"The researchers found only a minuscule probability that the retreat of Kaskawulsh glacier — which retracted by nearly half a mile from 1956 to 2007 — could have occurred in what they called a “constant climate.” They therefore inferred that the events in question could be attributed to human-caused climate change."
So they think it's unlikely to have occurred in a "constant climate", and among the imaginable range of non-constant climates they hinted the events *could* be attributed to "human-caused climate change". (Whatever that exactly means, given that there are infinite causes of climate change, many of them significant.)
So, logically, WaPo titles the article "For the first time on record, human-caused climate change has rerouted an entire river." Good job, journalists.
I'm guessing that saving 4.7% on sick days does not translate to just 4.7% saving in payroll expenses. Imagine all employees so sick they are taking 50% days off. Depending on the exact pattern, it stands to reason that when they are not out sick they are not terribly productive either, being just barely well enough they can show up at work and be miserable.
And vice versa, employees taking 0% sick days might be so full of energy, healthy and enthusiastic that they are productive all the time. And that would be just a factory job kind of thing calculation. Most jobs require some creative decision making, however small. The less well the employee feels, the more likely he is to decide to e.g. refactor in a wrong way some huge class and thus make a lot of problems down the road for everyone.
I believe there is a sweet spot of productivity for in terms of the *average* number of hours a day, and based on my own experience I don't believe it's 8.
I'm neither Turkish nor Armenian so I don't care either way but sounds like what the Armenian financier is hoping for is to use his money and influence to push his controversial views onto general audience yet not to have to fight any resistance that naturally comes along in reaction to his actions. Well that's impossible, it's like ignoring the laws of physics. If you want us to see your one-sided presentation you'll have to do more than spend a portion of your wealth and never *really* expect to make a profit, Mr. Financier. Do something heroic, risk your life for your cause or something and we'll ignore the trolls and see the movie regardless of its rating.
Same would apply for any propaganda movie the Turkish side would try to push.
This may have been a part of dance between Assad and Trump. Assad tries to see how far he can go, Trump says that one is too far you're limiting my options, he warns the Russians beforehand to stay clear of the area, the Russians (as expected) pass the warnings to Assad, the stage is set, 60 missiles are dropped and there are no plans for more. Assad is still free to deal with the rebels conventionally (which often may be more cruel than the nerve gas but that's another thing).
Whether this is true we'll know based on what happens next.
I wish it were true but as far as I can remember every tech platform that ended up being successful had a "killer app" in its targeted niche by the time it was first released. PC, Internet, PS/Xbox, mp3 players, iPhone 1... The killer app was what was *driving* the development of the platform. VR doesn't seem to have one though. It's not games, and I don't know what is. Some people say porn was the driver of most tech so will do the same for VR, but I don't see people clamoring for VR porn yet. It's almost as the killer app for VR is being a plot device in SciFi stories, and the VR was developed with those stories in mind. But you don't need hardware for that, in fact as a SciFi writer you don't want it to ever be developed.:-)
Thanks, I wasn't aware their VPN is free. It's a great selling point. Just installed it, writing this from Opera. I used Opera as the primary browser back in the 00s. This may well replace my sandboxie-d Chrome I use for non-trusted browsing (i.e. outside of a handful of trusted sites like email and banking for which I use non-sandboxied Firefox + NoScript with scripting enabled on those sites).
So after failing to produce any evidence for your claim, you say you found something from December 2015 to prove that Stratfor "clipped" it in September 2015, and you don't even offer that but instead go on a tirade about how the person challenging you to support your claim must be a troll and resort to third grade insults.
On top of that the elementary logic escapes you: even if Stratfor did "clip" their report (which you have not been able to prove in any way, you cited existence of Bernie and Trump supporters as the "source" for Stratfor's "clipping"!), the content of the report was in such minority in the media at the time -- almost every other source was saying the opposite -- that knowing to "clip" it and say "this will happen" would have been as prescient as it was to write it.
I see among Hillary supporters -- assuming you were one -- people who consider themselves intellectuals but are completely unaware how emotions cloud their thinking.
If you want to point out a Fox News article from September 2015 or before that predicts Trump or Bernie could win or significantly upset the race, I'd like to see it. And you'll have to admit that Trump or Bernie supporters are not "sources", they were all considered fringe disenfranchised losers at the time.
Even so Stratfor would have been "clipping" a small voice in a sea of those who claimed that Trump had no chance, so even that would be quite a gamble -- or prescient. Nevertheless, I'd like to see one such article.
Btw it's not Stratfor, it's George Friedman. He left Stratfor to found Geopolitical Futures. I've been following his work since 1999, including his book the Next 100 years and the next 10 years, and while he's made a few misses, he's been far better than anyone else. He teaches you historical facts, patterns and his deduction mechanisms so you can do your own. It's quite a good feeling to be able to tell what will happen better than the talking heads at CNN and the likes of them.
I agree, it's like causation is a fuzzy thing, that fades over time as the involvement of complex processes increases. Which leads to the conclusion that causation is just an appearance in our minds, which are constantly constructing and reconstructing the map of reality.
Which in a sense is obvious -- causation exists only within the mental model by definition, and mental models exist only in the mental domain by definition. (Even the term "to exist" is a thought construct, meaningless outside of a mental model.) Causation is a mind illusion about processes in the outside world, stable at short times or simple processes and deceiving at longer times and/or complex processes. Stable as in useful, i.e. you can rely on it for decision making, and vice versa.
As of late I'm not sure there is such a thing as causation in any complex (human, biological) system, for anything that takes long enough time to manifest.
Sure if you drink poison it will kill you instantly. But if you eat bacon every day will that *cause* a heart disease 40 years after you started? And even in the case of poison it depends -- apparently if you take a small amount of poison regularly it will make you more resistant to that poison (the process is called "hormesis"). Thought it maybe screws up the heart.:-| (Note I'm implying a causation in that sentence.)
Correlation comes from our measurements of the real world. Causation comes from our mental model of that real world, which is never absolute ("the map is not the territory") -- meaning there's always a deep enough level where the model will fail, and in complex systems our models are generally poor.
I think causation is a mental crutch to help us navigate the world of patterns around us but should not be thought of "real."
You're welcome to cite some of those sources that said the same thing before Sep 2015. (Let's ignore for the moment that knowing what to "clip" that ends up being true when 98% of the all sources claim the opposite is quite a skill in itself.)
Clipping service? In September of 2015 when no one thought Bernie or Trump had any chance George Friedman predicted the rise of both: "The Crisis of the Well-Crafted Candidate" -- boy did that title capture the fate of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and eventually Hillary Clinton.
In the words of George Friedman formerly of Stratfor, Trump saw reality clearly enough to achieve what others thought was impossible. If that's not being receptive to the nuances of the real world, I don't know what is.
Space exploration is key to the perception of the US around the world. A marketing guy named Clotaire Rapaille in his book "Culture Code" claims that subconscious "code word" for America in other countries is SPACE. You see a picture of astronauts in the US passport as well. I imagine Trump as an American nationalist intuitively understands that space exploration makes America, well, great.
Which one of the two is worse is unknowable in principle, but arguably Trump responds to the public feedback, however clumsily. Clinton didn't, being assured of the future she saw in her head. Trump won and she lost. Therefore it's likely we've got a President who is more receptive to the nuances of the real world. I believe that Clinton would have been more likely to cause a calamity -- as she did in Libya, being dead-set on her vision and deaf to the situation in the field.
I didn't see in TFA any mention of *who* and how has forecast that Donald Trump's policies will deepen the country's social crisis. But I've noticed the sources The Guardian quoted in the past were those who forecast Hillary's victory and people like the Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman whose forecast was "if Trump wins the market will crash and will *never* recover".
Linear thinking is belief that what is present today will be present tomorrow, only stronger. Whereas nature and human societies go in cycles. So Kurzweil is extrapolating from a short time window.
Maybe Matrix #1 spoke to most people's feeling of being trapped so they resonated with the idea of getting out, where #2 and #3 referred to more metaphysical concepts (i.e. God) that many of those same people didn't want to think about, like I didn't. Or maybe they just hated the dance scenes. Though I liked those too. (Among details, my own suspension of disbelief hit a bump with the exoskeleton weapons but the Merovingian and his wife/mistress more than made up for it.)
Btw I can think, I can wait, I can fast is my favorite quote from Siddartha.
Their social policies differ but what Trump and Bernie have in common is they are both nationalists. In other words, they both say America First.
And that people chose them shows that globalism which began with the end of WW2 and which had brought great benefits to the world has now become toxic. Nothing lasts forever, things come and go in cycles. A great example is China. Mao was not the first to close it off. The Chinese cycle is they first open to the world, the coastal regions become rich from trade while the inland remains forever poor, and when the disparity becomes unbearable someone raises the army of a million peasants, takes over the country, closes it to the outside world, redistributes the wealth i.e. poverty, brings stability, and after a few decades of it the country begins to slowly open, and so on. So the next couple of decades at least belong to nationalists worldwide.
To end this musing, why the people protest? Why the working and middle class revolts just because a good number of other people are getting very very reach, if they too are getting at least a little wealthier? Why do the Chinese peasants not accept the "trickle down" effects even if some folks are getting many more times richer then them? I think the answer is, when those many rich folks get the best of everything -- the land, the food, the lifestyle, the women -- while you are barely scraping by, to think that you and him are supposed to spill your blood equally for your country but you live in humiliation through no fault of your own, is what gets you to say I've had enough.
And this is why I think it's good that we have allowed that natural cycle to happen here by electing Trump, i.e. by not electing Hillary, just like it's important to allow a recession after a season of irrational exuberance. Because if you don't, the recession will come anyway, a little later and a lot stronger.
As far as I know most (if not all?) of those hate crimes turned out to be hoaxes -- Trump supporters attacking girl on the subway who made it up, black church vandalized or burned by a liberal member and so on. As for fights at Trump rallies, I guess you haven't seen the video recordings of Dems discussing and approving them?
As for Berkeley I agree, when I saw those masked people moving I could tell they were not students -- it was clear they've done it before. But if they are not genuine Trump haters and/or if we are to speculate who paid them, I think George Soros would be a far closer bet.
Slashdot Mirror
"The researchers found only a minuscule probability that the retreat of Kaskawulsh glacier — which retracted by nearly half a mile from 1956 to 2007 — could have occurred in what they called a “constant climate.” They therefore inferred that the events in question could be attributed to human-caused climate change."
So they think it's unlikely to have occurred in a "constant climate", and among the imaginable range of non-constant climates they hinted the events *could* be attributed to "human-caused climate change". (Whatever that exactly means, given that there are infinite causes of climate change, many of them significant.)
So, logically, WaPo titles the article "For the first time on record, human-caused climate change has rerouted an entire river." Good job, journalists.
I'm guessing that saving 4.7% on sick days does not translate to just 4.7% saving in payroll expenses. Imagine all employees so sick they are taking 50% days off. Depending on the exact pattern, it stands to reason that when they are not out sick they are not terribly productive either, being just barely well enough they can show up at work and be miserable.
And vice versa, employees taking 0% sick days might be so full of energy, healthy and enthusiastic that they are productive all the time. And that would be just a factory job kind of thing calculation. Most jobs require some creative decision making, however small. The less well the employee feels, the more likely he is to decide to e.g. refactor in a wrong way some huge class and thus make a lot of problems down the road for everyone.
I believe there is a sweet spot of productivity for in terms of the *average* number of hours a day, and based on my own experience I don't believe it's 8.
"Mr. Trump’s policy is a return to the one followed by presidents who preceded Mr. Obama." (NYT). No mention of that in the summary.
I'm neither Turkish nor Armenian so I don't care either way but sounds like what the Armenian financier is hoping for is to use his money and influence to push his controversial views onto general audience yet not to have to fight any resistance that naturally comes along in reaction to his actions. Well that's impossible, it's like ignoring the laws of physics. If you want us to see your one-sided presentation you'll have to do more than spend a portion of your wealth and never *really* expect to make a profit, Mr. Financier. Do something heroic, risk your life for your cause or something and we'll ignore the trolls and see the movie regardless of its rating.
Same would apply for any propaganda movie the Turkish side would try to push.
Haven't played it but looks closest I've seen to the game Ender played on his tablet.
This may have been a part of dance between Assad and Trump. Assad tries to see how far he can go, Trump says that one is too far you're limiting my options, he warns the Russians beforehand to stay clear of the area, the Russians (as expected) pass the warnings to Assad, the stage is set, 60 missiles are dropped and there are no plans for more. Assad is still free to deal with the rebels conventionally (which often may be more cruel than the nerve gas but that's another thing).
Whether this is true we'll know based on what happens next.
I wish it were true but as far as I can remember every tech platform that ended up being successful had a "killer app" in its targeted niche by the time it was first released. PC, Internet, PS/Xbox, mp3 players, iPhone 1... The killer app was what was *driving* the development of the platform. VR doesn't seem to have one though. It's not games, and I don't know what is. Some people say porn was the driver of most tech so will do the same for VR, but I don't see people clamoring for VR porn yet. It's almost as the killer app for VR is being a plot device in SciFi stories, and the VR was developed with those stories in mind. But you don't need hardware for that, in fact as a SciFi writer you don't want it to ever be developed. :-)
... just a note that ad blocking and VPN need to be enabled in Settings first.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...
Thanks again for the tip!
Thanks, I wasn't aware their VPN is free. It's a great selling point. Just installed it, writing this from Opera. I used Opera as the primary browser back in the 00s. This may well replace my sandboxie-d Chrome I use for non-trusted browsing (i.e. outside of a handful of trusted sites like email and banking for which I use non-sandboxied Firefox + NoScript with scripting enabled on those sites).
So after failing to produce any evidence for your claim, you say you found something from December 2015 to prove that Stratfor "clipped" it in September 2015, and you don't even offer that but instead go on a tirade about how the person challenging you to support your claim must be a troll and resort to third grade insults.
On top of that the elementary logic escapes you: even if Stratfor did "clip" their report (which you have not been able to prove in any way, you cited existence of Bernie and Trump supporters as the "source" for Stratfor's "clipping"!), the content of the report was in such minority in the media at the time -- almost every other source was saying the opposite -- that knowing to "clip" it and say "this will happen" would have been as prescient as it was to write it.
I see among Hillary supporters -- assuming you were one -- people who consider themselves intellectuals but are completely unaware how emotions cloud their thinking.
If you want to point out a Fox News article from September 2015 or before that predicts Trump or Bernie could win or significantly upset the race, I'd like to see it. And you'll have to admit that Trump or Bernie supporters are not "sources", they were all considered fringe disenfranchised losers at the time.
Even so Stratfor would have been "clipping" a small voice in a sea of those who claimed that Trump had no chance, so even that would be quite a gamble -- or prescient. Nevertheless, I'd like to see one such article.
Btw it's not Stratfor, it's George Friedman. He left Stratfor to found Geopolitical Futures. I've been following his work since 1999, including his book the Next 100 years and the next 10 years, and while he's made a few misses, he's been far better than anyone else. He teaches you historical facts, patterns and his deduction mechanisms so you can do your own. It's quite a good feeling to be able to tell what will happen better than the talking heads at CNN and the likes of them.
I rest my case. :-)
I agree, it's like causation is a fuzzy thing, that fades over time as the involvement of complex processes increases. Which leads to the conclusion that causation is just an appearance in our minds, which are constantly constructing and reconstructing the map of reality.
Which in a sense is obvious -- causation exists only within the mental model by definition, and mental models exist only in the mental domain by definition. (Even the term "to exist" is a thought construct, meaningless outside of a mental model.) Causation is a mind illusion about processes in the outside world, stable at short times or simple processes and deceiving at longer times and/or complex processes. Stable as in useful, i.e. you can rely on it for decision making, and vice versa.
As of late I'm not sure there is such a thing as causation in any complex (human, biological) system, for anything that takes long enough time to manifest.
Sure if you drink poison it will kill you instantly. But if you eat bacon every day will that *cause* a heart disease 40 years after you started? And even in the case of poison it depends -- apparently if you take a small amount of poison regularly it will make you more resistant to that poison (the process is called "hormesis"). Thought it maybe screws up the heart. :-| (Note I'm implying a causation in that sentence.)
Correlation comes from our measurements of the real world. Causation comes from our mental model of that real world, which is never absolute ("the map is not the territory") -- meaning there's always a deep enough level where the model will fail, and in complex systems our models are generally poor.
I think causation is a mental crutch to help us navigate the world of patterns around us but should not be thought of "real."
You're welcome to cite some of those sources that said the same thing before Sep 2015. (Let's ignore for the moment that knowing what to "clip" that ends up being true when 98% of the all sources claim the opposite is quite a skill in itself.)
Clipping service? In September of 2015 when no one thought Bernie or Trump had any chance George Friedman predicted the rise of both: "The Crisis of the Well-Crafted Candidate" -- boy did that title capture the fate of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and eventually Hillary Clinton.
https://www.stratfor.com/weekl...
Being able to see the future that others can't is a sign of understanding reality better than others.
In the words of George Friedman formerly of Stratfor, Trump saw reality clearly enough to achieve what others thought was impossible. If that's not being receptive to the nuances of the real world, I don't know what is.
Space exploration is key to the perception of the US around the world. A marketing guy named Clotaire Rapaille in his book "Culture Code" claims that subconscious "code word" for America in other countries is SPACE. You see a picture of astronauts in the US passport as well. I imagine Trump as an American nationalist intuitively understands that space exploration makes America, well, great.
Which one of the two is worse is unknowable in principle, but arguably Trump responds to the public feedback, however clumsily. Clinton didn't, being assured of the future she saw in her head. Trump won and she lost. Therefore it's likely we've got a President who is more receptive to the nuances of the real world. I believe that Clinton would have been more likely to cause a calamity -- as she did in Libya, being dead-set on her vision and deaf to the situation in the field.
I didn't see in TFA any mention of *who* and how has forecast that Donald Trump's policies will deepen the country's social crisis. But I've noticed the sources The Guardian quoted in the past were those who forecast Hillary's victory and people like the Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman whose forecast was "if Trump wins the market will crash and will *never* recover".
Linear thinking is belief that what is present today will be present tomorrow, only stronger. Whereas nature and human societies go in cycles. So Kurzweil is extrapolating from a short time window.
Maybe Matrix #1 spoke to most people's feeling of being trapped so they resonated with the idea of getting out, where #2 and #3 referred to more metaphysical concepts (i.e. God) that many of those same people didn't want to think about, like I didn't. Or maybe they just hated the dance scenes. Though I liked those too. (Among details, my own suspension of disbelief hit a bump with the exoskeleton weapons but the Merovingian and his wife/mistress more than made up for it.)
Btw I can think, I can wait, I can fast is my favorite quote from Siddartha.
I thought so too at the time, but recently I watched all three and thought and 2 and 3 were excellent -- really enjoyed the story and the metaphors.
Their social policies differ but what Trump and Bernie have in common is they are both nationalists. In other words, they both say America First.
And that people chose them shows that globalism which began with the end of WW2 and which had brought great benefits to the world has now become toxic. Nothing lasts forever, things come and go in cycles. A great example is China. Mao was not the first to close it off. The Chinese cycle is they first open to the world, the coastal regions become rich from trade while the inland remains forever poor, and when the disparity becomes unbearable someone raises the army of a million peasants, takes over the country, closes it to the outside world, redistributes the wealth i.e. poverty, brings stability, and after a few decades of it the country begins to slowly open, and so on. So the next couple of decades at least belong to nationalists worldwide.
To end this musing, why the people protest? Why the working and middle class revolts just because a good number of other people are getting very very reach, if they too are getting at least a little wealthier? Why do the Chinese peasants not accept the "trickle down" effects even if some folks are getting many more times richer then them? I think the answer is, when those many rich folks get the best of everything -- the land, the food, the lifestyle, the women -- while you are barely scraping by, to think that you and him are supposed to spill your blood equally for your country but you live in humiliation through no fault of your own, is what gets you to say I've had enough.
And this is why I think it's good that we have allowed that natural cycle to happen here by electing Trump, i.e. by not electing Hillary, just like it's important to allow a recession after a season of irrational exuberance. Because if you don't, the recession will come anyway, a little later and a lot stronger.
As far as I know most (if not all?) of those hate crimes turned out to be hoaxes -- Trump supporters attacking girl on the subway who made it up, black church vandalized or burned by a liberal member and so on. As for fights at Trump rallies, I guess you haven't seen the video recordings of Dems discussing and approving them?
As for Berkeley I agree, when I saw those masked people moving I could tell they were not students -- it was clear they've done it before. But if they are not genuine Trump haters and/or if we are to speculate who paid them, I think George Soros would be a far closer bet.