity with a small bit of crazy that is difficult to detect at first. Give it a week and it becomes apparent.
Relativity only has issues only in theory and primarily in the quantum realm. This does mean it has it's limits when it comes to predictions, meaning it is not the be-all-to-end-all. Every test ever implemented that could prove or disprove Relativity has always come out in its favor. Make a test that it can't pass and then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until there is a test that shows Relativity to be wrong, we will continue to assume it's correct, and every test that it passes will reaffirm how correct is actually is.
I am not stifling discussion, I am pointing out discussion that claims Relativity to be wrong in areas that have already been tested and proven correct. Discussion EU isn't a discussion of logic, it's a discussion of zealous belief attempting to poorly masquerade as science. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck, but I could be wrong. If you want people to stop thinking you're all crazy, then stop acting crazy and telling lies. What truth might be mixed in is completely lost by the way it is being communicated.
I've spent a few hours on YouTube watching EU crap. Hurts my head to deal with the cognitive dissonance. Herp-a-derp, Relativity proves EU is correct.... And EU can prove Relativity is wrong... derp.. Alex Jones make better entertainment, he's mostly consistent.
We can't talk about EU because the people defending it go all REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when you don't believe EU as infallible truth. It's just like dealing with Flat Earthers.