One semester I had a Monday 8am lecture, only lecture for that class.
Never made it to a single one. Never met the professor once. Still passed the course, somehow.
I had a 7:45am class - differential equations. Never made it to class except to sit exams. I studied the material well enough to pass the class, but it's the only class from which I remember nothing - nothing at all.
Dark matter certainly might exist. Or it might be measurement error. Or it might be model flaws. We simply aren't sure at this point.
Not true. We know dark matter exists as certainly as we know the Higgs boson exists, or any other modern physics discovery (all of which rely on may layers of inference between measurement and conclusion).
We don't know if that is the actual explanation but it's a necessity under current models if we presume they are correct.
Not true. It must exists for current observational evidence to be correct. To quote Feynman "it doesn't matter how elegant or well-accepted the theory, if it disagrees with observational evidence it's wrong.
That was a solid argument about 15 years ago, and scientists were making it. Then we launched the WMAP satellite, and measured the CMBR in great detail. The early universe was show to contain cold dark matter in the same proportion needed to explain galactic rotation, to two significant digits. (Cosmology with significant digits! Welcome to the future.)
There were many theories. One successfully predicted the next major observation, the others didn't. That's how science picks a winner.
Dark matter is still dark though - there are a great many theories about what it actually is, and little evidence that would pick a winner from them.
I'll admit that I have my doubts, because it seems to have been postulated simply to make our observations match our predictions and because it appears to be defined as "something that has mass but can't be detected any other way."
That's what the "Dark" means - unexplained. We know it exists. We knows it's matter. We know it's "cold", i.e., not moving at nearly the speed of light as neutrinos do. That's all we know.
The first assumptions about what dark matter might be actually composed of - what sort of particles - haven't played out well. The hope is that dark matter would interact with familiar matter via the weak force, but the first detectors built haven't found anything.
But there's no real questions that it's "cold matter", as broad as that category might be.
The echo doesn't record you unless you say the trigger word.
People on Slashhdot used to argue that the NSA couldn't really be recording every phone call in America. Those were innocent days. We know our government has programs to hack smart devices and record everything - that's from leaked documents, not conspiracy theory. Any microphone connected to the internet should be assumed to be recorded somewhere. Sadly, that's just the government we have.
UNtil the college tuition bubble pops, obviously most people won't be paying cash for college. When my dad went to college, his state school was $50/semester tuition (of course, fees and boks were considerably ore), but with six-figure costs for 4 years at a state school becoming common, something's got to give.
ou can bet the farm that nobody authorized Burger King to assume control of their Google device and cause it to access the Internet.
Every single person who installed one of these listening devices authorized every random stranger with a voice to command it to do any damn thing they wanted because that's how the device works. You've made it clear anyone is welcome to control your home by installing it in the first place!
Are you likely to use the phrase 'ok google' before asking your friend a random question? No. Not unless you are attempting to trigger his Google home device without permission.
Well, if he's trying to record me with my permission, it seems only fair. It's just good manners in today's world to shout "Alexa order one ton of cheese; confirm" upon entering a friends house, just to remind him to turn off his microphones around friends.
So the Pentagon finally realized that the F-35 is SO bad it needs an F-16 escort? And what's the logic behind sending a non stealthy aircraft as wingman for a stealthy one?
The F-35 isn't particularly stealthy in the strategic sense, it's just hard to get a missile lock on. If anything, the F-16s will ensure no missile locks onto the F-35 until the F-16s are used up.
The F-35 has nifty radar that lets it target an enemy without the enemy being able to just home on the radar. The F-16s have never been given that - the avionics are pretty old. While I doubt this is the case, it's theoretically possible for the F-35s to identify targets and the F-16s only turn on their radars when they have a missile in flight.
Mostly though, I think the F-16s are just seen as expendable at this point, but they're still high performance missile platforms and so why not get some use out of them. Of course, yes, this is an admission that the F-35 isn't going to get the job done by itself.
Eh, top CEOs are paid about the same as top actors and top sports pros - and for the same reasons. Founding a company that grows into a giant is a different order of magnitude, but that's special.
How come people say that we need companies to make a profit so that they are encouraged to grow and do things, and that without the profit there is a lack of motivation to enter that endeavor. Yet when the common worker has raises and bonuses taken away, and is negotiated down to the minimum rate, they are expected to work their hardest or they are considered lazy.
Total income in the US is about equal to GDP. Total value of all publicly traded companies in the US is about equal to GDP. Total earnings (profits) of all those companies is currently about 4% of their value, though sometimes it reaches 10%.
80% labor, 20% capital seems like a reasonable arrangement to me. It's usually less than that for the owners in the US, except for the rare successful small business.
And most CEOs and small business owners work very long hours - it's not like they get to be lazy either.
I certainly do. Borrowing money for a car is one of the worst financial decisions you can make. Even borrowing on a 0% car loan is just a bad habit, best avoided.
Really, there are only 2 times when it makes sense to borrow money for a car. * It's a "work truck" or other vehicle owned by your small business and its a business loan. * You just got your first real job out of college, and your current junker isn't reliable enough for daily commuting, so that job is at risk.
Personally, I just pay cash, and never more than 4 months income.
If you follow those rules, it's a lot easier to save up 6 months expenses as a cushion. Sick or laid off, you can weather it. Sure, you might be particularly unlucky and have multiple big events hit you at once, can't handle that, but being prepared for 99% of stuff is doing pretty well!
to understand is you can't budget what you don't have. I see this a lot, where people are struggling and convince themselves if they could just budget the numbers a bit better it'd all work out
A budget should not be like a diet - it's not a plan. If you try to make it a plan, what always happens is you plan to lean, and eventually binge.
A proper budget is a spending journal that you review as a family. This is amazingly powerful: at the start of the process, list the things you think you spend money on in order of importance to you (no consulting for couples, each list independently). After a couple of months, list what you spend money on in order of how much. It's very rare for the lists to align.
When you see that your spending a lot on shit you don't actually value, and really conserving on the thing you like the most, life gets better. Sometimes couples will discover that they each are prioritizing something because they though the other one liked it, but neither actually does.
Anyhow, that's the point of a budget - discover where you're spending a lot on stuff you don't care about, and where stuff you really like is actually quite cheap.
Saving 60% is great, until the market crashes. Sometimes, crashes are intentionally designed by computer investors to take your money. Even if you invest it in real assets, like real estate, those markets crash too. Ultimately, you lose your money and never get to enjoy it. One day you very well may look at your loser friends that have long spent on useless crap and they will look like geniuses. They won't have any money either, but at least they enjoyed it when they had it.
I've been investing since last century, through both recent market crashes. This is BS. Just don't get clever. The standard financial advice most advisors give out is: invest in broad index funds (the easy choice is an S&P 500 fund, there are many very cheap ones to choose from). Keep some percentage in a short-term bond fun(the old line is "keep you age as a % in bonds" but I don't know if that's still good advice), and rebalance maybe once a year in the summer.
You only get screwed by a market crash if you foolishly do something with your investments during or in the year or two following the crash. If you just ignore it, the problem does go away.
Once you near retirement different rules apply, but by that point you should really be talking to a real financial advisor (not a broker or someone who sells securities in any way, someone who gives advice for a living).
Making up shit without any sources was really easy, but the resulting discussion is perhaps not the most interesting one.
Those stats are compiled from 32 research papers. Newspaper article: https://archive.is/8AB3j (Google translate). This stuff is widely known, and many papers have been published.
Most of the rapes in Sweden have been committed by recent immigrants, and this has been true for decades. Immigrants from north Africa are more that 20x as likely to commit rape as the average Swede.
In real production code you pretty much have to check the type "manually" of every argument to every function. And document the type in the comments. This is much more work that just using a strongly typed language in the first place. Python's a fine scripting language, a tier above the likes of Perl and PHP. But it's not for real code.
Sure, the majority now believe that, but it's not the tradition. Views on any and everything change over time. Uber is yet another change. Should we blindly accept change on the basis of popularity, or should there be another test. There are no absolutes here, after all, just the opinions of fallible humans.
Now can you explain the point you were trying to make?
Bans on gay marriage and abortion were "the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do". The conservative position is that these regulations should be preserved, with the burden of proof on the person wanting to change them In neither case did liberal advocates ever even address the arguments of conservatives, just ignore them and gain the popular vote.
Uber has largely done the same. They haven't addresses any of the reasons for the regulations, but they are popular. Should that be enough? Democracy would say so.
The thing you don't understand is the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do. If Uber wants new ways then they convince people that their new ways are better
So, what are your views on gay marriage and abortion?
Uber is a hired car service, not a taxi service. You can tell it's not a taxi service because sometimes Uber is on time. Checkmate.
Other hired car services: towncars, limos, shuttle busses, etc. It's a broad category, and Uber is certainly in it. But they aren't a taxi service if you can't hail them by voice.
Slashdot Mirror
One semester I had a Monday 8am lecture, only lecture for that class.
Never made it to a single one. Never met the professor once. Still passed the course, somehow.
I had a 7:45am class - differential equations. Never made it to class except to sit exams. I studied the material well enough to pass the class, but it's the only class from which I remember nothing - nothing at all.
Dark matter certainly might exist. Or it might be measurement error. Or it might be model flaws. We simply aren't sure at this point.
Not true. We know dark matter exists as certainly as we know the Higgs boson exists, or any other modern physics discovery (all of which rely on may layers of inference between measurement and conclusion).
We don't know if that is the actual explanation but it's a necessity under current models if we presume they are correct.
Not true. It must exists for current observational evidence to be correct. To quote Feynman "it doesn't matter how elegant or well-accepted the theory, if it disagrees with observational evidence it's wrong.
That was a solid argument about 15 years ago, and scientists were making it. Then we launched the WMAP satellite, and measured the CMBR in great detail. The early universe was show to contain cold dark matter in the same proportion needed to explain galactic rotation, to two significant digits. (Cosmology with significant digits! Welcome to the future.)
There were many theories. One successfully predicted the next major observation, the others didn't. That's how science picks a winner.
Dark matter is still dark though - there are a great many theories about what it actually is, and little evidence that would pick a winner from them.
I'll admit that I have my doubts, because it seems to have been postulated simply to make our observations match our predictions and because it appears to be defined as "something that has mass but can't be detected any other way."
That's what the "Dark" means - unexplained. We know it exists. We knows it's matter. We know it's "cold", i.e., not moving at nearly the speed of light as neutrinos do. That's all we know.
The first assumptions about what dark matter might be actually composed of - what sort of particles - haven't played out well. The hope is that dark matter would interact with familiar matter via the weak force, but the first detectors built haven't found anything.
But there's no real questions that it's "cold matter", as broad as that category might be.
The echo doesn't record you unless you say the trigger word.
People on Slashhdot used to argue that the NSA couldn't really be recording every phone call in America. Those were innocent days. We know our government has programs to hack smart devices and record everything - that's from leaked documents, not conspiracy theory. Any microphone connected to the internet should be assumed to be recorded somewhere. Sadly, that's just the government we have.
UNtil the college tuition bubble pops, obviously most people won't be paying cash for college. When my dad went to college, his state school was $50/semester tuition (of course, fees and boks were considerably ore), but with six-figure costs for 4 years at a state school becoming common, something's got to give.
ou can bet the farm that nobody authorized Burger King to assume control of their Google device and cause it to access the Internet.
Every single person who installed one of these listening devices authorized every random stranger with a voice to command it to do any damn thing they wanted because that's how the device works. You've made it clear anyone is welcome to control your home by installing it in the first place!
Are you likely to use the phrase 'ok google' before asking your friend a random question? No. Not unless you are attempting to trigger his Google home device without permission.
Well, if he's trying to record me with my permission, it seems only fair.
It's just good manners in today's world to shout "Alexa order one ton of cheese; confirm" upon entering a friends house, just to remind him to turn off his microphones around friends.
So the Pentagon finally realized that the F-35 is SO bad it needs an F-16 escort? And what's the logic behind sending a non stealthy aircraft as wingman for a stealthy one?
The F-35 isn't particularly stealthy in the strategic sense, it's just hard to get a missile lock on. If anything, the F-16s will ensure no missile locks onto the F-35 until the F-16s are used up.
The F-35 has nifty radar that lets it target an enemy without the enemy being able to just home on the radar. The F-16s have never been given that - the avionics are pretty old. While I doubt this is the case, it's theoretically possible for the F-35s to identify targets and the F-16s only turn on their radars when they have a missile in flight.
Mostly though, I think the F-16s are just seen as expendable at this point, but they're still high performance missile platforms and so why not get some use out of them. Of course, yes, this is an admission that the F-35 isn't going to get the job done by itself.
Fuck Robots
Sounds like you need Old Glory Insurance - for when the metal ones come for you.
Do you have stairs in your house?
Eh, top CEOs are paid about the same as top actors and top sports pros - and for the same reasons. Founding a company that grows into a giant is a different order of magnitude, but that's special.
How come people say that we need companies to make a profit so that they are encouraged to grow and do things, and that without the profit there is a lack of motivation to enter that endeavor. Yet when the common worker has raises and bonuses taken away, and is negotiated down to the minimum rate, they are expected to work their hardest or they are considered lazy.
Total income in the US is about equal to GDP. Total value of all publicly traded companies in the US is about equal to GDP. Total earnings (profits) of all those companies is currently about 4% of their value, though sometimes it reaches 10%.
80% labor, 20% capital seems like a reasonable arrangement to me. It's usually less than that for the owners in the US, except for the rare successful small business.
And most CEOs and small business owners work very long hours - it's not like they get to be lazy either.
So you buy cars with cash?
I certainly do. Borrowing money for a car is one of the worst financial decisions you can make. Even borrowing on a 0% car loan is just a bad habit, best avoided.
Really, there are only 2 times when it makes sense to borrow money for a car.
* It's a "work truck" or other vehicle owned by your small business and its a business loan.
* You just got your first real job out of college, and your current junker isn't reliable enough for daily commuting, so that job is at risk.
Personally, I just pay cash, and never more than 4 months income.
If you follow those rules, it's a lot easier to save up 6 months expenses as a cushion. Sick or laid off, you can weather it. Sure, you might be particularly unlucky and have multiple big events hit you at once, can't handle that, but being prepared for 99% of stuff is doing pretty well!
to understand is you can't budget what you don't have. I see this a lot, where people are struggling and convince themselves if they could just budget the numbers a bit better it'd all work out
A budget should not be like a diet - it's not a plan. If you try to make it a plan, what always happens is you plan to lean, and eventually binge.
A proper budget is a spending journal that you review as a family. This is amazingly powerful: at the start of the process, list the things you think you spend money on in order of importance to you (no consulting for couples, each list independently). After a couple of months, list what you spend money on in order of how much. It's very rare for the lists to align.
When you see that your spending a lot on shit you don't actually value, and really conserving on the thing you like the most, life gets better. Sometimes couples will discover that they each are prioritizing something because they though the other one liked it, but neither actually does.
Anyhow, that's the point of a budget - discover where you're spending a lot on stuff you don't care about, and where stuff you really like is actually quite cheap.
Saving 60% is great, until the market crashes. Sometimes, crashes are intentionally designed by computer investors to take your money. Even if you invest it in real assets, like real estate, those markets crash too. Ultimately, you lose your money and never get to enjoy it. One day you very well may look at your loser friends that have long spent on useless crap and they will look like geniuses. They won't have any money either, but at least they enjoyed it when they had it.
I've been investing since last century, through both recent market crashes. This is BS. Just don't get clever. The standard financial advice most advisors give out is: invest in broad index funds (the easy choice is an S&P 500 fund, there are many very cheap ones to choose from). Keep some percentage in a short-term bond fun(the old line is "keep you age as a % in bonds" but I don't know if that's still good advice), and rebalance maybe once a year in the summer.
You only get screwed by a market crash if you foolishly do something with your investments during or in the year or two following the crash. If you just ignore it, the problem does go away.
Once you near retirement different rules apply, but by that point you should really be talking to a real financial advisor (not a broker or someone who sells securities in any way, someone who gives advice for a living).
Sorry, but "several", "a few", "a handful of", and many similar terms are all interchangeable in common use, and all mean "3 or more".
Making up shit without any sources was really easy, but the resulting discussion is perhaps not the most interesting one.
Those stats are compiled from 32 research papers. Newspaper article: https://archive.is/8AB3j (Google translate). This stuff is widely known, and many papers have been published.
Most of the rapes in Sweden have been committed by recent immigrants, and this has been true for decades. Immigrants from north Africa are more that 20x as likely to commit rape as the average Swede.
In real production code you pretty much have to check the type "manually" of every argument to every function. And document the type in the comments. This is much more work that just using a strongly typed language in the first place. Python's a fine scripting language, a tier above the likes of Perl and PHP. But it's not for real code.
Sure, the majority now believe that, but it's not the tradition. Views on any and everything change over time. Uber is yet another change. Should we blindly accept change on the basis of popularity, or should there be another test. There are no absolutes here, after all, just the opinions of fallible humans.
Now can you explain the point you were trying to make?
Bans on gay marriage and abortion were "the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do". The conservative position is that these regulations should be preserved, with the burden of proof on the person wanting to change them In neither case did liberal advocates ever even address the arguments of conservatives, just ignore them and gain the popular vote.
Uber has largely done the same. They haven't addresses any of the reasons for the regulations, but they are popular. Should that be enough? Democracy would say so.
The thing you don't understand is the old ways are what society has already decided was the best thing to do. If Uber wants new ways then they convince people that their new ways are better
So, what are your views on gay marriage and abortion?
Uber is a hired car service, not a taxi service. You can tell it's not a taxi service because sometimes Uber is on time. Checkmate.
Other hired car services: towncars, limos, shuttle busses, etc. It's a broad category, and Uber is certainly in it. But they aren't a taxi service if you can't hail them by voice.