Your numbers do not support the statement "the big emitter is not the USA, it doesn't matter what the USA does.". 5 Gt is not insignificant compared to 10 Gt. But, even if it was, the argument would still be flawed which can be easily seen if you bring it full circle:
1. France only emits 300,000 kt which is "nothing" (6%) compared to the US 5,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what France does. 2. USA only emits 5,000,000 kt which is "nothing" (50%) compared to Chinas 10,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what the USA does. 3. China only emits 10,000,000 kt which is "nothing" (30%) compared to the total of 36,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what China does.
So, by that logic it doesn't matter if China reduces its emissions unless everyone else does since China emit "nothing" of the total. But all countries (like France) emit "nothing" of the total so it doesn't matter what anyone does.
The obvious solution is of course global cooperation and international agreements but... I guess you don't like that either, especially since good arguments are made why the developed world should take a larger part of the costs than the developing world (historical emissions, economic headroom, emissions per capita etc).
From what I remember, critical thinking is not a skill in itself but is very much context dependent. You can't teach it in general and it does not transfer from one subject to another. Studying a specific liberal art means you can think critically about that liberal art but not necessarily other liberal arts and definitively not humans in general. You need subject knowledge to engage in critical thinking or all statements are equally plausible. Most modern issues require specialist knowledge that we do not possess and therefore we replace the real question with a simpler one like "what do my friends think", "which opinion would make me cool, edgy or popular" etc. Afterwards we rationalize it and claim that "raising taxes does this and that" even though we almost never have supporting scientific evidence. Thinking critically is not even on the map.
The only subject I would recommend for everyone is behavioral psychology since it is the study of actual human behavior (and all the imperfections). It is better for understanding both the present and the past than traditional social sciences or history lessons (imho). The only thing it doesn't do much for is understanding the hard sciences so study those as well.
By the way, behavioral psychology is neither liberal nor artsy but rather technical and detail oriented.
Yes, but as a professor you should know that what may seem obvious often isn't true. The world isn't flat and all that.
He is also confusing different types of learning. Learning to ride a bike is best done with a physical bike but learning differential equations is not best done with turbulent tap water. Kids need many skills, some are physical some are abstract or non-physical.
Without scientific references, this is not news for nerds. It is just an echo chamber for those who already agree.
How much math will a kid learn by digging in the garden vs how much math will a kid learn by playing math training games on a computer?
The comparison is a bit unfair but my point is that the best method depends on the skill you want to teach. Many school subjects are non physical (reading, writing, math) and there may be no practical way of teaching them "hands on" anyway.
A more fair comparison would be spelling in a computer game vs a physical textbook. If the game is more fun and the student therefore spends more time with it, it might be more effective. Also, computers can adapt the difficulty to the student which is something teachers should do but seldom have time for.
Even countries with low corruption benefit from "blockchain" based registries. I know some who are considering such things. But, calling it a blockchain would be a bit much since it will probably just be some version of a Merkle tree. All the mining crap is not necessary for record keeping.
The problem with many registries in first world countries is that you can't be certain all documents are in the registry and in the original form. Errors happen for all kinds of non-corruption based reasons. Things are misplaced, not filed at all or filed twice leaving you with two or more "final" versions.
A hash tree based system could tell you exactly which documents were present at the time of the transaction, which were added or updated afterwards etc.
It would also help in some cases when the original transaction did not include a really important obligatory document. A lot of time can be spent searching for something that should be there but isn't and never was.
I've also been told good archives are very expensive to maintain and that hash trees would be cheaper for some reason.
People tend to forget that whitespace is significant in all languages since we use it to make the code readable. Errors in whitespace make the code hard to understand at best and easy to misunderstand at worst.
Also, complaints about being "forced" to use something other than your preferred spaces/tabs apply to all projects with more than one developer regardless of language. Like it or not, you should use whatever the original author used (or what the coding guidelines say if you are the original author). Try reading C code with mixed tabs, 2-space and 4-space indentation, it isn't easy. No, you can't just auto-indent from your IDE since that might hide your diff among a lot of whitespace diffs in revision history.
Python enforced a solution to a problem. Not the other way around.
Thanks for the explanation! I thought it was a weird application of machine learning since a much easier solution would be to just ask: "There are important updates, when do you want to install and reboot? ". Maybe even as a global setting: "Only install and reboot between 02:00 and 04:00". Or, if it is a corporate setting, just let IT schedule things as they see fit.
It seems like wastefull overkill to use ML to figure out if people are having coffee or if they have left work. That is, until you consider the other benefits of mapping peoples behaviour...
Sure, but if the project gets even bigger, write a Python wrapper around it for all the stuff that changes often like integration, reporting or small ad hoc spinoffs. Large C++ projects take an awful long time to compile and the code base is much more cumbersome to manage so a lightweight framework around it makes sense.
The time to a first working version is especially important when the solution isn't obvious. It is not until I have a working program that I truly understand what the tradeoffs and bottlenecks are. Getting to that point quickly often makes economic sense since it is not until then you can make proper estimates of the actual cost or viability. Early optimisation is the root of all evil and all that...
This. The popularity of CPython is not just because of the language features in my opinion. It is also the easy connection to C. I would even go further and claim the C connection is the most important feature. By writing "the application" in CPython and then rewriting the performance critical parts in C, you can get the best of both worlds.
Excellent libraries like numpy are written in both C and Python. Not either or.
For me it was the relative imports. I want to shift to Py3 but haven't. At first it seemed like a great thing but then it turns out you must distinguish between scripts and modules. You get this long list of ways imports can either work or not work depending on things.
First, I like relative imports. I move stuff around (files and directories) and I don't want to update imports more than necessary. If moving stuff is hard, I don't do it and the code suffers.
Second, I like adding small run scripts at the end of all files which run the unit tests (or manual tests or both). This way I can configure most simple text editors to just "execute the current file" to run the relevant tests. No IDE necessary. Also, it provides a direct link between the module and the module specific tests so I don't run more tests than necessary. Most IDEs and test runners can't do that with just a quick keyboard shortcut but tend to run all tests or require a lot of key pressing to "select" the right tests.
In python 3, I can't combine the two wishes above. Ten years after Py3 and I still haven't decided what to do about it. Either, accept always using absolute imports OR never execute a module. Guido said at some point that mixing executable scripts with modules was an antipattern but I do not agree. It means the language can do things you would normally need an IDE for. Batteries included.
All in all though. Python is fantastic and the proof is in the libraries from pandas to all that webstuff. Thanks Guido!
If you know you will be attacked soon, keep it secret. If you do not expect to be attacked, boast about it loudly to let everyone know how much it would cost to attack.
You make a good point, but backwards. Quantum entanglement is typically very sensitive and easily destroyed. The interaction between the photon and the target would probably destroy any entanglement unless the target was a very good mirror. So, it is the opposite of fuzzy action at a distance. The partner photon back at base is undisturbed but any quantum correlations with the photon that was sent to the target is destroyed so you just get a classical radar.
I have a hard time guessing how "quantum" would help a radar but I also know nothing about modern radar research. Without any details on how it works, I am sceptic about the quantum designation. Unless quantum effects are used inside the machine itself (which is a nice controlled space). That could be doable.
No, you lying sack of shit. On my phone the facts are:
Fact #1: Google Play Services 73.67 MB + 6.09 MB cache. Fact #2: I don't have chrome installed but when I had, it was about 150MB including cache (from memory, could be wrong). Fact #3: "Google" is 30.37 MB. Don't know what it is really... Fact #4: Google Maps is 92.11 with 3.10 Data and Cache 732 kB. No offline maps since I use OsmAnd for that.
I'm running Lineage OS 14.1 so Android 7.1.2 with some GApps.
Fact #5: You are jumping to conclusions. Are you sure you're not confusing bits with bytes?
If they were interested in option 1), they could just write an article and publish it somewhere which would make it prior art. Since they spent money and time on a patent application instead, I'd say 2) is the only option.
I was thinking of the bacteria living near hydrothermal vents. I believe some of them use sulfur instead of oxygen so the sulfuric rain might be a good thing.
However, after looking up temperatures at wikipedia, the thermophile bacteria on earth can prosper up to 122C but Venus has a surface temperature of 462C so you would have to find a very very very cold place (relatively speaking) for them to thrive.
What I think the authors did is use a Drake equation, calculate the uncertainties, guess distributions for the uncertain parameters and calculate the chance of seeing no life in the visible/accessible universe. They solve Fermis Paradox by showing it is not unlikely at all that we are alone (thus no paradox).
I for one like this kind of research since it clears up some popular misconceptions about Fermis Paradox (like, that it is a paradox).
From the abstract (emphasis mine):
We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial ex ante probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe
Extending life is easy, cheap and doable: Contaminate Mars and Venus.
Take samples from all reasonably cold resistant bacteria on earth and spray them all over Mars. Maybe something manages to grow there. Do the same for Venus with heat resistant bacteria.
If bacterial life gets a foothold, we might get more advanced life in just a few million years or so.
No, not mob rule. It's just my version of due diligence.
I try to read the criticism of a book/person/body of work before digging too deep into something and risk getting personally invested. I look for both the severity and the type (methodological, factual, omission or distortion of fact, overreaching conclusions etc). After I know the critique I read the actual work (if still interested).
For example, one of my favorite podcasts was "STEM Talk" and I Dr Diamond talking about statins and cholesterol and I really liked what he said because I made some intuitive sense and I wanted it to be true. But, after googling (and reading) the criticism, I was very disappointed and chose not to trust his claims. After an episode with Nina Teicholz and Googling her, I gave up on the podcast alltogether since they clearly can't be trusted to choose trustworthy guests.
A positive example was Ken Burns Vietnam documentary. After googling for criticism, the worst I could find was about not spending enough time on topic "X". If that is the worst criticism I can find, the documentary must be pretty accurate!
So, yeah, I read the criticism first, then the work.
Slashdot Mirror
Your numbers do not support the statement "the big emitter is not the USA, it doesn't matter what the USA does.". 5 Gt is not insignificant compared to 10 Gt. But, even if it was, the argument would still be flawed which can be easily seen if you bring it full circle:
1. France only emits 300,000 kt which is "nothing" (6%) compared to the US 5,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what France does.
2. USA only emits 5,000,000 kt which is "nothing" (50%) compared to Chinas 10,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what the USA does.
3. China only emits 10,000,000 kt which is "nothing" (30%) compared to the total of 36,000,000 kt so it doesn't matter what China does.
So, by that logic it doesn't matter if China reduces its emissions unless everyone else does since China emit "nothing" of the total. But all countries (like France) emit "nothing" of the total so it doesn't matter what anyone does.
The obvious solution is of course global cooperation and international agreements but... I guess you don't like that either, especially since good arguments are made why the developed world should take a larger part of the costs than the developing world (historical emissions, economic headroom, emissions per capita etc).
I used the numbers from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, let's clarify what type of master/slave relationship we are talking about by renaming it Mr Garrison / Mr Slave.
I thought it was a hamburger reference. Big Mac vs Extra Small Max.
Also, someone should buy Apple some new keyboards. Their sHift Ks Must be malfunctioning.
The problem with these logistical tracking in the block chain ideas is (among other things) how do you ensure that the physical item matches the coin?
You put a sticker with a serial number on the item?
No, you can NOT teach critical thinking (sort of). It took me some time to find it again but this was an interesting read:
https://www.aft.org/sites/defa...
From what I remember, critical thinking is not a skill in itself but is very much context dependent. You can't teach it in general and it does not transfer from one subject to another. Studying a specific liberal art means you can think critically about that liberal art but not necessarily other liberal arts and definitively not humans in general. You need subject knowledge to engage in critical thinking or all statements are equally plausible. Most modern issues require specialist knowledge that we do not possess and therefore we replace the real question with a simpler one like "what do my friends think", "which opinion would make me cool, edgy or popular" etc. Afterwards we rationalize it and claim that "raising taxes does this and that" even though we almost never have supporting scientific evidence. Thinking critically is not even on the map.
The only subject I would recommend for everyone is behavioral psychology since it is the study of actual human behavior (and all the imperfections). It is better for understanding both the present and the past than traditional social sciences or history lessons (imho). The only thing it doesn't do much for is understanding the hard sciences so study those as well.
By the way, behavioral psychology is neither liberal nor artsy but rather technical and detail oriented.
I thought the first sentence was a give-away:
As a parent, it is obvious that...
Yes, but as a professor you should know that what may seem obvious often isn't true. The world isn't flat and all that.
He is also confusing different types of learning. Learning to ride a bike is best done with a physical bike but learning differential equations is not best done with turbulent tap water. Kids need many skills, some are physical some are abstract or non-physical.
Without scientific references, this is not news for nerds. It is just an echo chamber for those who already agree.
How much math will a kid learn by digging in the garden vs how much math will a kid learn by playing math training games on a computer?
The comparison is a bit unfair but my point is that the best method depends on the skill you want to teach. Many school subjects are non physical (reading, writing, math) and there may be no practical way of teaching them "hands on" anyway.
A more fair comparison would be spelling in a computer game vs a physical textbook. If the game is more fun and the student therefore spends more time with it, it might be more effective. Also, computers can adapt the difficulty to the student which is something teachers should do but seldom have time for.
Even countries with low corruption benefit from "blockchain" based registries. I know some who are considering such things. But, calling it a blockchain would be a bit much since it will probably just be some version of a Merkle tree. All the mining crap is not necessary for record keeping.
The problem with many registries in first world countries is that you can't be certain all documents are in the registry and in the original form. Errors happen for all kinds of non-corruption based reasons. Things are misplaced, not filed at all or filed twice leaving you with two or more "final" versions.
A hash tree based system could tell you exactly which documents were present at the time of the transaction, which were added or updated afterwards etc.
It would also help in some cases when the original transaction did not include a really important obligatory document. A lot of time can be spent searching for something that should be there but isn't and never was.
I've also been told good archives are very expensive to maintain and that hash trees would be cheaper for some reason.
Yes! +1 Please.
People tend to forget that whitespace is significant in all languages since we use it to make the code readable. Errors in whitespace make the code hard to understand at best and easy to misunderstand at worst.
Also, complaints about being "forced" to use something other than your preferred spaces/tabs apply to all projects with more than one developer regardless of language. Like it or not, you should use whatever the original author used (or what the coding guidelines say if you are the original author). Try reading C code with mixed tabs, 2-space and 4-space indentation, it isn't easy. No, you can't just auto-indent from your IDE since that might hide your diff among a lot of whitespace diffs in revision history.
Python enforced a solution to a problem. Not the other way around.
Thanks for the explanation! I thought it was a weird application of machine learning since a much easier solution would be to just ask: "There are important updates, when do you want to install and reboot? ". Maybe even as a global setting: "Only install and reboot between 02:00 and 04:00". Or, if it is a corporate setting, just let IT schedule things as they see fit.
It seems like wastefull overkill to use ML to figure out if people are having coffee or if they have left work. That is, until you consider the other benefits of mapping peoples behaviour...
[citation needed]
I've seen the claim that it is only for prototyping or scripting so many times. Please explain why.
Python is multi paradigm with very good support for modules and unit testing, mocking etc. What more do you need for large scale projects?
Sure, it is slow so don't bother if your project is very CPU bound. But, for anything else, why not?
Sure, but if the project gets even bigger, write a Python wrapper around it for all the stuff that changes often like integration, reporting or small ad hoc spinoffs. Large C++ projects take an awful long time to compile and the code base is much more cumbersome to manage so a lightweight framework around it makes sense.
The time to a first working version is especially important when the solution isn't obvious. It is not until I have a working program that I truly understand what the tradeoffs and bottlenecks are. Getting to that point quickly often makes economic sense since it is not until then you can make proper estimates of the actual cost or viability. Early optimisation is the root of all evil and all that...
This. The popularity of CPython is not just because of the language features in my opinion. It is also the easy connection to C. I would even go further and claim the C connection is the most important feature. By writing "the application" in CPython and then rewriting the performance critical parts in C, you can get the best of both worlds.
Excellent libraries like numpy are written in both C and Python. Not either or.
For me it was the relative imports. I want to shift to Py3 but haven't. At first it seemed like a great thing but then it turns out you must distinguish between scripts and modules. You get this long list of ways imports can either work or not work depending on things.
First, I like relative imports. I move stuff around (files and directories) and I don't want to update imports more than necessary. If moving stuff is hard, I don't do it and the code suffers.
Second, I like adding small run scripts at the end of all files which run the unit tests (or manual tests or both). This way I can configure most simple text editors to just "execute the current file" to run the relevant tests. No IDE necessary. Also, it provides a direct link between the module and the module specific tests so I don't run more tests than necessary. Most IDEs and test runners can't do that with just a quick keyboard shortcut but tend to run all tests or require a lot of key pressing to "select" the right tests.
In python 3, I can't combine the two wishes above. Ten years after Py3 and I still haven't decided what to do about it. Either, accept always using absolute imports OR never execute a module. Guido said at some point that mixing executable scripts with modules was an antipattern but I do not agree. It means the language can do things you would normally need an IDE for. Batteries included.
All in all though. Python is fantastic and the proof is in the libraries from pandas to all that webstuff. Thanks Guido!
If you know you will be attacked soon, keep it secret.
If you do not expect to be attacked, boast about it loudly to let everyone know how much it would cost to attack.
You make a good point, but backwards. Quantum entanglement is typically very sensitive and easily destroyed. The interaction between the photon and the target would probably destroy any entanglement unless the target was a very good mirror. So, it is the opposite of fuzzy action at a distance. The partner photon back at base is undisturbed but any quantum correlations with the photon that was sent to the target is destroyed so you just get a classical radar.
I have a hard time guessing how "quantum" would help a radar but I also know nothing about modern radar research. Without any details on how it works, I am sceptic about the quantum designation. Unless quantum effects are used inside the machine itself (which is a nice controlled space). That could be doable.
No, you lying sack of shit. On my phone the facts are:
Fact #1: Google Play Services 73.67 MB + 6.09 MB cache.
Fact #2: I don't have chrome installed but when I had, it was about 150MB including cache (from memory, could be wrong).
Fact #3: "Google" is 30.37 MB. Don't know what it is really...
Fact #4: Google Maps is 92.11 with 3.10 Data and Cache 732 kB. No offline maps since I use OsmAnd for that.
I'm running Lineage OS 14.1 so Android 7.1.2 with some GApps.
Fact #5: You are jumping to conclusions. Are you sure you're not confusing bits with bytes?
If they were interested in option 1), they could just write an article and publish it somewhere which would make it prior art. Since they spent money and time on a patent application instead, I'd say 2) is the only option.
I was thinking of the bacteria living near hydrothermal vents. I believe some of them use sulfur instead of oxygen so the sulfuric rain might be a good thing.
However, after looking up temperatures at wikipedia, the thermophile bacteria on earth can prosper up to 122C but Venus has a surface temperature of 462C so you would have to find a very very very cold place (relatively speaking) for them to thrive.
The Fermi Paradox is not the Drake Equation.
What I think the authors did is use a Drake equation, calculate the uncertainties, guess distributions for the uncertain parameters and calculate the chance of seeing no life in the visible/accessible universe. They solve Fermis Paradox by showing it is not unlikely at all that we are alone (thus no paradox).
I for one like this kind of research since it clears up some popular misconceptions about Fermis Paradox (like, that it is a paradox).
From the abstract (emphasis mine):
We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that
extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial ex ante probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe
It's not ET. It's Kleeborp the Retard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I think the clip has more insight into the question of space aliens than we would like.
Extending life is easy, cheap and doable: Contaminate Mars and Venus.
Take samples from all reasonably cold resistant bacteria on earth and spray them all over Mars. Maybe something manages to grow there. Do the same for Venus with heat resistant bacteria.
If bacterial life gets a foothold, we might get more advanced life in just a few million years or so.
Yes, the survey means nothing since they didn't define burnout. The results would have been different if they had used something like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's not really burnout until you start experiencing mental deficiencies (cognitive or emotional).
No, not mob rule. It's just my version of due diligence.
I try to read the criticism of a book/person/body of work before digging too deep into something and risk getting personally invested. I look for both the severity and the type (methodological, factual, omission or distortion of fact, overreaching conclusions etc). After I know the critique I read the actual work (if still interested).
For example, one of my favorite podcasts was "STEM Talk" and I Dr Diamond talking about statins and cholesterol and I really liked what he said because I made some intuitive sense and I wanted it to be true. But, after googling (and reading) the criticism, I was very disappointed and chose not to trust his claims. After an episode with Nina Teicholz and Googling her, I gave up on the podcast alltogether since they clearly can't be trusted to choose trustworthy guests.
A positive example was Ken Burns Vietnam documentary. After googling for criticism, the worst I could find was about not spending enough time on topic "X". If that is the worst criticism I can find, the documentary must be pretty accurate!
So, yeah, I read the criticism first, then the work.