There are ongoing trade wars all the time. Whenever you hear about two countries signing a "trade and mutual support agreement", you know another trade war has been ended.
You find a nice writeup about the Cosmic Silence and possible reasons for that in Stanislaw Lem's essay "Summa technologiae", published in 1966. Apparently, not much has changed in the last half a century.
I know about everyone who complains about people with particular interests, that they would constantly speak about their particular interests, because those complainers never stop complaining about people with particular interests being so verbose about their particular interests.
The problem with your statement is that it is purely confirmation bias.
You only know about people owning an Amiga if they tell you about it. You only know about people not owning a TV if they tell you about it etc.pp.
Thus you falsely conclude that Amiga owners always tell you about owning an Amiga, because the only Amiga owners you know are those who told you about it.
The main problem is that in the 1960ies and 1970ies, Global Cooling was a threat. With so much dust and dirt in the air, it was quite possible that the dust shield would reflect much of the sunrays back into space and thus trigger a global cooling.
Yes, we got the problem with the dust tackled. And the threat of a Global Cooling has diminished. And yes, climate scientist were right then.
If the goal is go get to the interstellar space, we are there already. If the goal is to get to the ocean, you are there, if you can dip your foot into the ocean water.
I think we already send out interstellar probes. Voyager 1 is in interstellar space since August 2012. You are five years late to warn, that we were still not in that phase. Apparently, we ignored your warnings 40 years ago.
Going back to Paracelsus and his doctrine ("All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy."), we find out, that "lethal plant" is not a good qualifier. To the contrary: Anything that's not lethal to us in a certain dose does not have any effect on us. Otherwise we could increase the effect by increasing the dose until it is lethal.
Thus we can conclude: Anything that (in a certain dose) has a lethal effect on us, might have another, maybe beneficial effect on us if dosed right. So all we need is the proof that a plant has an effect on us. And how will you do that without having a human (or a model organism like bacteria or guinea pigs instead of a human) nearby to test for the effect?
But what you describe, is a gravitational effect. If we mistrust our understanding of Gravity, another gravitational effect won't be enough to restore trust. Yes, it's quite complicated to invent a modification of General Relativity that causes the same effect without referring to Dark Matter, but still, it's just another part of the evidence for Dark Matter, but not one independently to verify without resorting to Gravity.
That's why I called the rotational problem evidence, and not proof of Dark Matter. The most glaring evidence against Dark Matter is that we haven't any hints at their existence except for gravitational effects. Yes, Dark Matter could be nothing but a problem with our understanding of Gravitation.
Actually, you don't get rid of Dark Matter when you eliminate Dark Energy.
There is evidence for more matter than visible in the galaxies, which is completely independent of Dark Energy. The most prominent evidence is the rotational characteristics of the outer parts of a galaxy. The stars there are circling the center of the galaxy much faster than expected from a Keplerian point of view. Instead of falling with r^2/3, as Kepler's Third law of motion predicts, the speed of stars remains roughly constant if you get to the outer parts of the galaxy. This means that the mass of the galaxy inside the respective orbits of the stars has to grow much faster than the mass from the additional stars within outer orbits.
(Be careful not to confuse the speed of stars on their orbit with their angular speed! A star twice the distance from the center of a galaxy needs twice the time to complete a circle than a star closer to the center. Thus the angular speed halves, but the linear speed on the orbit keeps the same. With Kepler's Third law, we would expect the time to complete an circle for the outer star to be 2*sqrt(2) of the time the inner star needs.)
The problem ist, that in the U.S., there is no mandatory ID everyone has. If you in turn make it complicated and expensive to get an ID or use something as ID that not everyone has per default, you have effectively put a fee on voting, which means that more afluent people are more likely to vote than those less well off. Afluent people for instance are more likely to have a driver's license, because they need it anyway. For someone who don't have the money to spend on a car, paying for a driver's license just to vote is similar to a voting fee.
There once was a saying: Who is not a socialist at 18 is no human. Who is not a conservative at 40 is a fool.
It's not the colleges as institutions that are leftist and anarchic. It's the people being 18 years old. If we create completely different types of youth educational institutions they will come up as leftist and anarchic too, because the people attending them are.
It's the old adage: Parents don't understand how their children are at the age of 18 can be so full of anarchic and socialist ideas, because they are now in their 40ies and 50ies and have a quite conservative worldview. And they totally forget how they were at the age of 18 themselves. We hear the constant "oh the Youth". And the parents are quick to blame the colleges for that, because those are the first places the children go without constant parental supervising. Of course it's the colleges' fault that people of young age act like people of young age and people of old age forget how they were when they were at young age.
The problem is that the rules itself are dynamic, and that their weighs change all the time with today's AI. The AI itself adds new rules when it learns. Do you know why the cutoff for a variable is for instance at.35672325 and not at.35672330? And what happens if you artificially set it to.35672330, how does it influence other variables? And why a second AI trained on the same data set has that variable set to.40767985, just because some of the data were fed in a different sequence?
Lets say a decision takes about 0.1 seconds on a 12 core 24 thread 3.6 GHz processor.
That means that we have to single step through 864.000.000 instructions to understand how the computer reaches its decision. If each step takes about 1 second to investigate, this task will take just 10.000 days or 27 years to complete.
For now, it means that end-to-end-encryption will be more common. If you use the chat app only as a means for encrypted input and output, you could have a second app on both ends that does the cryptographic work for you by sending your text encrypted and scraping the answer from the output screen and decrypt it. Then the messenger app firm will not be able to decrypt what you are sending, as they are just providing the dumb pipe your communication flows through.
We had similar encrypted channels already in IRC, where some clients provided facilities to encrypt a query with a shared key on both ends.
Currently, with the centralized messenger services running through the infrastructure of big companies, there is a big attack vector on the privacy of communication: Go directly to the provider of the infrastructure. If the encryption runs totally on the client side piggy-backing on the "official" infrastructure, a big single point of failure is removed, although it is still easy to determine when and with whom you communicate.
Apparently, it doesn't work as you think. Black people are much more likely to be stopped for frisk and frill than white people, but the portion of whites who then were found to have drugs with them is higher than the portion of blacks.
There are anekdotes like the pair of men driving long distances in the car, one white and one black. As long as the white was driving, they never got stopped. But if the black one was behind the wheel, they got stopped all the time.
The problem in this particular case was something completely different. The program was weighing socio-economic factors like schooling, relation to parents and siblings, financial troubles, all those things that can predict recidivism. And if you had too many of them counting against you, it predicted you as a future criminal. The problem was that many white criminals come from a quite sound background, and most of the factors used to predict the future criminal career were ok with them (good schools, healthy relationships etc.pp.), giving them a good score, better than reality. They were twice as likely than predicted to become repeat offenders. On the other hand, blacks often have many factors counting against them, and thus the program gave them a quite low score, lower than reality. In fact, they were only half as likely to become repeat offenders than predicted by the program.
It was determined, that the program gave too much weight to the sheer number of factors counting against the person instead looking how bad some of the factors were. It would rather give a white guy with repeated offenses against other's sexuality a good score (because for him, only one factor looked bad, all others were ok, like steady income, no drug use etc.pp.) than a black charged with theft, because he might have been a homeless school dropout, with no known siblings or caring parents.
Europeans have different norms for trucks. Most important, the total length of the whole unit including trailer is limited (in most countries to 62 ft or 18.75 m). The conventional U.S. truck with the driver seated behind the engine is a waste of space for European truck operators. Thus, European trucks have mostly a flatnose cab and a quite limited sleeping compartement. This design in turn doesn't make sense in the U.S. where only the total weight of the truck is limited. Thus you won't find many U.S. trucks in Europe, and European trucks in the U.S..
Despite that, the big truck companies are operating on both continents. Mack Trucks for instance is owned by European Volvo, while the European DAF is owned by U.S. based Paccar.
It's not the "best" per se, as "the best" is defined by the current circumstances. Whatever works now good enough to survive, will survive now. If that's enough to survive tomorrow too, then it has a chance to survive tomorrow too.
Survival in ecological terms is mainly about chance. Your personal traits influence the chances, but they don't warrant anything. And traits that are advantageous in one situation might reduce your chances in other situations. Being flashy might help you find a mate, but it doesn't help you if you have to hide.
I like the subplot of the people of Golgafrincham in The Hitchhiker's Guide as an example. From a Darwinist point of view, the phone desinfectors, key accountants, interior designers and all the other seemingly useless people who were banned from Golgafrincham and sent away with the second space ship were the ones being well adapted. Despite their dozens of victims of the circumstances, the group as a whole managed to get hold on Earth and found a new civilization. The Golgafrincham elite and the Golgafrincham work drones, who died because they got infected by a phone, weren't.
Slashdot Mirror
There are ongoing trade wars all the time. Whenever you hear about two countries signing a "trade and mutual support agreement", you know another trade war has been ended.
You find a nice writeup about the Cosmic Silence and possible reasons for that in Stanislaw Lem's essay "Summa technologiae", published in 1966. Apparently, not much has changed in the last half a century.
I know about everyone who complains about people with particular interests, that they would constantly speak about their particular interests, because those complainers never stop complaining about people with particular interests being so verbose about their particular interests.
You only know about people owning an Amiga if they tell you about it. You only know about people not owning a TV if they tell you about it etc.pp.
Thus you falsely conclude that Amiga owners always tell you about owning an Amiga, because the only Amiga owners you know are those who told you about it.
Yes, we got the problem with the dust tackled. And the threat of a Global Cooling has diminished. And yes, climate scientist were right then.
As the psychologist Alfred Adler once said: "It is always easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them."
If the goal is go get to the interstellar space, we are there already. If the goal is to get to the ocean, you are there, if you can dip your foot into the ocean water.
I think we already send out interstellar probes. Voyager 1 is in interstellar space since August 2012. You are five years late to warn, that we were still not in that phase. Apparently, we ignored your warnings 40 years ago.
Thus we can conclude: Anything that (in a certain dose) has a lethal effect on us, might have another, maybe beneficial effect on us if dosed right. So all we need is the proof that a plant has an effect on us. And how will you do that without having a human (or a model organism like bacteria or guinea pigs instead of a human) nearby to test for the effect?
But what you describe, is a gravitational effect. If we mistrust our understanding of Gravity, another gravitational effect won't be enough to restore trust. Yes, it's quite complicated to invent a modification of General Relativity that causes the same effect without referring to Dark Matter, but still, it's just another part of the evidence for Dark Matter, but not one independently to verify without resorting to Gravity.
That's why I called the rotational problem evidence, and not proof of Dark Matter. The most glaring evidence against Dark Matter is that we haven't any hints at their existence except for gravitational effects. Yes, Dark Matter could be nothing but a problem with our understanding of Gravitation.
There is evidence for more matter than visible in the galaxies, which is completely independent of Dark Energy. The most prominent evidence is the rotational characteristics of the outer parts of a galaxy. The stars there are circling the center of the galaxy much faster than expected from a Keplerian point of view. Instead of falling with r^2/3, as Kepler's Third law of motion predicts, the speed of stars remains roughly constant if you get to the outer parts of the galaxy. This means that the mass of the galaxy inside the respective orbits of the stars has to grow much faster than the mass from the additional stars within outer orbits.
(Be careful not to confuse the speed of stars on their orbit with their angular speed! A star twice the distance from the center of a galaxy needs twice the time to complete a circle than a star closer to the center. Thus the angular speed halves, but the linear speed on the orbit keeps the same. With Kepler's Third law, we would expect the time to complete an circle for the outer star to be 2*sqrt(2) of the time the inner star needs.)
The problem ist, that in the U.S., there is no mandatory ID everyone has. If you in turn make it complicated and expensive to get an ID or use something as ID that not everyone has per default, you have effectively put a fee on voting, which means that more afluent people are more likely to vote than those less well off. Afluent people for instance are more likely to have a driver's license, because they need it anyway. For someone who don't have the money to spend on a car, paying for a driver's license just to vote is similar to a voting fee.
The manager who authorized that embarrassment was the owner of the shop himself. So he has to fire himself.
Who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Who is not a conservative at age 40 has no brain.
It's not the colleges as institutions that are leftist and anarchic. It's the people being 18 years old. If we create completely different types of youth educational institutions they will come up as leftist and anarchic too, because the people attending them are.
It's the old adage: Parents don't understand how their children are at the age of 18 can be so full of anarchic and socialist ideas, because they are now in their 40ies and 50ies and have a quite conservative worldview. And they totally forget how they were at the age of 18 themselves. We hear the constant "oh the Youth". And the parents are quick to blame the colleges for that, because those are the first places the children go without constant parental supervising. Of course it's the colleges' fault that people of young age act like people of young age and people of old age forget how they were when they were at young age.
The problem is that the rules itself are dynamic, and that their weighs change all the time with today's AI. The AI itself adds new rules when it learns. Do you know why the cutoff for a variable is for instance at .35672325 and not at .35672330? And what happens if you artificially set it to .35672330, how does it influence other variables? And why a second AI trained on the same data set has that variable set to .40767985, just because some of the data were fed in a different sequence?
Indians are Asians, last time I checked.
That means that we have to single step through 864.000.000 instructions to understand how the computer reaches its decision. If each step takes about 1 second to investigate, this task will take just 10.000 days or 27 years to complete.
Have fun!
Ever used a debugger on hundreds of parallel threads spread over several processors?
We had similar encrypted channels already in IRC, where some clients provided facilities to encrypt a query with a shared key on both ends.
Currently, with the centralized messenger services running through the infrastructure of big companies, there is a big attack vector on the privacy of communication: Go directly to the provider of the infrastructure. If the encryption runs totally on the client side piggy-backing on the "official" infrastructure, a big single point of failure is removed, although it is still easy to determine when and with whom you communicate.
There are anekdotes like the pair of men driving long distances in the car, one white and one black. As long as the white was driving, they never got stopped. But if the black one was behind the wheel, they got stopped all the time.
It was determined, that the program gave too much weight to the sheer number of factors counting against the person instead looking how bad some of the factors were. It would rather give a white guy with repeated offenses against other's sexuality a good score (because for him, only one factor looked bad, all others were ok, like steady income, no drug use etc.pp.) than a black charged with theft, because he might have been a homeless school dropout, with no known siblings or caring parents.
Despite that, the big truck companies are operating on both continents. Mack Trucks for instance is owned by European Volvo, while the European DAF is owned by U.S. based Paccar.
Survival in ecological terms is mainly about chance. Your personal traits influence the chances, but they don't warrant anything. And traits that are advantageous in one situation might reduce your chances in other situations. Being flashy might help you find a mate, but it doesn't help you if you have to hide.
I like the subplot of the people of Golgafrincham in The Hitchhiker's Guide as an example. From a Darwinist point of view, the phone desinfectors, key accountants, interior designers and all the other seemingly useless people who were banned from Golgafrincham and sent away with the second space ship were the ones being well adapted. Despite their dozens of victims of the circumstances, the group as a whole managed to get hold on Earth and found a new civilization. The Golgafrincham elite and the Golgafrincham work drones, who died because they got infected by a phone, weren't.