This has actually been studied quite extensively in the last few years, mostly by American researchers. They've been able to show how that mice fed samples of this bacterium will gain weight drastically. Basically, the bacteria process certain sources of food that we're bad at absorbing and make it easier for us to absorb them. It's believed that there's an immunological mutation (which is otherwise all but harmless) that lets them proliferate excessively in humans (defence against flagella, I think), so one can actually say that obesity is genetic, albeit indirectly so.
But that all being said, while careful diet control is certainly effective for mitigating digestion-related problems, this study isn't a cure so much as a band-aid. I'm pretty sure anyone would lose weight and eliminate unwanted intestinal flora under the intake suggested.
The last page bashes Haskell using a snippet from Uncyclopedia as anecdotal evidence that it is "all but impossible to write readable code" in Haskell.
Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of whinge, a dimension of fallacy, a dimension of diminished journalistic integrity. You're moving into a land of more shadow than substance, of vague and half-baked wit; you've just crossed over into the Register.
There are three reasons I think it's a bad habit to worry about the heat death of the universe when making life decisions.
One, I believe we should look at the forecast for life on the scale of billions of years; a scale comparable to the one for which it has existed. In a situation where you have absolutely no idea about how long a period of time will last (say, waiting for the train), the most reasonable assumption is more or less that you are exactly in the middle of waiting—it gives nice 50-50 probabilities for everything. As a result, worrying about the heat death of the universe is too far off.
Two, extinction is not something that we naturally accept. The death of the individual is undoubtedly something we're used to being inevitable, true, but the end of a kind is consistently tragic. (And for all of their horriblenesses, Hitler 2000s are relatively rare. Humans are by nature too optimistic for them to stay around long.) It doesn't benefit us to know that one day everything will be gone—as long as there is another day in sight, we should work to make that day a bright one. The diem can still be carped (although David Mitchell once articulated a fairly good point that you shouldn't get too obsessed with living in every moment, since you'll miss out on planning ahead.)
Three, it may not be all that unavoidable. In Asimov's classic shaggy god story, The Last Question, humans throughout the future repeatedly ask their computers if entropy can be reversed. The answer is always "insufficient data," until eventually the computers are so vast and powerful and both they and humankind have ascended outside of material existence, that the computer just starts creating a new universe all on its own.
So I say... what good can come of thinking about the end of the universe? The only element it truly adds is a sense of nihilism; a lingering misery and awareness that eventually, everything will be gone. (Maybe.) If I am going to lie to myself about anything besides my writing skills, it is definitely going to be this distant, fuzzy little spectre.
Well, I broke down and read TFA. The article implies through heavy use of anecdotal evidence that Kickstarter teams are inexperienced in product delivery, overly-optimistic about how long it will take to develop and refine the production process, and that's about it. Caveat emptor.
I think my comment is probably going to keep getting misinterpreted. I had intended to convey a very general definition of "impact," be it in helping others or merely reproducing, not necessarily accomplishing something fantastical or becoming famous. Expressing yourself, in my definition, is one way of doing this—as long as there's someone to hear you.
...also, invoking the heat death of the universe is seriously Godwinning the discussion. It is not useful to talk about things on that timescale.
I'm a big believer in giving back to the whole ball of reproductive molecules we call life, whether that's to one's community or to one's species or to some other branch of the evolutionary tree far away. The whole system is incredible when considered as a whole, and if any cosmic argument can be made for anything "deserving" anything, I would say that life deserves to continue to be perpetuated in the messy, mixed-up way it is.
If all you hope to do with your time on this planet is to enjoy the gift that others have given for you, and not to endeavour to support or improve how others experience that gift (even if it's just by procreating and hence helping to roll the cosmic dice), then, let's be honest: you don't need a brain to do that. You don't need a mind; "you" in the philosophical sense do not need to exist as a person. That evolution chose to give us higher reasoning with all of these complex emotions, convictions and a conscience is proof that it is better to have them, and hence to use them. But you don't need to have them or use them to sit around all day eating and being happy that you exist. (Fortunately, even people like that contribute to bacterial evolution.)
I didn't mean for that interpretation of "impact" to be assumed. A meaningful contribution can be as simple as helping to keep society moving; even the proverbial food industry job is of value.
Well, if it's a creative project, that means without a question more work into the design and execution process with some fraction of the number of workers that's inflexible. If it's a non-creative project and the number of people is variable, then there's still O(n^2) communication overhead. Sure, for some projects more money directly results in more product and the work is embarrassingly parallelizable (e.g. a production run of something that already exists), but any project that's predominantly product development will have to experience some manner of growth in consumption of time.
But here's the thing. The survey specifically focused on projects that exceeded their expected budgets, requiring them to work longer to fully utilize the money they received. I would be disappointed if a project that received twice the money as projected only did the same amount of work as projected.
No, the point of life is to perpetuate the species. It just so happens that settings in which people can pursue certain forms of pleasure and entertainment are those in which reproduction occurs the most rapidly. The definition of happiness in a healthy human brain is balanced to facilitate evolution. Remorse is the brain's way of keeping us on task. If you only maximize asocial forms of pleasure, then you are betraying your species/tribe/family, traditionally referred to as "the greater good."
Woah; check your latent variables before you wreck your latent variables. Correlation is not causation. How do you know that maleness and natural disasters aren't both caused by URLs on Twitter?
When they added the protocol://-hiding code to Firefox, they screwed up slightly; before the protocol handler is determined when visiting a URL, copying the URL out of the field will not include the protocol handler under certain conditions. I'm having trouble reproducing it at the moment, but it's stung me exactly like that before.
Maybe the manager will be overseeing multiple departments, and the submitter only represents one department. Also, being good at following instructions is not equivalent to being good at delivering them and managing people. Also, maybe the submitter is; that was never ruled out. Also, maybe the submitter already turned down the position because of the stress, current commitment to work on certain projects, et cetera. There are plenty of reasons why an individual would be in this situation, and most of them are fairly obvious. You sound like you need a vacation, or a promotion, or both.
There is an SI derived unit, the antidilbert. An antidilbert is measured in radians/gram, i.e. one radian of average pointiness per hair point for each gram of hairgel. This model has been criticized as not sufficiently accommodating managers who are simultaneously incompetent and trendy.
Yes, 'the metric system' is generally used in North America to indicate the SI system, in contrast to traditional units (imperial in Canada, customary in US.) Drawing a distinction between the core metric units and the other SI extensions would be an unnecessary level of hair-splitting; we'd call those... I dunno, metric spacetime units, but that's definitely not a distinction people need to draw often, so the meaning disappears due to conservation of Huffman coding space.
As another commenter pointed out, all of the search engines I listed actually use a combination of Google, Bing, and Yandex results. All three search engines penalize and ban people for linkfarming, and at least Bing uses metrics based on something similar to Google's PageRank methodology. In fact there have been popular images in circulation that criticize Bing for doing exactly what GGP requested: not attempting a deeper semantic analysis of the input query (specifically regarding the query 'movie where no children are born', although it looks like Bing now returns relevant results, i.e. Children of Men, for that input.)
Slashdot Mirror
This has actually been studied quite extensively in the last few years, mostly by American researchers. They've been able to show how that mice fed samples of this bacterium will gain weight drastically. Basically, the bacteria process certain sources of food that we're bad at absorbing and make it easier for us to absorb them. It's believed that there's an immunological mutation (which is otherwise all but harmless) that lets them proliferate excessively in humans (defence against flagella, I think), so one can actually say that obesity is genetic, albeit indirectly so.
But that all being said, while careful diet control is certainly effective for mitigating digestion-related problems, this study isn't a cure so much as a band-aid. I'm pretty sure anyone would lose weight and eliminate unwanted intestinal flora under the intake suggested.
The last page bashes Haskell using a snippet from Uncyclopedia as anecdotal evidence that it is "all but impossible to write readable code" in Haskell.
Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of whinge, a dimension of fallacy, a dimension of diminished journalistic integrity. You're moving into a land of more shadow than substance, of vague and half-baked wit; you've just crossed over into the Register.
There are three reasons I think it's a bad habit to worry about the heat death of the universe when making life decisions.
One, I believe we should look at the forecast for life on the scale of billions of years; a scale comparable to the one for which it has existed. In a situation where you have absolutely no idea about how long a period of time will last (say, waiting for the train), the most reasonable assumption is more or less that you are exactly in the middle of waiting—it gives nice 50-50 probabilities for everything. As a result, worrying about the heat death of the universe is too far off.
Two, extinction is not something that we naturally accept. The death of the individual is undoubtedly something we're used to being inevitable, true, but the end of a kind is consistently tragic. (And for all of their horriblenesses, Hitler 2000s are relatively rare. Humans are by nature too optimistic for them to stay around long.) It doesn't benefit us to know that one day everything will be gone—as long as there is another day in sight, we should work to make that day a bright one. The diem can still be carped (although David Mitchell once articulated a fairly good point that you shouldn't get too obsessed with living in every moment, since you'll miss out on planning ahead.)
Three, it may not be all that unavoidable. In Asimov's classic shaggy god story, The Last Question , humans throughout the future repeatedly ask their computers if entropy can be reversed. The answer is always "insufficient data," until eventually the computers are so vast and powerful and both they and humankind have ascended outside of material existence, that the computer just starts creating a new universe all on its own.
So I say... what good can come of thinking about the end of the universe? The only element it truly adds is a sense of nihilism; a lingering misery and awareness that eventually, everything will be gone. (Maybe.) If I am going to lie to myself about anything besides my writing skills, it is definitely going to be this distant, fuzzy little spectre.
RTFAing reveals they're all just inexperienced and overly optimistic about schedules. Surprise, surprise.
Well, I broke down and read TFA. The article implies through heavy use of anecdotal evidence that Kickstarter teams are inexperienced in product delivery, overly-optimistic about how long it will take to develop and refine the production process, and that's about it. Caveat emptor.
I think my comment is probably going to keep getting misinterpreted. I had intended to convey a very general definition of "impact," be it in helping others or merely reproducing, not necessarily accomplishing something fantastical or becoming famous. Expressing yourself, in my definition, is one way of doing this—as long as there's someone to hear you.
...also, invoking the heat death of the universe is seriously Godwinning the discussion. It is not useful to talk about things on that timescale.
I'm a big believer in giving back to the whole ball of reproductive molecules we call life, whether that's to one's community or to one's species or to some other branch of the evolutionary tree far away. The whole system is incredible when considered as a whole, and if any cosmic argument can be made for anything "deserving" anything, I would say that life deserves to continue to be perpetuated in the messy, mixed-up way it is.
If all you hope to do with your time on this planet is to enjoy the gift that others have given for you, and not to endeavour to support or improve how others experience that gift (even if it's just by procreating and hence helping to roll the cosmic dice), then, let's be honest: you don't need a brain to do that. You don't need a mind; "you" in the philosophical sense do not need to exist as a person. That evolution chose to give us higher reasoning with all of these complex emotions, convictions and a conscience is proof that it is better to have them, and hence to use them. But you don't need to have them or use them to sit around all day eating and being happy that you exist. (Fortunately, even people like that contribute to bacterial evolution.)
I didn't mean for that interpretation of "impact" to be assumed. A meaningful contribution can be as simple as helping to keep society moving; even the proverbial food industry job is of value.
They could (and should) be busy overdelivering, though. Which was my point.
No project that exceeds its expected funding should fail to overdeliver. Let us gather the torches and pitchforks.
A life that leaves behind no impact when it ends is still wasted.
"Sixteen healthy young participants undertook the cognitive battery in the MRI scanner."
So, no politicians. Also, this isn't the kind of experiment you use a control group in.
Well, if it's a creative project, that means without a question more work into the design and execution process with some fraction of the number of workers that's inflexible. If it's a non-creative project and the number of people is variable, then there's still O(n^2) communication overhead. Sure, for some projects more money directly results in more product and the work is embarrassingly parallelizable (e.g. a production run of something that already exists), but any project that's predominantly product development will have to experience some manner of growth in consumption of time.
But here's the thing. The survey specifically focused on projects that exceeded their expected budgets, requiring them to work longer to fully utilize the money they received. I would be disappointed if a project that received twice the money as projected only did the same amount of work as projected.
No, the point of life is to perpetuate the species. It just so happens that settings in which people can pursue certain forms of pleasure and entertainment are those in which reproduction occurs the most rapidly. The definition of happiness in a healthy human brain is balanced to facilitate evolution. Remorse is the brain's way of keeping us on task. If you only maximize asocial forms of pleasure, then you are betraying your species/tribe/family, traditionally referred to as "the greater good."
Woah; check your latent variables before you wreck your latent variables. Correlation is not causation. How do you know that maleness and natural disasters aren't both caused by URLs on Twitter?
"SOP" and "no one should be surprised at this" do not constitute legal defences. I don't think anyone is surprised at this—but it's still a quandary.
Not only parents were queried?
When they added the protocol://-hiding code to Firefox, they screwed up slightly; before the protocol handler is determined when visiting a URL, copying the URL out of the field will not include the protocol handler under certain conditions. I'm having trouble reproducing it at the moment, but it's stung me exactly like that before.
Well, duh. He's on the board of directors! Why would he go to any of the meetings?
Maybe the manager will be overseeing multiple departments, and the submitter only represents one department. Also, being good at following instructions is not equivalent to being good at delivering them and managing people. Also, maybe the submitter is; that was never ruled out. Also, maybe the submitter already turned down the position because of the stress, current commitment to work on certain projects, et cetera. There are plenty of reasons why an individual would be in this situation, and most of them are fairly obvious. You sound like you need a vacation, or a promotion, or both.
There is an SI derived unit, the antidilbert. An antidilbert is measured in radians/gram, i.e. one radian of average pointiness per hair point for each gram of hairgel. This model has been criticized as not sufficiently accommodating managers who are simultaneously incompetent and trendy.
Yes, 'the metric system' is generally used in North America to indicate the SI system, in contrast to traditional units (imperial in Canada, customary in US.) Drawing a distinction between the core metric units and the other SI extensions would be an unnecessary level of hair-splitting; we'd call those... I dunno, metric spacetime units, but that's definitely not a distinction people need to draw often, so the meaning disappears due to conservation of Huffman coding space.
Bzzt. Kelvin is an SI unit.
As another commenter pointed out, all of the search engines I listed actually use a combination of Google, Bing, and Yandex results. All three search engines penalize and ban people for linkfarming, and at least Bing uses metrics based on something similar to Google's PageRank methodology. In fact there have been popular images in circulation that criticize Bing for doing exactly what GGP requested: not attempting a deeper semantic analysis of the input query (specifically regarding the query 'movie where no children are born', although it looks like Bing now returns relevant results, i.e. Children of Men, for that input.)
Binghoodex it is.