Now there is a lot of interesting things here, for academia and research. But for long term real world usage you will eventually erode the soil, since there isn't a really really big ecosystem supporting it. So then you break the cycle to get more fertile soil. What is useful information will be how soil behaves in a closed system, and what data you can gather that will end up having useful real world applications.
But there is also another use for this: A lot of food is tasteless when you accelerate its growth and then harvest it too early. Lets say herbs like Dill or Ruccola. Part of the reason why its tasteless is that there is a mismatch between the processes that happens, the day/night cycle plants experience, and how the nutrients are used. This can be said for all monoculture or industrial agriculture. Or even livestock production.
There is a bigger horror here: What if Big Brother decides that its okay, and start tracking down people sending cocaine paste packages? I can see forced verification of return address to ship becoming common if somebody bothered.
Generally the most interesting thing about enforcement is that it works so long its actually consistent and upheld. And what isn't enforced won't be enforced and will go nowhere.
My experience with 3G as a internet source says that once you get 10% packet loss, you can't go anywhere near the capacity the line has to offer. With 3G, once you connect you now have a minimum 10% packet loss, 100 ping, and a very unstable download line. This is with both a router with dedicated antennas and cellphone as modem. I've also experienced radio internet, where you have receives like the kind used for satellites pointing at a nearby radio tower. Which doesn't really come with any limitations except for extreme rain, where it do dent the speed cap. Copper wire seem to have no impact on caps, and you get exactly what you benchmark unless the connection is overloaded somewhere down the spine towards the backbone. So if you have a 80/10 copper line, and you get 40/5, then its generally impossible to get 80/10.
The general gist of it, is that 'up to' is only meaningful if you benchmark it, and find out the line is incapable of delivering that in any conditions. With stronger contract law on consumer side ISP can't weasel their way out of reduced peak capacity either.
It is a type of science. But it doesn't accommodate for glycolysis vs ketosis balance, fasting vs small meals, calorie demand due physical activity vs diet size. And all of these are not checked against diet, properly. The reason it doesn't accommodate for these things is that very few students will be capable of affording long term restricted diets and physical workouts for test subjects. So you can take food, distill it, and make a few papers on the nutrients, and identify the work of the nutrients. But unless you are a big corporation, the army or a medical facility you won't be able to get large sample sizes over long periods of time.
As its understood, 'traditional diet' is better, and so is working out. But what this means for things like liver consumption and food intake vs nutrient absorption isn't very well researched. And it will likely stay that way for a long time, because well peered studies will dominate the field until somebody do the legwork to debunk the search data in relationship to other realworld conditions.
Okay so >China buys trash for cheap >Marked costs are now artificially high inside of USA >China stops buying trash >Marked almost collapses Is this even a recycle issue?
I think this is the right sentiment. Ever since 1958(Sputnik 1) there has been plans, contingencies and attempts at readying for space warfare. So far, because orbit is orbit: Generally attacking the ground from space isn't feasible. Everything that enters orbit is costy, and re entering means a lot of missiles won't really do anything. So as it has to come, that means Space warfare as envision is going to be vs other satellites to establish control over space. Space warfare is by itself a plan on how to deny the enemy satellites during a global war, since pre and post satellite navigation is currently a given in civilian life.
So the current day fact is that preparations for space warfare has been undergoing since 1958, for 60 years, but the logistics involved means that it also needs to be accompanied by global warfare for the actual spark to trigger. The theory behind it seem to hinge on a lot of the same issues as the Cold War and MAD: Once the spark has ignited, you need to consider all material to be a net economic loss. With no guarantee that you can win the warfare, or the costs of destroyed infrastructure to be worth fighting said war. You might be thinking along the lines 'But satellites are in space? Surely thats not the loss of humans lives, so we are free to proceed?' But that isn't true. One of the fears from satellite space warfare is that once you have gone a round, the debris and scrap parts from disabled equipment will accumulate in such a manner that launching new satellites or crews will be cumbersome or impossible. So the winner might have intact GLONASS, Baidou or GPS, but can't replace them once their lifespan expires. So a decade later there is no satellites up there for space exploration, no Satellite phone, no GPS, no space research, no spy satellites, no updates to Google Earth, etc.
So the economic loss of space warfare is so enormous that its a deterrent. We simply don't know how bad it is until it happens, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't really put it back in.
I don't really agree. At the moment all these 'AI' are not AI. They are computer code running a comparison between a set of data and whatever is the realworld application of that data. So in the field, 'large advances' are when you figure out how to feed it a new type of data, and use it for a new type of task. Now Google has been doing this to satelite data for a few decades, to create realworld map data for consumption. But a newer development is that somebody figured out how to feed a comparison program with different resolutions of images, and then cobbled together image editing tools and upscaling algorythms so it could make A become B, and then apply that process. Which means the process involves a lot of bruteforce computing and comparisons. This recent example is waifu2x, which currently has a github page. And its been forked a few times, since waifu2x has a database and upscaling set intended for manga pages in different sizes. Now, it has been forked since then, into things like ERSGAN or AI Gigapixel, which do the same thing, but with slight alterations to the base image training set, and alterations to the tools uses to achieve the process
But this is still basically a CRC machine, except the sensors can tell what size its working on. Interesting? But not really a AI per say, because so far its not even been capable of processing information into new information. Its basically looking at apples and oranges, and then using the datset of difference to give meaningful data if you input a durian but not b banana.
Thats true to some extent. But the reality of the matter is that you need to argue for what is wrong with the usage of agriculture when you are importing human edible food to be used as livestock food, when the entire animal is most likely not going to be served as human food. Or go for breeds that isn't good at diary. For lamb its even weirder, since they are a livestock species that thrives on harsh terrain, which generally is not competes for. And suddenly you are importing human edible food to food those too. And they still give out milk and wool.
The entire debate is one gigantic land mine, because different lobbies with different agenda's are not capable of realize parts of their narrative is cancerous to society at large. Land usage, grassing, forest/shrub growth is never a topic, meaning there is never a clear cut angle to even pick a side.
Regularly use a 2001 Opel to travel half of Norway for vacation. End result is something like 900km/50 liter gasoline. Diesel would have more range. More modern cars would have more range as well. A mere 500 kilometers range sounds rather pathetic for a full fuel tank.
It wouldn't surprise me if the case has some merits, but only legal merits. Appletax via their system is unavoidable, but in app billing is a large legal grey area unless properly defined and fought for in court.
But i RTFA as they said: Beyond that, what annoys me is that unless Ek is incapable of writing concrete examples. 'Blocks communication' and ' blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades' isn't anything defined. So this isn't a strong opening for a blog post, its essentially whining via essay.
Dark isn't the same as gritty friend. I Agree they turned down Junkyards residents sociopathic tendencies by several miles, which is a shame when its some really good and meaningful windowdressing. There is nothing quite like a pristine scrap pile of half cobbled technology being filled with people, and you turn to the next page and a random collapsing bystander is now horribly mutilated by roaming cyborg surgeons. I also agree the theme isn't that intact. What i think i enjoyed was that it was a Hollywood movie without all the terrible parts: Gally's selv development is a focus, action scenes isn't just choreography thrown into a camera blender with cuts, and there is some good ramping escalation, and the script isn't butchered randomly. The Kung Fu is good, and so is the entire 'fight to the death' angle that Hollywood generally completely chickens out on
As for Hollywood's encoded language? Its annoying. Generally its the worst part of Hollywood movies. Characters turns into stilted pieces of wood that isn't capable of any emotional range because their vocabulary is limited like a edgy toddler. You go from people having no knowledge of events, to talking about that information they don't have like its some kind of laughable injoke.
So basically I think i agree with the sentiment GUNM didn't get butchered, but it didn't keep the beautiful shape that made it so endearing to read It simply isn't as edgy, but yet also less endearing.
I feel this isn't cynical enough. In RL space you tend to go for the best and brightest for things like architecture, and then the cheapest lowest mandatory standard for actually building the buildings. Occasionally people want to build things that are slightly larger or safer, which leads to buildings that end up standing against the wear of time far better compared to its peers. Building codes vary between nations and states, leading to standards being capable of being evaluated for what they are. So in RL space, some more cynical nations like Japan decides its not worth the hassle to shutdown the local economy if earthquakes/tsunami and other natural disasters arrives. While poorer nations like Haiti or Caribbean nations have not had the economy of scale to do the same. High end industrial facilities might think about this, because stops in production tends to be rather costly, especially if it involves waiting for supplies used in active rebuilding efforts.
For Software, to some degree this is true. Without a good spec the end product isn't that useful. Without good security in network operations, you end up leaking passwords and usernames in.txt files For Software i think there is legacy of renown. Think of Photoshop, Mac for audio/video editing, MS Word/Excel, Google and Email, and other such things. There is plenty of crap internal software, but it generally has limited reach because its tied to hardware platforms that might not expand sales because the software component is bad. For Video games this is somewhat true as well. Good developer teams are more capable of writing a good spec and making the necessary assumptions to create good software and games, and creating good audiovisual feedback that balances on the right side of polish or jank. And Nintendo is a big higher in this chain of values: Since they produce and manufacture the hardware component of the video games, they also have to deal with renown. Quality of devkits for development, number of product sales into demographics for actually selling games, etc. The reality is that most games end up with average sales estimates because every new or rare IP has limited marked potential, because it might not be marketed well. So if a game series or brand has each new IP and successive iteration has quality, this creates a marketing feedback loop which doesn't exist for other parts of the marked.
So Nintendo can't just give out its franchises to mediocre developers, because mediocre developers won't make software that ends up keeping the brand quality. Mediocre developers needs to be trained, so they can become great developers, who will not end up bottle necking quality control. And because Nintendo is running their platform, they need that quality control of internal production because it boosts sales across the entire platform. Its a very different philosophy than a lot of the video game marked because Nintendo still develops and sells a lot of products, and do a lot of marked research.
Then why post as AC? And write one line? It bothers me a lot Because you don't contribute now, you are just sniding without producing effect or visibility.
Historically(if Wikipedia is to be believed) HIV started out being studied in USA the 80s because patents where showing signs of both Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia(rare) and skin cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma(also rare). Each escalation of the study went from one thing to another, where the abbreviation even changed from GRID(Gay Related Immune Decency) to 4H(homosexuals, heroin users, hemophiliacs, and Haitians.) to AIDS once the cause and effect was studied enough to study the 'healthy population'.
I think hubris is the right word when talking about the topic. HIV is a RNA virus where the body do not develop immunity after exposure, unlike Influenza. Because the body do not develop immunity, this leads to long term complications, where medication is taken to reduce progress from infected to dying of immune system defects(AIDS). Because the body do not develop immunity, vaccines has to target the infection vector of HIV (a unique protein). So it targets the infection vector, but not granting immunity to the actual disease(again: Unlike Influenza). Which leads to the question: How do you treat a disease the body is not curing? The current answer is "Can't really cure it, prevent escalation and treat it like a chronic disease".
But Netflix is generally cheap and low quality. But unlike the traditional TV medium its not constrained by cancer such as force commercial breaks in the script structure, and has to be made in a manner where its possible to keep on watching What makes Netflix good for TV is that instead of a plot point before and after each commercial break, you get shows where this is uneven. Episodes can conclude without anything even happening, or the episodes can be filled with content. TV is also filled with horrors such as uneven funding, 'artistic visions' leading to nobody wanting to admit only one season is fine, and a lot more. You often have a 'pilot episode' thats poor TV just to get critical panning, so the show is allowed its 13/20 episodes for that season. Once you cross the pond you also get to see a few weird variants: State funded broadcast channels have completely different standards and issues compared to HBO or US daytime television. You even get things like Skam which is exported to most of Europa, because it somehow manages to hit all the boxes in what the youth demographic wants. While BBC produce things like Blackadder or a myriad of known exported single season TV series.
The essential problem of TV is not just that its cheap, but all the other issues making TV shows on TV beholden to a extremely low quality. On top of genres like soap operas, which has existed to capture a niche that demands quantity instead of quality. And that's ignoring issues like script stretching, which is one of the core reasons movies tend to have far more content compared to its runtime. Or budget per second of runtime.
It sorta is, but it scales with operation. So in construction you have a lot of disposeable items that can be single use, for safety. Nitril and work gloves are good examples, because a small team can quickly spend 100-200 gloves per month if the work demands it. It quickly turns into the same economic scale as pencils: Extremely disposable. Copy paper is also on the same scale, because even a small 4-5 man team can effortlessy use 2000-3000 pages a month at a small operation. At a larger operation it becomes even cheaper, and the use increases. The issue is similar on staplers and a lot of cheaper office devices. Nothing is generally stopping you from buying them in significant bulk.
Other cases is surplus or waste. I.e surplus shapes of metal, frames, wood, and a lot of other material. Material that is somewhat expensive, but generally can't be used effectively once cut or shaped. The leftovers is a common good in such enterprises, which can be used for a lot of really cool things. Another example is replacement of inventory at set intervals. Chairs and tables is either worn apart or in almost mind condition.
When it gets iffy is when you start go get to more expensive items. Lacquer is such a thing, especially once you go for mid end or premium lacquer. Metal rust treatment. High end chemicals. At this point a good might be to allow people to borrow some of the sturdier work devices or measurement devices. But it will get really iffy at some point.
From my standpoint its a classical case of "Nothing new to see here, now move along" Huawei is a global chinese state corporation engaging in global trade for telecommunication, like ZTE. USA as a global superpower want its trading partners to engage global trade in a way that find beneficial.
By itself, this case is similar to USA vs Megaupload's founder. Or the alleged USA vs Assange And a lot of cases. So in this case, the Casus belli given is Huawei engaging in trade with Iran, where somebody found out that it must violant some US patents and IP due the way global telecommunication equipment works and are designed So unlike Assange or Kim Dotcom, the political motivation is a bit more concrete. Even if its basically the same thing, but focused on IP law in global trade for use of RL equipment, and the manufacture and infrastructure surrounding those.
The motivation for finding a Casus belli is in this America's shaky relationship with China, for a lot of reasons. And if law's really where enforced, this would have happened sooner with far more people.
Somebody will reply to this point out that Casus belli is regarding to warfare and engaging in war. I agree, but this is exactly how the term is used, and what it should apply this. This is essentially proxy warfare between USA and China, focused on laws and trade.
'In this study, the scientists made nanoparticles that can anchor tightly to photoreceptor cells and act as tiny infrared light transducers. When infrared light hits the retina, the nanoparticles capture the longer infrared wavelengths and emit shorter wavelengths within the visible light range. ' This is basically a converter. It won't increase perception, but instead flood existing perception with more information. Meaning its limited. The main engineering achievement is the converting process, but without a mention or durability or power source its not exactly a great article. Maybe RTFA would yield more, but i doubt it.
"Ride at your own risk" means that if you start doing stupid things, then swerve uncontrollably, and hit something(i.e a fence and fly over it), its at your own risk. However if you are riding in traffic, and behaving as expected in traffic? Its one thing that vehicles in traffic are expected to yield to ANY perceived obstacle. Which means distance and braking. So you are expected to be awake, and don't hit anything. And thats reasonable. But what happens once you are in traffic, in a device that is self or user balanced on 2 wheels, and it stops in a fashion where the user is flung across the asphalt or sidewalk? Its one thing if thats a device quirk. In bicycles you often have front brakes that is capable of doing this, when used incorrectly. And its a fun learning experience for youngsters. And thats to some degree within riding at your own risk. For training people for using heavier machines such as ton range excavators it gets a bit more complex, since the hazards are far less obvious and dangerous.
But what happens when you are in traffic, passively following all the rules, and the device throws you off due a software error? This is interesting because hardware error often means that you lose a function, where software errors lead to redundancies being activated. In a hardware error on a bicycle you might lose a gear wire, a brake, the mechanism that connects the rear wheel to the gear might have worn ball bearings and lose friction to keep on going, and many other exciting errors. And then you need to fix the part thats worn or destroyed to regain function. On software it gets more interesting. There might be no damage or worn parts, and everything is okay. But the routines to read that data might not be robust enough to handle realworld input, so it throws a error. You might have seen this with a lot of measurement equipment, where the message barely flickers on screen before producing more values again. But measure equipment doesn't halt, but might indicate it wants to recalibrate. So what about a electric kick bike, which is named for scooters? It gets a value or data it doesn't like, and then it needs to do a safe action until it can be sure its working or receive input it can handle. One option is to ignore the error, and operate as normal. Another is to cut assistance until its working again, or reduce power output. But because this is a user balanced vehicle: If slam on the breaks a unexpected user will experience hazard.
At which point this isn't about my own risk. But about the risk exposed to me by poor software decisions. Another post in this thread mentioned Safety_integrity_level(SIL), which go far beyond that since its applied to hardcore industrial design. Where moving parts, hydraulics, air pressure, cooling, production halts, continuous feeding of material, and many other parts interplay in what could lead to some extreme dangers and malfunctions. What happens when a PLS system receives a error? Well, it must be able to handle the error without damaging the user, production, equipment, material or system.
The purpose of the patents really doesn't matter. What matters is the purpose DECADES AFTERWARDS, where the cumulative IP pool is general public prosperity. But thats a derail. This is a case where you have corporations creating large collective patent agreements, patent pools, a lot of deals, and where Qualcomm has managed to essentially corner the marked. Because the patent pool is as large as it is, the general assumption is that if you are going to make a 4G cellular chip you are going to want to get a general patent agreement. And a lot of vendors do not make their own products, rather their cobble together parts from other manufacturers to make new products. So what has happened is that Apple looked at the patent pool, looked at what they could cobble together, and went for it. Legal fiction and history will prove if their legalese gaze was sharp enough to not give Qualcomm license money for the design.
I would argue this is a interesting case, because Qualcomm has to prove that their hardware implementation is similar to what their patent pool holds. And then prove how Apple can't avoid running into that.
Almost a decade ago BFS(Brain Fuck Scheduler) entered the fray with some exciting results. The most noticeable difference was the increased gains in latency, but not performance. Phoronix even did some benchmarks where they missed the point(2011), and measured throughput as a performance gauge(missing the point). In current day you would ideally use MuQSS or BFS, to reduce latency. Or a realtime kernel from a distribution, which has the option. Liquorix also seem to be a preconfigured option.
Using google to search for fantasy books you have read as a child is amusing. 1/2 of the stuff it manages to bring up to the search result is 'you must read 10 best books' with no relevance to the keywords. The rest is randomly high ranked search results. What is hillarious that it also generates links to forums that is inactive, where peopled did collective mindwork to do the same thing.
Some keywords like 'rat' or 'mouse' also draws in extremely weird search results that has nothing to do with the query.
The intellectual dishonest presented is staggering. Foremost one of the big issues with discussing taxes with American's is that you get it segmented into Federal and State level, where very few people will be honest enough to elaborate. So as a person, you might see benefits from Federal and State level. Some states end up being worth living in, and other people flee to Canada for more taxes and more benefits.
And if a corporation is only operating in its home state, then its only using the infrastructure in its local state to do economic enterprises. Or is it? Because without a cross continental railroad the entire mid north of USA would not be settled in any meaningful degree. East and west coast economics as they exist today would not exist without the Panama canal. If we assume this argument is correct, the next question is far draftier: If the infrastructure is what allows corporations to make money and engage in economic activities, what happens when said corporation do not engage in maintenance or expansion of said infrastructure? Well, assuming the taxes would have been spent on maintenance or expansion? The corporations are doing long term harm to themselves by not paying taxes, as well as to the rest of society.
But the reason this is a complex and tricky topic is how US tax money is spent. A huge amount is tied up in tangible benefits of military R&D, fatting the partners of the green gun coats. Some is spent on bare minimum maintenance in case of war, some is spent as political horse trading. A good amount is tied up in running each state, for the sake of paperwork and whatever else. Some isn't spent on infrastructure maintenance, some is spent on privatization of enterprises to fatten somebodies purses. And a whole other lot of activities, touching every shade under the sun.
And if we assume these arguments to be true, what happens to corporations that have had good benefit from operating in multiple states? Or entirely across America? Thats a dishonest question, because its not really about the corporations: Its about how the everyman thinks of taxes, and how it impacts corporations. So if taxes go to things that isn't assumed to be beneficial, it lowers taxes reputation. And if issues are not explained properly by the media, the everyman can't understand what a reasonable use of taxes is. So at this point we can ask ourselves: Is not taxing long term harmful to the American way of Life? Obviously. But since the question is large, its extremely harmful to not pay tax to the state the corporation is operating in. Yet at federal level its perceived in a different way because the federal level is far more alien and removed than the state level.
But that isn't the question i wanted to ask or answer. What i wanted to elaborate on is something simple, again: What is trickle down economics? Trickle down economics is a very complex concept because we need to understand what the corporation is doing by not paying taxes: Mainly harming infrastructure, that might not have been maintained because state/federal government isn't particularly good at their job in that area. So once we understand what not taxing is doing, we can discuss what the benefits of trickle down economics are. Mainly that corporations end up with marginally more money, which could be reasonably well spent. However the realities of imperfect information and management is that once you have money, you need to find out what to spend it on. So when you have more money, you can't spend it until you know what to spend it on. And i find that to be the true terror of trickle down economics: The benefit will not happen until the corporation has adapted to the new tax scheme, which might get lost in investment of houses instead of economically beneficial activities some time after. So the corporation has gained no infrastructure, gotten more money, but can't spend said money because they need to figure out what to do with the spare cash. Which then turns into a problem: Stock company is not
So when Gally opens her eyes you can react with 'Am i kawaii uguu?' like its out of some kind of terrible moe anime with overblown eyes and petite bodies. It still looks very very fake. But as you go in and watch, you get to see it in motion which fixes 90% of the issues within seconds. And the movies goes all in with motion, escalating it in a visually pleasing way. From walking, eating, running, acrobatics, martial arts to gymnastic to Motorball. And each escalation works to let the audience forget the uncanney valley, and just admire the fluid motion.
I disagree. Unlike something terrible like Ghost in Shell or Dragonball? Alita doesn't do a 1:1 adaption if that is what you mean. So we skip over the magical girlfriend arc that Alita started around, various enemies got mashed together, Motorball arc was rushed ahead and radically altered. Dr Nova even shows up to have a dragging angle to stage a sequel, even if his location and job seem to be altered drastically. If movie 2 skips over the Wasteland revolution arc in favor of the Tiphereth madness i will also be sad. Mostly because we will miss out of cloning, bodyjacking and marriage sheenigans.
As for what is enjoyable? We got a movie where Motorball is the bloodsport it is, and so is Bounty Hunting. Alita's literal lust for blood also survived the adaption. And junkyard is the shithole its suppose to be. Its a great movie.
What i find most terrible about the adaption is that you get exposition being replaced by Hollywood language. Pacific Rim do suffer the same, but its far more blatant when you have read the orignal script and seen how its replaced. Pacific Rim also has a far simpler exposition, meaning easier to make it terrible and yet not too Hollywood. In Alita a lot of the exposition sounds like terrible injokes to make fun of the characters ignorance. The Fall is a good one, because by the time Alita is around they have gone trough at the least 3. Yet the Hollywood script sounds like they are poking fun at each other for ignorance. Father/daughter relationship didn't survive the language that well. There is also some questionable changes, like she being named Gally until she remembers her name is Alita. Which seem a straight error by using the Viz translation instead of the source material. Tiphereth vs Salem is another one, which is easier to be indifferent to.
Slashdot Mirror
Now there is a lot of interesting things here, for academia and research.
But for long term real world usage you will eventually erode the soil, since there isn't a really really big ecosystem supporting it. So then you break the cycle to get more fertile soil. What is useful information will be how soil behaves in a closed system, and what data you can gather that will end up having useful real world applications.
But there is also another use for this: A lot of food is tasteless when you accelerate its growth and then harvest it too early. Lets say herbs like Dill or Ruccola.
Part of the reason why its tasteless is that there is a mismatch between the processes that happens, the day/night cycle plants experience, and how the nutrients are used.
This can be said for all monoculture or industrial agriculture. Or even livestock production.
There is a bigger horror here:
What if Big Brother decides that its okay, and start tracking down people sending cocaine paste packages? I can see forced verification of return address to ship becoming common if somebody bothered.
Generally the most interesting thing about enforcement is that it works so long its actually consistent and upheld. And what isn't enforced won't be enforced and will go nowhere.
My experience with 3G as a internet source says that once you get 10% packet loss, you can't go anywhere near the capacity the line has to offer.
With 3G, once you connect you now have a minimum 10% packet loss, 100 ping, and a very unstable download line. This is with both a router with dedicated antennas and cellphone as modem.
I've also experienced radio internet, where you have receives like the kind used for satellites pointing at a nearby radio tower. Which doesn't really come with any limitations except for extreme rain, where it do dent the speed cap.
Copper wire seem to have no impact on caps, and you get exactly what you benchmark unless the connection is overloaded somewhere down the spine towards the backbone. So if you have a 80/10 copper line, and you get 40/5, then its generally impossible to get 80/10.
The general gist of it, is that 'up to' is only meaningful if you benchmark it, and find out the line is incapable of delivering that in any conditions. With stronger contract law on consumer side ISP can't weasel their way out of reduced peak capacity either.
It is a type of science.
But it doesn't accommodate for glycolysis vs ketosis balance, fasting vs small meals, calorie demand due physical activity vs diet size. And all of these are not checked against diet, properly.
The reason it doesn't accommodate for these things is that very few students will be capable of affording long term restricted diets and physical workouts for test subjects. So you can take food, distill it, and make a few papers on the nutrients, and identify the work of the nutrients. But unless you are a big corporation, the army or a medical facility you won't be able to get large sample sizes over long periods of time.
As its understood, 'traditional diet' is better, and so is working out. But what this means for things like liver consumption and food intake vs nutrient absorption isn't very well researched. And it will likely stay that way for a long time, because well peered studies will dominate the field until somebody do the legwork to debunk the search data in relationship to other realworld conditions.
Okay so
>China buys trash for cheap
>Marked costs are now artificially high inside of USA
>China stops buying trash
>Marked almost collapses
Is this even a recycle issue?
I think this is the right sentiment. Ever since 1958(Sputnik 1) there has been plans, contingencies and attempts at readying for space warfare.
So far, because orbit is orbit: Generally attacking the ground from space isn't feasible. Everything that enters orbit is costy, and re entering means a lot of missiles won't really do anything. So as it has to come, that means Space warfare as envision is going to be vs other satellites to establish control over space.
Space warfare is by itself a plan on how to deny the enemy satellites during a global war, since pre and post satellite navigation is currently a given in civilian life.
So the current day fact is that preparations for space warfare has been undergoing since 1958, for 60 years, but the logistics involved means that it also needs to be accompanied by global warfare for the actual spark to trigger.
The theory behind it seem to hinge on a lot of the same issues as the Cold War and MAD: Once the spark has ignited, you need to consider all material to be a net economic loss. With no guarantee that you can win the warfare, or the costs of destroyed infrastructure to be worth fighting said war.
You might be thinking along the lines 'But satellites are in space? Surely thats not the loss of humans lives, so we are free to proceed?'
But that isn't true. One of the fears from satellite space warfare is that once you have gone a round, the debris and scrap parts from disabled equipment will accumulate in such a manner that launching new satellites or crews will be cumbersome or impossible. So the winner might have intact GLONASS, Baidou or GPS, but can't replace them once their lifespan expires. So a decade later there is no satellites up there for space exploration, no Satellite phone, no GPS, no space research, no spy satellites, no updates to Google Earth, etc.
So the economic loss of space warfare is so enormous that its a deterrent.
We simply don't know how bad it is until it happens, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't really put it back in.
I don't really agree.
At the moment all these 'AI' are not AI. They are computer code running a comparison between a set of data and whatever is the realworld application of that data.
So in the field, 'large advances' are when you figure out how to feed it a new type of data, and use it for a new type of task. Now Google has been doing this to satelite data for a few decades, to create realworld map data for consumption. But a newer development is that somebody figured out how to feed a comparison program with different resolutions of images, and then cobbled together image editing tools and upscaling algorythms so it could make A become B, and then apply that process.
Which means the process involves a lot of bruteforce computing and comparisons.
This recent example is waifu2x, which currently has a github page. And its been forked a few times, since waifu2x has a database and upscaling set intended for manga pages in different sizes. Now, it has been forked since then, into things like ERSGAN or AI Gigapixel, which do the same thing, but with slight alterations to the base image training set, and alterations to the tools uses to achieve the process
But this is still basically a CRC machine, except the sensors can tell what size its working on.
Interesting? But not really a AI per say, because so far its not even been capable of processing information into new information. Its basically looking at apples and oranges, and then using the datset of difference to give meaningful data if you input a durian but not b banana.
Thats true to some extent.
But the reality of the matter is that you need to argue for what is wrong with the usage of agriculture when you are importing human edible food to be used as livestock food, when the entire animal is most likely not going to be served as human food. Or go for breeds that isn't good at diary.
For lamb its even weirder, since they are a livestock species that thrives on harsh terrain, which generally is not competes for. And suddenly you are importing human edible food to food those too. And they still give out milk and wool.
The entire debate is one gigantic land mine, because different lobbies with different agenda's are not capable of realize parts of their narrative is cancerous to society at large.
Land usage, grassing, forest/shrub growth is never a topic, meaning there is never a clear cut angle to even pick a side.
Regularly use a 2001 Opel to travel half of Norway for vacation.
End result is something like 900km/50 liter gasoline. Diesel would have more range. More modern cars would have more range as well.
A mere 500 kilometers range sounds rather pathetic for a full fuel tank.
It wouldn't surprise me if the case has some merits, but only legal merits.
Appletax via their system is unavoidable, but in app billing is a large legal grey area unless properly defined and fought for in court.
But i RTFA as they said:
Beyond that, what annoys me is that unless Ek is incapable of writing concrete examples.
'Blocks communication' and ' blocks our experience-enhancing upgrades' isn't anything defined. So this isn't a strong opening for a blog post, its essentially whining via essay.
Dark isn't the same as gritty friend. I Agree they turned down Junkyards residents sociopathic tendencies by several miles, which is a shame when its some really good and meaningful windowdressing. There is nothing quite like a pristine scrap pile of half cobbled technology being filled with people, and you turn to the next page and a random collapsing bystander is now horribly mutilated by roaming cyborg surgeons.
I also agree the theme isn't that intact.
What i think i enjoyed was that it was a Hollywood movie without all the terrible parts: Gally's selv development is a focus, action scenes isn't just choreography thrown into a camera blender with cuts, and there is some good ramping escalation, and the script isn't butchered randomly. The Kung Fu is good, and so is the entire 'fight to the death' angle that Hollywood generally completely chickens out on
As for Hollywood's encoded language? Its annoying.
Generally its the worst part of Hollywood movies. Characters turns into stilted pieces of wood that isn't capable of any emotional range because their vocabulary is limited like a edgy toddler. You go from people having no knowledge of events, to talking about that information they don't have like its some kind of laughable injoke.
So basically
I think i agree with the sentiment GUNM didn't get butchered, but it didn't keep the beautiful shape that made it so endearing to read
It simply isn't as edgy, but yet also less endearing.
I feel this isn't cynical enough.
In RL space you tend to go for the best and brightest for things like architecture, and then the cheapest lowest mandatory standard for actually building the buildings.
Occasionally people want to build things that are slightly larger or safer, which leads to buildings that end up standing against the wear of time far better compared to its peers. Building codes vary between nations and states, leading to standards being capable of being evaluated for what they are.
So in RL space, some more cynical nations like Japan decides its not worth the hassle to shutdown the local economy if earthquakes/tsunami and other natural disasters arrives. While poorer nations like Haiti or Caribbean nations have not had the economy of scale to do the same. High end industrial facilities might think about this, because stops in production tends to be rather costly, especially if it involves waiting for supplies used in active rebuilding efforts.
For Software, to some degree this is true. Without a good spec the end product isn't that useful. Without good security in network operations, you end up leaking passwords and usernames in .txt files
For Software i think there is legacy of renown. Think of Photoshop, Mac for audio/video editing, MS Word/Excel, Google and Email, and other such things. There is plenty of crap internal software, but it generally has limited reach because its tied to hardware platforms that might not expand sales because the software component is bad.
For Video games this is somewhat true as well. Good developer teams are more capable of writing a good spec and making the necessary assumptions to create good software and games, and creating good audiovisual feedback that balances on the right side of polish or jank.
And Nintendo is a big higher in this chain of values: Since they produce and manufacture the hardware component of the video games, they also have to deal with renown. Quality of devkits for development, number of product sales into demographics for actually selling games, etc.
The reality is that most games end up with average sales estimates because every new or rare IP has limited marked potential, because it might not be marketed well. So if a game series or brand has each new IP and successive iteration has quality, this creates a marketing feedback loop which doesn't exist for other parts of the marked.
So Nintendo can't just give out its franchises to mediocre developers, because mediocre developers won't make software that ends up keeping the brand quality.
Mediocre developers needs to be trained, so they can become great developers, who will not end up bottle necking quality control.
And because Nintendo is running their platform, they need that quality control of internal production because it boosts sales across the entire platform. Its a very different philosophy than a lot of the video game marked because Nintendo still develops and sells a lot of products, and do a lot of marked research.
Then why post as AC?
And write one line? It bothers me a lot
Because you don't contribute now, you are just sniding without producing effect or visibility.
Historically(if Wikipedia is to be believed)
HIV started out being studied in USA the 80s because patents where showing signs of both Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia(rare) and skin cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma(also rare). Each escalation of the study went from one thing to another, where the abbreviation even changed from GRID(Gay Related Immune Decency) to 4H(homosexuals, heroin users, hemophiliacs, and Haitians.) to AIDS once the cause and effect was studied enough to study the 'healthy population'.
I think hubris is the right word when talking about the topic.
HIV is a RNA virus where the body do not develop immunity after exposure, unlike Influenza. Because the body do not develop immunity, this leads to long term complications, where medication is taken to reduce progress from infected to dying of immune system defects(AIDS).
Because the body do not develop immunity, vaccines has to target the infection vector of HIV (a unique protein). So it targets the infection vector, but not granting immunity to the actual disease(again: Unlike Influenza).
Which leads to the question: How do you treat a disease the body is not curing?
The current answer is "Can't really cure it, prevent escalation and treat it like a chronic disease".
But Netflix is generally cheap and low quality. But unlike the traditional TV medium its not constrained by cancer such as force commercial breaks in the script structure, and has to be made in a manner where its possible to keep on watching
What makes Netflix good for TV is that instead of a plot point before and after each commercial break, you get shows where this is uneven. Episodes can conclude without anything even happening, or the episodes can be filled with content.
TV is also filled with horrors such as uneven funding, 'artistic visions' leading to nobody wanting to admit only one season is fine, and a lot more. You often have a 'pilot episode' thats poor TV just to get critical panning, so the show is allowed its 13/20 episodes for that season.
Once you cross the pond you also get to see a few weird variants: State funded broadcast channels have completely different standards and issues compared to HBO or US daytime television. You even get things like Skam which is exported to most of Europa, because it somehow manages to hit all the boxes in what the youth demographic wants. While BBC produce things like Blackadder or a myriad of known exported single season TV series.
The essential problem of TV is not just that its cheap, but all the other issues making TV shows on TV beholden to a extremely low quality. On top of genres like soap operas, which has existed to capture a niche that demands quantity instead of quality.
And that's ignoring issues like script stretching, which is one of the core reasons movies tend to have far more content compared to its runtime. Or budget per second of runtime.
It sorta is, but it scales with operation.
So in construction you have a lot of disposeable items that can be single use, for safety. Nitril and work gloves are good examples, because a small team can quickly spend 100-200 gloves per month if the work demands it. It quickly turns into the same economic scale as pencils: Extremely disposable.
Copy paper is also on the same scale, because even a small 4-5 man team can effortlessy use 2000-3000 pages a month at a small operation. At a larger operation it becomes even cheaper, and the use increases.
The issue is similar on staplers and a lot of cheaper office devices. Nothing is generally stopping you from buying them in significant bulk.
Other cases is surplus or waste. I.e surplus shapes of metal, frames, wood, and a lot of other material. Material that is somewhat expensive, but generally can't be used effectively once cut or shaped.
The leftovers is a common good in such enterprises, which can be used for a lot of really cool things.
Another example is replacement of inventory at set intervals. Chairs and tables is either worn apart or in almost mind condition.
When it gets iffy is when you start go get to more expensive items. Lacquer is such a thing, especially once you go for mid end or premium lacquer.
Metal rust treatment.
High end chemicals.
At this point a good might be to allow people to borrow some of the sturdier work devices or measurement devices.
But it will get really iffy at some point.
From my standpoint its a classical case of "Nothing new to see here, now move along"
Huawei is a global chinese state corporation engaging in global trade for telecommunication, like ZTE.
USA as a global superpower want its trading partners to engage global trade in a way that find beneficial.
By itself, this case is similar to USA vs Megaupload's founder.
Or the alleged USA vs Assange
And a lot of cases.
So in this case, the Casus belli given is Huawei engaging in trade with Iran, where somebody found out that it must violant some US patents and IP due the way global telecommunication equipment works and are designed
So unlike Assange or Kim Dotcom, the political motivation is a bit more concrete. Even if its basically the same thing, but focused on IP law in global trade for use of RL equipment, and the manufacture and infrastructure surrounding those.
The motivation for finding a Casus belli is in this America's shaky relationship with China, for a lot of reasons. And if law's really where enforced, this would have happened sooner with far more people.
Somebody will reply to this point out that Casus belli is regarding to warfare and engaging in war.
I agree, but this is exactly how the term is used, and what it should apply this. This is essentially proxy warfare between USA and China, focused on laws and trade.
'In this study, the scientists made nanoparticles that can anchor tightly to photoreceptor cells and act as tiny infrared light transducers. When infrared light hits the retina, the nanoparticles capture the longer infrared wavelengths and emit shorter wavelengths within the visible light range. '
This is basically a converter. It won't increase perception, but instead flood existing perception with more information.
Meaning its limited.
The main engineering achievement is the converting process, but without a mention or durability or power source its not exactly a great article.
Maybe RTFA would yield more, but i doubt it.
"Ride at your own risk" means that if you start doing stupid things, then swerve uncontrollably, and hit something(i.e a fence and fly over it), its at your own risk.
However if you are riding in traffic, and behaving as expected in traffic? Its one thing that vehicles in traffic are expected to yield to ANY perceived obstacle. Which means distance and braking. So you are expected to be awake, and don't hit anything. And thats reasonable.
But what happens once you are in traffic, in a device that is self or user balanced on 2 wheels, and it stops in a fashion where the user is flung across the asphalt or sidewalk? Its one thing if thats a device quirk. In bicycles you often have front brakes that is capable of doing this, when used incorrectly. And its a fun learning experience for youngsters.
And thats to some degree within riding at your own risk. For training people for using heavier machines such as ton range excavators it gets a bit more complex, since the hazards are far less obvious and dangerous.
But what happens when you are in traffic, passively following all the rules, and the device throws you off due a software error?
This is interesting because hardware error often means that you lose a function, where software errors lead to redundancies being activated. In a hardware error on a bicycle you might lose a gear wire, a brake, the mechanism that connects the rear wheel to the gear might have worn ball bearings and lose friction to keep on going, and many other exciting errors. And then you need to fix the part thats worn or destroyed to regain function.
On software it gets more interesting. There might be no damage or worn parts, and everything is okay. But the routines to read that data might not be robust enough to handle realworld input, so it throws a error. You might have seen this with a lot of measurement equipment, where the message barely flickers on screen before producing more values again. But measure equipment doesn't halt, but might indicate it wants to recalibrate.
So what about a electric kick bike, which is named for scooters? It gets a value or data it doesn't like, and then it needs to do a safe action until it can be sure its working or receive input it can handle. One option is to ignore the error, and operate as normal. Another is to cut assistance until its working again, or reduce power output. But because this is a user balanced vehicle: If slam on the breaks a unexpected user will experience hazard.
At which point this isn't about my own risk. But about the risk exposed to me by poor software decisions.
Another post in this thread mentioned Safety_integrity_level(SIL), which go far beyond that since its applied to hardcore industrial design. Where moving parts, hydraulics, air pressure, cooling, production halts, continuous feeding of material, and many other parts interplay in what could lead to some extreme dangers and malfunctions. What happens when a PLS system receives a error? Well, it must be able to handle the error without damaging the user, production, equipment, material or system.
The purpose of the patents really doesn't matter. What matters is the purpose DECADES AFTERWARDS, where the cumulative IP pool is general public prosperity.
But thats a derail. This is a case where you have corporations creating large collective patent agreements, patent pools, a lot of deals, and where Qualcomm has managed to essentially corner the marked. Because the patent pool is as large as it is, the general assumption is that if you are going to make a 4G cellular chip you are going to want to get a general patent agreement. And a lot of vendors do not make their own products, rather their cobble together parts from other manufacturers to make new products.
So what has happened is that Apple looked at the patent pool, looked at what they could cobble together, and went for it. Legal fiction and history will prove if their legalese gaze was sharp enough to not give Qualcomm license money for the design.
I would argue this is a interesting case, because Qualcomm has to prove that their hardware implementation is similar to what their patent pool holds. And then prove how Apple can't avoid running into that.
Almost a decade ago BFS(Brain Fuck Scheduler) entered the fray with some exciting results. The most noticeable difference was the increased gains in latency, but not performance. Phoronix even did some benchmarks where they missed the point(2011), and measured throughput as a performance gauge(missing the point).
In current day you would ideally use MuQSS or BFS, to reduce latency. Or a realtime kernel from a distribution, which has the option. Liquorix also seem to be a preconfigured option.
Using google to search for fantasy books you have read as a child is amusing.
1/2 of the stuff it manages to bring up to the search result is 'you must read 10 best books' with no relevance to the keywords. The rest is randomly high ranked search results. What is hillarious that it also generates links to forums that is inactive, where peopled did collective mindwork to do the same thing.
Some keywords like 'rat' or 'mouse' also draws in extremely weird search results that has nothing to do with the query.
The intellectual dishonest presented is staggering. Foremost one of the big issues with discussing taxes with American's is that you get it segmented into Federal and State level, where very few people will be honest enough to elaborate.
So as a person, you might see benefits from Federal and State level. Some states end up being worth living in, and other people flee to Canada for more taxes and more benefits.
And if a corporation is only operating in its home state, then its only using the infrastructure in its local state to do economic enterprises. Or is it? Because without a cross continental railroad the entire mid north of USA would not be settled in any meaningful degree. East and west coast economics as they exist today would not exist without the Panama canal.
If we assume this argument is correct, the next question is far draftier: If the infrastructure is what allows corporations to make money and engage in economic activities, what happens when said corporation do not engage in maintenance or expansion of said infrastructure? Well, assuming the taxes would have been spent on maintenance or expansion? The corporations are doing long term harm to themselves by not paying taxes, as well as to the rest of society.
But the reason this is a complex and tricky topic is how US tax money is spent. A huge amount is tied up in tangible benefits of military R&D, fatting the partners of the green gun coats. Some is spent on bare minimum maintenance in case of war, some is spent as political horse trading. A good amount is tied up in running each state, for the sake of paperwork and whatever else.
Some isn't spent on infrastructure maintenance, some is spent on privatization of enterprises to fatten somebodies purses. And a whole other lot of activities, touching every shade under the sun.
And if we assume these arguments to be true, what happens to corporations that have had good benefit from operating in multiple states? Or entirely across America?
Thats a dishonest question, because its not really about the corporations: Its about how the everyman thinks of taxes, and how it impacts corporations. So if taxes go to things that isn't assumed to be beneficial, it lowers taxes reputation. And if issues are not explained properly by the media, the everyman can't understand what a reasonable use of taxes is.
So at this point we can ask ourselves: Is not taxing long term harmful to the American way of Life? Obviously.
But since the question is large, its extremely harmful to not pay tax to the state the corporation is operating in. Yet at federal level its perceived in a different way because the federal level is far more alien and removed than the state level.
But that isn't the question i wanted to ask or answer. What i wanted to elaborate on is something simple, again:
What is trickle down economics?
Trickle down economics is a very complex concept because we need to understand what the corporation is doing by not paying taxes: Mainly harming infrastructure, that might not have been maintained because state/federal government isn't particularly good at their job in that area.
So once we understand what not taxing is doing, we can discuss what the benefits of trickle down economics are. Mainly that corporations end up with marginally more money, which could be reasonably well spent. However the realities of imperfect information and management is that once you have money, you need to find out what to spend it on. So when you have more money, you can't spend it until you know what to spend it on.
And i find that to be the true terror of trickle down economics: The benefit will not happen until the corporation has adapted to the new tax scheme, which might get lost in investment of houses instead of economically beneficial activities some time after. So the corporation has gained no infrastructure, gotten more money, but can't spend said money because they need to figure out what to do with the spare cash.
Which then turns into a problem:
Stock company is not
So when Gally opens her eyes you can react with 'Am i kawaii uguu?' like its out of some kind of terrible moe anime with overblown eyes and petite bodies. It still looks very very fake. But as you go in and watch, you get to see it in motion which fixes 90% of the issues within seconds.
And the movies goes all in with motion, escalating it in a visually pleasing way. From walking, eating, running, acrobatics, martial arts to gymnastic to Motorball. And each escalation works to let the audience forget the uncanney valley, and just admire the fluid motion.
I disagree.
Unlike something terrible like Ghost in Shell or Dragonball? Alita doesn't do a 1:1 adaption if that is what you mean. So we skip over the magical girlfriend arc that Alita started around, various enemies got mashed together, Motorball arc was rushed ahead and radically altered. Dr Nova even shows up to have a dragging angle to stage a sequel, even if his location and job seem to be altered drastically. If movie 2 skips over the Wasteland revolution arc in favor of the Tiphereth madness i will also be sad. Mostly because we will miss out of cloning, bodyjacking and marriage sheenigans.
As for what is enjoyable?
We got a movie where Motorball is the bloodsport it is, and so is Bounty Hunting. Alita's literal lust for blood also survived the adaption.
And junkyard is the shithole its suppose to be.
Its a great movie.
What i find most terrible about the adaption is that you get exposition being replaced by Hollywood language. Pacific Rim do suffer the same, but its far more blatant when you have read the orignal script and seen how its replaced. Pacific Rim also has a far simpler exposition, meaning easier to make it terrible and yet not too Hollywood.
In Alita a lot of the exposition sounds like terrible injokes to make fun of the characters ignorance. The Fall is a good one, because by the time Alita is around they have gone trough at the least 3. Yet the Hollywood script sounds like they are poking fun at each other for ignorance.
Father/daughter relationship didn't survive the language that well.
There is also some questionable changes, like she being named Gally until she remembers her name is Alita. Which seem a straight error by using the Viz translation instead of the source material. Tiphereth vs Salem is another one, which is easier to be indifferent to.