It's when a person doubts their accomplishments and has a fear of being exposed as a fraud.
What they're basically saying is that 57.55% of IT workers from the named companies are suffering from psychological trauma you'd more likely expect to find in a war zone, a kidnap situation or a maximum security prison.
I will totally loathe and detest this change forever and curse it to/dev/null if...
1. It messes up automated tools such as Selenium - if sites can't be tested, things get unsafe.
2. It impacts the ability of users to share URLs by visual inspection .
3. It impacts the ability of users to determine if they're secure.
4. It allows a browser hijacker to conceal what site someone is on by editing what is displayed.
5. It creates a security hole through improper string handling.
6. The extra complexity contains code defects that impact performance or stability.
2 & 3 are likely true. 1 & 4 are entirely plausible. 5 & 6 are certainly possible.
I want Google to show it has answers to all six questions, answers that are acceptable.
If it has thought about it beyond the immediate visual impact, I'd be surprised but maybe I could be convinced. I see no evidence they've thought it through. As the wise monkey sage Ross Noble once said, they haven't thought it through.
Correct. We know a few are inside still-condensing accretion disks and therefore can't have. Highly eccentric, criss-crossing orbits also happen. We can't be sure of the rest.
However, this creates an amusing situation. Any planetary mass that hasn't cleared its orbit is a dwarf planet. There are therefore dwarf planets upwards of ten times the size of Jupiter.
For the scientific name, I'd borrow from biology and computer science. Biological classifications use a complex tree to describe the ontology. In computer science, neural nets are very good at finding the different ways two populations can be linearly separated. So we end up with a tree that runs from coarsest to finest divisions.
For the common name, I think your suggestions are just fine but those specific divisions might end up not really existing. We need to find out which divisions do exist, then give simple, easy-to-remember names to each. Although, there may be problems naming all alcohol-rich gas clouds "Fred".
Seriously, we can use AI to scan all known properties and look for classifications that reflect some intrinsic physical reality. Then the definitions can't ever be disputed. Is X a Y? Well, the test would be simple, does it have property Z? The value of Z wouldn't matter, it's a case of yes it has the property or no it doesn't. Irrelevant properties would be ignored, we'd have no oddball exceptions and definitions wouldn't depend on someone wanting to make life easier when helping kids with homework.
First, any classification is itself a hypothesis and must therefore follow all the rules governing a hypothesis. This includes the ability to predict, since a hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Second, if you contend that nothing in the observable universe can be categorized or understood by science, what else could you call it but random? Even most religions have structure and rules that science could infer. If you have no such structure, if science is useless for prediction, you have nothing. That's hardly hyperbole, science is the study of relationships and systems. You seem to be arguing neither exist. I suggest that's not what you intend to be arguing, but it's hardly my fault if zero correlation between all parameters is indistinguishable from a random oracle.
Second, there are plenty of definitions far more useful than the IAU one.
Here's one. A planet is a gravitationally-rounded object with a single core and stratification that formed in part or whole in a planetary accretion disk.
There's not a single asteroid or comet that meets that definition. It makes no reference to stars, it's invariant and wholly intrinsic. It allows for sub-classes, rather than wholly independent planetary-like objects. It applies to all known exoplanets and rogue planets. It does not apply to solid bodies formed from dead white dwarfs.
What's more, it's predictive. It is stating that masses of similar size formed in accretion disks are going to behave differently to those formed in stellar nurseries, since it is saying there is linear separation between those two types of mass.
It is stating that there is a fundamental difference between comets (multi-core), asteroids (no core) and planets, that these can be linearly separated and that fundamental properties present in one group will not appear in another.
These predictions are falsifiable, therefore this is a valid hypothesis, It is predictive, therefore it is superior to the IAU one which is not. It is also far, far better science.
As geeks, we should appreciate science above and beyond personalities.
From this definition, I can create an ontology, a PROPER ontology.
I can separate out planets with solid, liquid and gaseous cores, and likewise for the mantle. Solids in a liquid are still in a liquid, even if the solids are the bulk of what is there. In terms of predicting what will happen, the liquid would be what mattered. I'm only concerned with intrinsics and invariants, so the ability to behave as a liquid is important for some solids and would be an important subclass but they're still solids.
Some gas giants will have super Earths inside, these will obviously behave differently from gas giants that don't. Proxima b may have started as a gas giant and had the atmosphere removed, but that won't affect the rocky interior. And how thick does the atmosphere have to be? Clearly, this is not a linearly separable parameter and as I've explained elsewhere those simply aren't valid criteria. You can distinguish spectrums, but you cannot distinguish points on a spectrum.
Therefore I cannot usefully define a rocky planet or a gas giant, but I can define the composition of a given layer and I can make predictions based on that.
So I now have planets, planets with a specific core type, planets with a specific core and mantle type.
We can categorise composition by specifying the generation of star. So a G3 planet formed around a third generation star, somewhere, and the ratio of elements reflects that.
If I can do that, a planetary scientist with decades more experience and understanding can do a thousand times more.
I'm not calling this ideal, I'm calling this valid, good science and predictive. There will be far better ontologies, that's irrelevant. This is an ontology that guarantees linear separation and prediction, keeps things simple and doesn't have any weirdness or freaky arbitrary values.
Wrong split. And that is why that particular split is useless.
Rather than split between two magnitudes (which is rarely helpful), you split between two categories (which is).
You can categorise between reflection, refraction and diffraction. THAT is the correct division.
You have demonstrated precisely why arbitrary classes are useless, why you must use classes that have distinct, predictive, meaning. You have shown why value-based definitions are abhorrent, why classifications should have intrinsic rather than extrinsic meaning.
Then when a white dwarf in a binary system dies it becomes a planet. It's a body that is no longer a star (it no longer undergoes fusion) that is orbiting a star.
It also means a planet that escapes a star stops being a planet until recaptured, despite never actually changing in and of itself.
I am fine with definitions of a system being about a system, but I'm not keen on definitions of an object being about a system. That's a scope violation.
It's also not good when classifications are not time invariant, since you can't make any predictions based on the definition. Most of the sorts of things you might want to predict would be true under the definition you no longer use.
Simple is good, yes. Make your definitions as simple as possible, but no simpler. That definition is too simple.
Some are indeed directly visible and have been imaged. Although I don't know if the Chinese have done so, their radio telescope has easily sufficient resolving power and sensitivity to look at Proxima b's reflected radiation. Things have moved on.
No explanet has been seen by gravitational lensing, as far as I know.
When SKA is complete, every explained inside 100 LY and every super Jupiter inside of about 3000 LY will be directly visible.
That is perfectly true and I wish the IAU had included that in the definition.
So, I guess the first question is, we know the planetary orbits shifted dramatically when Saturn formed. It shifted Jupiter out of the inner solar system. Did Saturn or Uranus forming shift Neptune or Pluto in any way that would mean both had cleared their orbits prior to this?
Secondly, the moons of Pluto are all inside its atmosphere and are probably shattered fragments from Pluto being struck. If we track their motion backwards, we can figure out if any are, in fact, the impacting object. Was the original Pluto significantly different?
If Pluto was once a fully-fledged planet, then that may need to be considered even if it isn't one by IAU standards now.
Occasionally, people are wrong. It happens. Scientists are scientists because they're willing to be wrong. It's the nature of a hypothesis that you're going to be wrong most of the time. Science is not about being right, it's about figuring out why something was wrong and not doing it again, becoming less wrong with time.
All objects universally agreed on in our solar system to be planets All exoplanets of Earth size or larger All rogue planets that are not brown dwarfs All planets within accretion disks
This basically means you can't use shape, orbit or objects in proximity in your definition.
Your definition must exclude all:
Rocky asteroids Rubble pile asteroids Comets Brown dwarves Stars Dead stars in orbit around other stars
That's not going to be easy, since a lot of characteristics are shared.
Finally, any definition must be as simple as possible and predictive. On seeing a new planetary object, given a certain perfect subset of characteristics plus the definition, we must be able to infer at least one other thing about the object. Otherwise, it's not a useful definition.
Most exoplanets violate your requirements. Some of them are super Earth in size. A few are super Jupiters.
And yet you don't complain about them. Nor does the IAU.
You don't get to pick and choose when a definition applies. If an extreme eccentric super Jupiter that crosses multiple orbits and has a rotation that deforms it horribly is a planet, then neither eccentricity nor staying in orbit nor roundness can be factors.
The definition says rounded not round. And that is why nobody looks for round planets. However, you'd argue a snooker ball is round, right? Earth is founder by several orders of magnitude.
I don't care about the number. That should be a function of how many there are. You should not choose the number of planets and then set a definition accordingly.
If a sensible, scientifically useful, definition ends up with 100 planets then there are 100 planets.
No. The eggheads didn't attend the IAU conference. Most aren't even astronomers.
This hasn't been settled because nobody agrees on the basis. The IAU doesn't want school textbooks with 22 planets in the solar system, the some reason for reclassifying. Planetary scientists don't give a crap about the books and want a definition with actual meaning.
It makes a huge difference. Basically, if you can't classify Pluto then there's no point in bothering with astronomy or planetary science since you can't predict or classify. In fact, you might as well jump off a building since it renders science and modern life futile if you cannot predict or classify. You're left only with religion.
One, and only one, designation will be useful in any predictive or functional sense. To use any other designation is the work of mystics, not planetary scientists.
What that designation is can be determined only by looking at what has actual scientific value, not what has votes in a conference.
That's very nearly bug-free. It would actually be 100% bug-free in all components that don't require features that are inherently unreliable. The government could afford it, most corporations could not.
I would actually like that for Linux, have a huge program to perform a proper detailed clean-up of the entire kernel. No loss of functionality, just a loss of bugs. It's used in many important areas and no system can be more reliable than the OS it uses.
But you can't ask people to design KDE that way (although they could design it better), nor could you ask a commercial vendor like Oracle to get their database to that standard. Only a government has the money needed and even then only for a few projects.
When it comes to encryption, it's worse. We don't know what constitutes good, we only know some things that constitute bad. Same for authentication. Ergo, we can define minimum standards by defining what is bad, but we can't define anything better.
Open source doesn't help, since nobody does test driven development and almost nobody tests. Documentation is dreadful. Want to show otherwise? Sure, go ahead. Reply to this with a file in CPNTools format that shows the full state machine for the IPv6 stack. That should be easy, you have RFCs showing the datagrams and state changes.
Such a diagram can be drawn, but not by anyone here in any sane length of time. That's full-time work for a large team of high-end experts.
No, you have not been told the sun isn't the cause. What you have been told is that variation in solar output is not the cause.
CO2 is like a blanket, but blankets do nothing without a source of heat. You need a source of heat before CO2 can trap it. That source is the sun.
Mars has a very thin atmosphere. As a result, it's not going to trap anything. It's the density that matters, not the percentage. Think of silver foil. It's reflective. If you cover the floor of a room and shine light on it, it'll reflect a lot of that light even if the floor is only 0.04% of the room. That's Earth's global warming.
Earth has a very thick atmosphere, almost syrupy. A typical cloud weighs 1.1 million pounds, so to be buoyant, it must displace 1.1 million pounds of air. That's a lot. And yet a cloud is small.
Mars' atmosphere is whispy thin. That same cloud on Mars would crash into the ground and form a crater before being blasted into space by solar winds.
To go back to the room analogy, it's like instead of having a proper room, all you've got is a handful of threads. Yes, they're 95% wrapped in silver foil but you've still only got a handful. It's not going to reflect much of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
A fraud would be someone who is out of their depth and doesn't look things up.
A competent person is someone who is also out of their depth but does look things up.
20% of people are in the top 20%.
Part of the problem is that there's no good metric for ability. Certifications are glamour items that say more about disposable wealth than ability.
We don't really know who is competent, and as IT is a very big field, we don't know what they're competent at.
It's when a person doubts their accomplishments and has a fear of being exposed as a fraud.
What they're basically saying is that 57.55% of IT workers from the named companies are suffering from psychological trauma you'd more likely expect to find in a war zone, a kidnap situation or a maximum security prison.
You should not be finding it in a 9-5 office job.
I will totally loathe and detest this change forever and curse it to /dev/null if...
1. It messes up automated tools such as Selenium - if sites can't be tested, things get unsafe.
2. It impacts the ability of users to share URLs by visual inspection .
3. It impacts the ability of users to determine if they're secure.
4. It allows a browser hijacker to conceal what site someone is on by editing what is displayed.
5. It creates a security hole through improper string handling.
6. The extra complexity contains code defects that impact performance or stability.
2 & 3 are likely true. 1 & 4 are entirely plausible. 5 & 6 are certainly possible.
I want Google to show it has answers to all six questions, answers that are acceptable.
If it has thought about it beyond the immediate visual impact, I'd be surprised but maybe I could be convinced. I see no evidence they've thought it through. As the wise monkey sage Ross Noble once said, they haven't thought it through.
Correct. We know a few are inside still-condensing accretion disks and therefore can't have. Highly eccentric, criss-crossing orbits also happen. We can't be sure of the rest.
However, this creates an amusing situation. Any planetary mass that hasn't cleared its orbit is a dwarf planet. There are therefore dwarf planets upwards of ten times the size of Jupiter.
I'd ideally use two naming conventions.
For the scientific name, I'd borrow from biology and computer science. Biological classifications use a complex tree to describe the ontology. In computer science, neural nets are very good at finding the different ways two populations can be linearly separated. So we end up with a tree that runs from coarsest to finest divisions.
For the common name, I think your suggestions are just fine but those specific divisions might end up not really existing. We need to find out which divisions do exist, then give simple, easy-to-remember names to each. Although, there may be problems naming all alcohol-rich gas clouds "Fred".
Seriously, we can use AI to scan all known properties and look for classifications that reflect some intrinsic physical reality. Then the definitions can't ever be disputed. Is X a Y? Well, the test would be simple, does it have property Z? The value of Z wouldn't matter, it's a case of yes it has the property or no it doesn't. Irrelevant properties would be ignored, we'd have no oddball exceptions and definitions wouldn't depend on someone wanting to make life easier when helping kids with homework.
Look, it's very simple.
A definition should have certain properties.
First, any classification is itself a hypothesis and must therefore follow all the rules governing a hypothesis. This includes the ability to predict, since a hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Second, if you contend that nothing in the observable universe can be categorized or understood by science, what else could you call it but random? Even most religions have structure and rules that science could infer. If you have no such structure, if science is useless for prediction, you have nothing. That's hardly hyperbole, science is the study of relationships and systems. You seem to be arguing neither exist. I suggest that's not what you intend to be arguing, but it's hardly my fault if zero correlation between all parameters is indistinguishable from a random oracle.
Second, there are plenty of definitions far more useful than the IAU one.
Here's one. A planet is a gravitationally-rounded object with a single core and stratification that formed in part or whole in a planetary accretion disk.
There's not a single asteroid or comet that meets that definition. It makes no reference to stars, it's invariant and wholly intrinsic. It allows for sub-classes, rather than wholly independent planetary-like objects. It applies to all known exoplanets and rogue planets. It does not apply to solid bodies formed from dead white dwarfs.
What's more, it's predictive. It is stating that masses of similar size formed in accretion disks are going to behave differently to those formed in stellar nurseries, since it is saying there is linear separation between those two types of mass.
It is stating that there is a fundamental difference between comets (multi-core), asteroids (no core) and planets, that these can be linearly separated and that fundamental properties present in one group will not appear in another.
These predictions are falsifiable, therefore this is a valid hypothesis, It is predictive, therefore it is superior to the IAU one which is not. It is also far, far better science.
As geeks, we should appreciate science above and beyond personalities.
From this definition, I can create an ontology, a PROPER ontology.
I can separate out planets with solid, liquid and gaseous cores, and likewise for the mantle. Solids in a liquid are still in a liquid, even if the solids are the bulk of what is there. In terms of predicting what will happen, the liquid would be what mattered. I'm only concerned with intrinsics and invariants, so the ability to behave as a liquid is important for some solids and would be an important subclass but they're still solids.
Some gas giants will have super Earths inside, these will obviously behave differently from gas giants that don't. Proxima b may have started as a gas giant and had the atmosphere removed, but that won't affect the rocky interior. And how thick does the atmosphere have to be? Clearly, this is not a linearly separable parameter and as I've explained elsewhere those simply aren't valid criteria. You can distinguish spectrums, but you cannot distinguish points on a spectrum.
Therefore I cannot usefully define a rocky planet or a gas giant, but I can define the composition of a given layer and I can make predictions based on that.
So I now have planets, planets with a specific core type, planets with a specific core and mantle type.
We can categorise composition by specifying the generation of star. So a G3 planet formed around a third generation star, somewhere, and the ratio of elements reflects that.
If I can do that, a planetary scientist with decades more experience and understanding can do a thousand times more.
I'm not calling this ideal, I'm calling this valid, good science and predictive. There will be far better ontologies, that's irrelevant. This is an ontology that guarantees linear separation and prediction, keeps things simple and doesn't have any weirdness or freaky arbitrary values.
Wrong split. And that is why that particular split is useless.
Rather than split between two magnitudes (which is rarely helpful), you split between two categories (which is).
You can categorise between reflection, refraction and diffraction. THAT is the correct division.
You have demonstrated precisely why arbitrary classes are useless, why you must use classes that have distinct, predictive, meaning. You have shown why value-based definitions are abhorrent, why classifications should have intrinsic rather than extrinsic meaning.
Then when a white dwarf in a binary system dies it becomes a planet. It's a body that is no longer a star (it no longer undergoes fusion) that is orbiting a star.
It also means a planet that escapes a star stops being a planet until recaptured, despite never actually changing in and of itself.
I am fine with definitions of a system being about a system, but I'm not keen on definitions of an object being about a system. That's a scope violation.
It's also not good when classifications are not time invariant, since you can't make any predictions based on the definition. Most of the sorts of things you might want to predict would be true under the definition you no longer use.
Simple is good, yes. Make your definitions as simple as possible, but no simpler. That definition is too simple.
Some are indeed directly visible and have been imaged. Although I don't know if the Chinese have done so, their radio telescope has easily sufficient resolving power and sensitivity to look at Proxima b's reflected radiation. Things have moved on.
No explanet has been seen by gravitational lensing, as far as I know.
When SKA is complete, every explained inside 100 LY and every super Jupiter inside of about 3000 LY will be directly visible.
If those follow a pattern for a certain class of objects, you can give the class a name.
If there is no class, you can't predict. Every observation is unique and devoid of meaning.
Those are your choices. Order or randomness.
That is perfectly true and I wish the IAU had included that in the definition.
So, I guess the first question is, we know the planetary orbits shifted dramatically when Saturn formed. It shifted Jupiter out of the inner solar system. Did Saturn or Uranus forming shift Neptune or Pluto in any way that would mean both had cleared their orbits prior to this?
Secondly, the moons of Pluto are all inside its atmosphere and are probably shattered fragments from Pluto being struck. If we track their motion backwards, we can figure out if any are, in fact, the impacting object. Was the original Pluto significantly different?
If Pluto was once a fully-fledged planet, then that may need to be considered even if it isn't one by IAU standards now.
Occasionally, people are wrong. It happens. Scientists are scientists because they're willing to be wrong. It's the nature of a hypothesis that you're going to be wrong most of the time. Science is not about being right, it's about figuring out why something was wrong and not doing it again, becoming less wrong with time.
If you want Truth, theology is down the hall.
Any definition of planet has to be true for:
All objects universally agreed on in our solar system to be planets
All exoplanets of Earth size or larger
All rogue planets that are not brown dwarfs
All planets within accretion disks
This basically means you can't use shape, orbit or objects in proximity in your definition.
Your definition must exclude all:
Rocky asteroids
Rubble pile asteroids
Comets
Brown dwarves
Stars
Dead stars in orbit around other stars
That's not going to be easy, since a lot of characteristics are shared.
Finally, any definition must be as simple as possible and predictive. On seeing a new planetary object, given a certain perfect subset of characteristics plus the definition, we must be able to infer at least one other thing about the object. Otherwise, it's not a useful definition.
Common usage includes rogue planets. Rogue planets do not orbit stars.
Most exoplanets violate your requirements. Some of them are super Earth in size. A few are super Jupiters.
And yet you don't complain about them. Nor does the IAU.
You don't get to pick and choose when a definition applies. If an extreme eccentric super Jupiter that crosses multiple orbits and has a rotation that deforms it horribly is a planet, then neither eccentricity nor staying in orbit nor roundness can be factors.
It's that simple.
The definition says rounded not round. And that is why nobody looks for round planets. However, you'd argue a snooker ball is round, right? Earth is founder by several orders of magnitude.
I don't care about the number. That should be a function of how many there are. You should not choose the number of planets and then set a definition accordingly.
If a sensible, scientifically useful, definition ends up with 100 planets then there are 100 planets.
Well, yeah. That's how ontologies are normally devised and how astronomers devise them for all other objects. Except here.
No. The eggheads didn't attend the IAU conference. Most aren't even astronomers.
This hasn't been settled because nobody agrees on the basis. The IAU doesn't want school textbooks with 22 planets in the solar system, the some reason for reclassifying. Planetary scientists don't give a crap about the books and want a definition with actual meaning.
It makes a huge difference. Basically, if you can't classify Pluto then there's no point in bothering with astronomy or planetary science since you can't predict or classify. In fact, you might as well jump off a building since it renders science and modern life futile if you cannot predict or classify. You're left only with religion.
One, and only one, designation will be useful in any predictive or functional sense. To use any other designation is the work of mystics, not planetary scientists.
What that designation is can be determined only by looking at what has actual scientific value, not what has votes in a conference.
Understood? Good.
Proper classification is essential in science, as all things classed the same should behave the same at that level.
It's pointless to have models, classification or even science if groupings are arbitrary and models aren't predictive.
I saw research being described. A metastudy is considered research.
We can require everyone to use formal methods, but don't expect any updates to OpenSSL/LibreSSL this decade.
It would cost $2.4 billion to reduce the bug density in the Linux kernel to 0.00045 or less and keep it there for a year.
Current status: https://scan.coverity.com/proj...
That's very nearly bug-free. It would actually be 100% bug-free in all components that don't require features that are inherently unreliable. The government could afford it, most corporations could not.
I would actually like that for Linux, have a huge program to perform a proper detailed clean-up of the entire kernel. No loss of functionality, just a loss of bugs. It's used in many important areas and no system can be more reliable than the OS it uses.
But you can't ask people to design KDE that way (although they could design it better), nor could you ask a commercial vendor like Oracle to get their database to that standard. Only a government has the money needed and even then only for a few projects.
When it comes to encryption, it's worse. We don't know what constitutes good, we only know some things that constitute bad. Same for authentication. Ergo, we can define minimum standards by defining what is bad, but we can't define anything better.
Open source doesn't help, since nobody does test driven development and almost nobody tests. Documentation is dreadful. Want to show otherwise? Sure, go ahead. Reply to this with a file in CPNTools format that shows the full state machine for the IPv6 stack. That should be easy, you have RFCs showing the datagrams and state changes.
Such a diagram can be drawn, but not by anyone here in any sane length of time. That's full-time work for a large team of high-end experts.
I'll assume these are serious questions.
No, you have not been told the sun isn't the cause. What you have been told is that variation in solar output is not the cause.
CO2 is like a blanket, but blankets do nothing without a source of heat. You need a source of heat before CO2 can trap it. That source is the sun.
Mars has a very thin atmosphere. As a result, it's not going to trap anything. It's the density that matters, not the percentage. Think of silver foil. It's reflective. If you cover the floor of a room and shine light on it, it'll reflect a lot of that light even if the floor is only 0.04% of the room. That's Earth's global warming.
Earth has a very thick atmosphere, almost syrupy. A typical cloud weighs 1.1 million pounds, so to be buoyant, it must displace 1.1 million pounds of air. That's a lot. And yet a cloud is small.
Mars' atmosphere is whispy thin. That same cloud on Mars would crash into the ground and form a crater before being blasted into space by solar winds.
To go back to the room analogy, it's like instead of having a proper room, all you've got is a handful of threads. Yes, they're 95% wrapped in silver foil but you've still only got a handful. It's not going to reflect much of anything.