You're absolutely right. Except in studies where you can't control all of the variables. In these you can't make any conclusions based on just one or even a few data points because you don't know what outside factors may have come to play to get the result you found.
Instead you need thousands, or even better millions of anecdotes to hopefully average out all of the outside factors. Which is why anecdotes of one individual don't mean much scientifically.
* Why didn't the car slow down if you have your hands off the wheel for more then 5+ minutes?
* Why didn't the car pull over the side of the road after 15 minutes of hands free driving?
You misunderstand the article. It didn't say that there were 37.5 continuous minutes of hands free driving. Just that this was the total amount of time that was hands free. The way it works is that when the warning comes on and says that you need to put your hands on the wheel, all you need to do is just put your hands on the wheel for a couple of seconds, if that, then the warning goes away and autopilot continues. So far as I can tell from reading TFA, this is what they're referring to when it says that he "ignored warnings".
So really, there was probably never a 5+ minute span where the guy hadn't touched the wheel.
I use spaces at work so the code looks the same for everyone.
I use tabs so the code looks how everyone wants it to look. Like 4 spaces per indent? set ts=4. Like 8? Use set ts=8. etc.
Both of these reasons are exactly why I use a combination of tabs and spaces. All Tabs for regular code indentation, but when I need to split a line of code across multiple lines I use tabs up to the point of the regular code's indentation, then spaces afterwards since the extra indentation for readability is usually lined up with some piece of code from the line before.
This ensures that for everyone, they will both see it how they want it to look AND the code won't get misaligned in these circumstances. Unfortunately, Eclipse doesn't automatically do it this way.
Sun can shine through small amounts of snow. So this is a problem for only when the snow cover is thick. For that there's wind and also panels are slippery so snow tends to slide off of them before long. These things are especially true for the panels that don't have raised edges. Then there's the last resort of hiring people to clear them, but I doubt it's worth it considering how they tend to be cleared naturally before too long.
Interestingly, snow sitting around the panels, if the panels are clear, can cause the panels to produce more electricity since the surrounding snow reflects more light toward the panels.
This wouldn't help all energy markets, but oil refinery takes a large amount of electricity. The more EVs that are out there, the less oil is refined and therefore less electricity is used. Some estimates put the amount of electricity at 6kWh of electricity for every gallon of gas.
This amount of electricity translates to roughly 15 miles of driving in an EV. Whereas with a gas powered vehicle, you may get more or less distance on that gallon of gas depending on your mileage.
So, replace a high mileage car with an EV and electricity use will go up, but not as much as you would think. Replace a low mileage car with an EV and electricity usage stays the same or even improves.
Not true, you can use any electrical outlet. But charge times will be higher the lower the voltage.
It's possible that it's still feasible even with the higher charge times, so long as you don't regularly drive farther than what you can charge. People forget that you typically don't need to charge the whole battery every time, just what you used that day.
10 minutes to fully recharge using a readily available station
It's funny. If people were doing the opposite and moving from EVs to gas powered vehicles, they would be saying that they'll wait to buy until they can gas up their car in their garage while they're sleeping.
Regarding the ability to manufacture at a cost below price, Musk said that the Model S costs $30,000 to produce. And since they've designed the Model 3 to be simpler and cheaper to produce than the Model S, it'll be cheaper to produce than that. But even if it were equal, they'd still make at least $5000 profit off of each car, depending on the options selected by the pruchaser.
Agreed. And add to this the problem with the aging infrastructure that needed renewal. This is a major factor in the price of electricity in Ontario and was a problem that should have been taken care of when the conservatives were still in power.
If Facebook started hiring lots of women just for the sake of having more women in the workforce (to meet some gender diversity quota) rather than based on the individual's skills, then it's likely that the average talent of the women in Facebook would be lower than their male counterparts. Taking this further, it seems likely to me that these women would also have their code rejected more often.
Humans can learn stuff from much smaller datasets.
With all of the sensory inputs we're constantly taking in, I'm not sure you can say that we're learning stuff from a smaller dataset. Think about it. Every day we're basically receiving an approximately 16-hour data set that contains two videos (with audio), smell, touch senses and any other senses that I can't think of at the moment. Just isolating the video component of that, by the time you're just 2 years old, you've received 1.95 PB of video data (human eye sees at 576 megapixels).
Here's the main reason why you'd want to wear special bike gear to work... it's quick dry. Quick dry clothing allows your sweat to evaporate faster. Not allowing your sweat to sit on your body prevents you from getting smelly at work.
A colleague of mine bikes 22 miles to work (44 round trip). Distance isn't a limiting factor, but time is. If you don't have the time in the day to bike that distance, then I'd agree that you can't do it.
Time is an issue for me, and I live about the same distance away as my friend. So what I do is drive part way, park the car then cycle the rest of the way. It takes the same amount of time as the bus, I don't have to pay for parking, AND I get a free 1.5 hour workout every day.
Except that because of the Leaf's poor thermal management strategy on the battery (air cooled), the battery degrades at a much faster rate than a Tesla's. This is increased depending on how hot your climate is.
Basically, a used Leaf from Phoenix, AZ that's only 2.5 years old would only have 70% its original capacity. But a used Leaf from Syracuse, NY would not get to 70% capacity until it's 8.3 years old.
A Tesla on the other hand has been shown to have more than 90% capacity after 200,000 miles (approx. 13.3 years of driving, for a 15,000 miles per year mileage). In fact, simulations have the battery still above 80% after 500,000 miles.
So, considering the Phoenix example. Let's say your lightly used Leaf requires a battery replacement straight away because it's already 2.5 years old, that's another $10,000 on your car purchase bringing the cost up to $20,000. And another $10,000 every 2.5 years thereafter. You'll have paid about $50,000 on battery replacements by the time you've made it to 13.3 years of driving, and $60,000 overall. So, by that metric, you can only afford 1.6 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.
Just for fun, in Syracuse, your money will go further. You'll only need one battery replacement in 13.3 years. So you can afford 5 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.
Going into retirement and receiving CPP and OAS (and if you're lucky, a Pension) has the exact the same effect as those people having a UBI.
The interesting thing here is about 65% of those in retirement return to work within a decade (source). This is obviously for a variety of reasons. But for those that think that everyone would just live out their lives for free on a UBI, there's consistent evidence to the contrary.
It's just sea-ice that's melted. When sea ice melts it doesn't change the water level. That's because it's floating in the water and the water level has already been displaced by it. For example, when the ice in a glass of water melts, does the water level in the cup go up?
Starting at a random place in the middle, then clicking until I got an actual article instead of one that's paywalled, I see this quote from the article:
Scientists of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration believe believe more air pollution could trigger another disastrous ice age, NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher said Tuesday. He said the conclusion was controversial and "not yet fully accepted in the scientific community".
I also notice that many of these are siting smog or pollution as a problem. The thinking is that it'll block the sunlight and cause the earth to cool.
I don't see how a theory on what effect smog and/or other pollutants has on our climate, that wasn't fully accepted in the scientific community, really compares to theories on the effects of CO2 and our climate. CO2 isn't a pollutant, nor is it what these articles were talking about as a driving force.
The thing that doesn't work for me with the simulation theory is that it would take a huge amount of computations to simulate the universe to the level of detail that we see. Computations take energy. Enough energy bends space-time. And if we had all of the required energy packed into a simulation machine, surely it'd be so much that it'd collapse in on itself into a black hole tearing apart the machine.
Now, I suppose we could spread the energy out by causing the simulation to run slower than real-time speed, but I imagine that to spread it out thinly enough so that you don't cause a black hole might surpass the half-lives of the materials that make the machine, thereby making it impossible to pull-off in practice in this manner too.
But then there's always the idea that the universe that houses the simulation has different laws of physics. For this, I say we create simulations of how a universe with different laws of physics would turn out:)
So now nature is responsible for 100% of the change, even if it may now happen slower. The end result is the same, though, even with the human impact completely removed: the climate change will still happen.
What you don't get is that no one thinks that climate change in and of itself is bad. The problem is the rate at which the climate is changing, which you have admitted is accelerated thanks to humans.
As you are aware, a changing climate forces the organisms that live in that climate to either adapt or relocate. Having a rapidly changing climate removes evolution as a method of adaptation in all organisms except those that have short enough reproductive cycles (ex. bacteria).
So bacteria will most definitely be fine. Birds will probably be fine since they can relocate so easily. But will the birds' food sources be able to adapt? You get the idea.
Science doesn't blindly share and discuss ideas. The ideas that have already been proven incorrect are pushed away as a waste of time. For example, any theory trying to make the case that the earth is flat is no longer constructively weighed against other theories.
I suspect we've reached a tipping point in the science of Anthropogenic Climate Change that dissenting views are similarly cast aside as a waste of time.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right. Except in studies where you can't control all of the variables. In these you can't make any conclusions based on just one or even a few data points because you don't know what outside factors may have come to play to get the result you found.
Instead you need thousands, or even better millions of anecdotes to hopefully average out all of the outside factors. Which is why anecdotes of one individual don't mean much scientifically.
If you are accused of defamation, slander, or libel, truth is an absolute defense to the allegation. If what you said is true, there is no case.
Another region being in Canada. But you can get around it by searching for the youtube clip in EachVideo.
* Why didn't the car slow down if you have your hands off the wheel for more then 5+ minutes?
* Why didn't the car pull over the side of the road after 15 minutes of hands free driving?
You misunderstand the article. It didn't say that there were 37.5 continuous minutes of hands free driving. Just that this was the total amount of time that was hands free. The way it works is that when the warning comes on and says that you need to put your hands on the wheel, all you need to do is just put your hands on the wheel for a couple of seconds, if that, then the warning goes away and autopilot continues. So far as I can tell from reading TFA, this is what they're referring to when it says that he "ignored warnings".
So really, there was probably never a 5+ minute span where the guy hadn't touched the wheel.
I use spaces at work so the code looks the same for everyone.
I use tabs so the code looks how everyone wants it to look. Like 4 spaces per indent? set ts=4. Like 8? Use set ts=8. etc.
Both of these reasons are exactly why I use a combination of tabs and spaces. All Tabs for regular code indentation, but when I need to split a line of code across multiple lines I use tabs up to the point of the regular code's indentation, then spaces afterwards since the extra indentation for readability is usually lined up with some piece of code from the line before.
This ensures that for everyone, they will both see it how they want it to look AND the code won't get misaligned in these circumstances. Unfortunately, Eclipse doesn't automatically do it this way.
Sun can shine through small amounts of snow. So this is a problem for only when the snow cover is thick. For that there's wind and also panels are slippery so snow tends to slide off of them before long. These things are especially true for the panels that don't have raised edges. Then there's the last resort of hiring people to clear them, but I doubt it's worth it considering how they tend to be cleared naturally before too long.
Interestingly, snow sitting around the panels, if the panels are clear, can cause the panels to produce more electricity since the surrounding snow reflects more light toward the panels.
This wouldn't help all energy markets, but oil refinery takes a large amount of electricity. The more EVs that are out there, the less oil is refined and therefore less electricity is used. Some estimates put the amount of electricity at 6kWh of electricity for every gallon of gas.
This amount of electricity translates to roughly 15 miles of driving in an EV. Whereas with a gas powered vehicle, you may get more or less distance on that gallon of gas depending on your mileage.
So, replace a high mileage car with an EV and electricity use will go up, but not as much as you would think. Replace a low mileage car with an EV and electricity usage stays the same or even improves.
Not true, you can use any electrical outlet. But charge times will be higher the lower the voltage.
It's possible that it's still feasible even with the higher charge times, so long as you don't regularly drive farther than what you can charge. People forget that you typically don't need to charge the whole battery every time, just what you used that day.
10 minutes to fully recharge using a readily available station
It's funny. If people were doing the opposite and moving from EVs to gas powered vehicles, they would be saying that they'll wait to buy until they can gas up their car in their garage while they're sleeping.
If it goes too fast, the car starts to damage itself. These electronically limited top speeds improve the longevity of the car.
Regarding the ability to manufacture at a cost below price, Musk said that the Model S costs $30,000 to produce. And since they've designed the Model 3 to be simpler and cheaper to produce than the Model S, it'll be cheaper to produce than that. But even if it were equal, they'd still make at least $5000 profit off of each car, depending on the options selected by the pruchaser.
Citation:
Model S costs $30,000 to produce
At first I thought you were a troll, but you've got a point
Agreed. And add to this the problem with the aging infrastructure that needed renewal. This is a major factor in the price of electricity in Ontario and was a problem that should have been taken care of when the conservatives were still in power.
If Facebook started hiring lots of women just for the sake of having more women in the workforce (to meet some gender diversity quota) rather than based on the individual's skills, then it's likely that the average talent of the women in Facebook would be lower than their male counterparts. Taking this further, it seems likely to me that these women would also have their code rejected more often.
Humans can learn stuff from much smaller datasets.
With all of the sensory inputs we're constantly taking in, I'm not sure you can say that we're learning stuff from a smaller dataset. Think about it. Every day we're basically receiving an approximately 16-hour data set that contains two videos (with audio), smell, touch senses and any other senses that I can't think of at the moment. Just isolating the video component of that, by the time you're just 2 years old, you've received 1.95 PB of video data (human eye sees at 576 megapixels).
Here's the main reason why you'd want to wear special bike gear to work... it's quick dry. Quick dry clothing allows your sweat to evaporate faster. Not allowing your sweat to sit on your body prevents you from getting smelly at work.
A colleague of mine bikes 22 miles to work (44 round trip). Distance isn't a limiting factor, but time is. If you don't have the time in the day to bike that distance, then I'd agree that you can't do it.
Time is an issue for me, and I live about the same distance away as my friend. So what I do is drive part way, park the car then cycle the rest of the way. It takes the same amount of time as the bus, I don't have to pay for parking, AND I get a free 1.5 hour workout every day.
Except that because of the Leaf's poor thermal management strategy on the battery (air cooled), the battery degrades at a much faster rate than a Tesla's. This is increased depending on how hot your climate is.
Here's a resource to estimate your battery capacity for a Nissan Leaf.
Basically, a used Leaf from Phoenix, AZ that's only 2.5 years old would only have 70% its original capacity. But a used Leaf from Syracuse, NY would not get to 70% capacity until it's 8.3 years old.
A Tesla on the other hand has been shown to have more than 90% capacity after 200,000 miles (approx. 13.3 years of driving, for a 15,000 miles per year mileage). In fact, simulations have the battery still above 80% after 500,000 miles.
So, considering the Phoenix example. Let's say your lightly used Leaf requires a battery replacement straight away because it's already 2.5 years old, that's another $10,000 on your car purchase bringing the cost up to $20,000. And another $10,000 every 2.5 years thereafter. You'll have paid about $50,000 on battery replacements by the time you've made it to 13.3 years of driving, and $60,000 overall. So, by that metric, you can only afford 1.6 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.
Just for fun, in Syracuse, your money will go further. You'll only need one battery replacement in 13.3 years. So you can afford 5 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.
Going into retirement and receiving CPP and OAS (and if you're lucky, a Pension) has the exact the same effect as those people having a UBI.
The interesting thing here is about 65% of those in retirement return to work within a decade (source). This is obviously for a variety of reasons. But for those that think that everyone would just live out their lives for free on a UBI, there's consistent evidence to the contrary.
Based on other comments on here, the $334 is not per month, but per week. That equals out to $1447 per month, if you do 334*52 / 12.
It's just sea-ice that's melted. When sea ice melts it doesn't change the water level. That's because it's floating in the water and the water level has already been displaced by it. For example, when the ice in a glass of water melts, does the water level in the cup go up?
Scientists of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration believe believe more air pollution could trigger another disastrous ice age, NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher said Tuesday. He said the conclusion was controversial and "not yet fully accepted in the scientific community".
I also notice that many of these are siting smog or pollution as a problem. The thinking is that it'll block the sunlight and cause the earth to cool.
I don't see how a theory on what effect smog and/or other pollutants has on our climate, that wasn't fully accepted in the scientific community, really compares to theories on the effects of CO2 and our climate. CO2 isn't a pollutant, nor is it what these articles were talking about as a driving force.
The thing that doesn't work for me with the simulation theory is that it would take a huge amount of computations to simulate the universe to the level of detail that we see. Computations take energy. Enough energy bends space-time. And if we had all of the required energy packed into a simulation machine, surely it'd be so much that it'd collapse in on itself into a black hole tearing apart the machine.
:)
Now, I suppose we could spread the energy out by causing the simulation to run slower than real-time speed, but I imagine that to spread it out thinly enough so that you don't cause a black hole might surpass the half-lives of the materials that make the machine, thereby making it impossible to pull-off in practice in this manner too.
But then there's always the idea that the universe that houses the simulation has different laws of physics. For this, I say we create simulations of how a universe with different laws of physics would turn out
So now nature is responsible for 100% of the change, even if it may now happen slower. The end result is the same, though, even with the human impact completely removed: the climate change will still happen.
What you don't get is that no one thinks that climate change in and of itself is bad. The problem is the rate at which the climate is changing, which you have admitted is accelerated thanks to humans.
As you are aware, a changing climate forces the organisms that live in that climate to either adapt or relocate. Having a rapidly changing climate removes evolution as a method of adaptation in all organisms except those that have short enough reproductive cycles (ex. bacteria).
So bacteria will most definitely be fine. Birds will probably be fine since they can relocate so easily. But will the birds' food sources be able to adapt? You get the idea.
Science doesn't blindly share and discuss ideas. The ideas that have already been proven incorrect are pushed away as a waste of time. For example, any theory trying to make the case that the earth is flat is no longer constructively weighed against other theories.
I suspect we've reached a tipping point in the science of Anthropogenic Climate Change that dissenting views are similarly cast aside as a waste of time.