From the very foundation that manages the estate of Thomas Jefferson at the home he built, Monticello, including his descendants, both black and white:
“Though enslaved, Sally Hemings helped shape her life and the lives of her children, who got an almost 50-year head start on emancipation, escaping the system that had engulfed their ancestors and millions of others. Whatever we may feel about it today, this was important to her.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, 2017
I don't think Thomas Jefferson was quite as evil as you make him out to be. He seems to have been more interested in keeping his relationship with Sally Hemings secret, rather than in keeping anyone a slave. I also challenge you to produce a record of Jefferson selling any of his children with Sally Hemings, or a record of any of Sally's children being abused. Jefferson went out of his way to provide Sally with a private adjoining bedroom with his own. This woman had unfettered access to Jefferson. She could have easily killed him in his sleep, for decades, but she didn't. They also fell in love while in France, where mixed race relationships where no big deal.
It's also not fair to use modern values to judge those from a different culture and era. If you have references to paint a clear picture of Jefferson as someone who was truly evil, rather than someone who was trying to avoid persecution for a forbidden love, I'd love to see them.
Jefferson did leave clear instructions that all his slaves were to be freed, but I don't think this happened until after he died. I do love history, but I do not claim to be knowledgeable about Jefferson, although I have visited his home.
If you want an example of evil in the founding fathers of US history - look at Alexander Hamilton. That SOB used anonymous news articles and stories to libel and belittle Aaron Burr for decades, a rather competent military man who went on to become vice president. Both Burr and Jefferson were not terribly fond of Hamilton's Federalist agenda, which has issues reverberating in American politics to this day.
Burr eventually got tired of Hamilton's shit and challenged him to a duel, which was accepted. Hamilton, being inept with a pistol, his few competencies being running his mouth and flinging ink with his pen, lost the duel and died. A fitting end for an Anonymous Coward.
I agree with you completely. My post was too brief and unclear. I used the examples of the red foxes becoming more social when their selective breading inadvertently reduced the size of their adrenal glands, resulting in less adrenaline, because my son loves animals. At the time we had a fox den under a porch in our back yard and got to watch foxes and their kits develop and mature for several seasons. As they matured, they stopped playing and became more solitary.
The intent isn't to selectively breed any humans for an attribute, rather it was to couple behavior with it's measurable effect on hormone levels, thus behavior.
This 'hypothesis' is that if children selectively choose behaviors that increase adrenaline, over time they will develop behavioral traits that are coupled with induced hormone levels, and that these traits will likely last a lifetime.
Basically, animals, including humans, are a product of their environment, and not some type of etch-a-sketch that can simply wipe the slate clean and learn a new behavior at any point in time. Humans _can_ be a little more general purpose, but generally carry the baggage of our childhood in many complex ways.
This issue is less about kids than it is about their parents.
Forbidding something for most children simply creates a black market that they will find a way to fulfill, so no, ending or forbidding screen time alone would be some weird form of parental fascism.
That said, the role of being a parent is to do what is necessary and beneficial, which isn't always popular. Not being popular is fine, but parenting must be done in a way to earn and maintain respect, and harsh rules and fear ain't it.
What I discovered was that video games increased aggression in my son, especially after the age of 12. Your son may kill zombies in harmony with the universe while floating in the lotus position, so your mileage may vary. The more aggressive, the poorer his performance in everything, especially school. Screen time always seemed to turn into some form of video game or time-suck social media black hole resulting in an alarming level of anger and frustration. So I gave my son a hypothesis, that humans and domesticated red foxes would behave in a similar fashion - increased adrenaline levels from any source, including video games would decrease social interaction and increase aggression, and reducing external adrenaline-causing sources like video games would have the opposite effect - more social behavior, increased curiosity, and easier learning.
If he agreed to abandon video games and significantly reduce social media, I would agree to work with him to keep him engaged in extra-curricular activities. The long story short - after about a year of this, with me spending far more of my time than I had originally anticipated in helping him with projects and pursuing his other interests, he told me that he thought my hypothesis was sound, and that reducing video games and social media had made him a calmer, happier person. At first he was angry and upset and he though I was full of shit, and he told me so. After a year, he thanked me. He's now living on his own, pays his own rent, and has a very active social life.
His younger brother saw all this shit going down from a much younger age and simply elected to avoid video games and social media all on his own, which saved me a lot of ass-pain, except I spent just as much time working to keep son 2 engaged in extracurricular activities.
If you can man-up and be a good parent then yes, less screen time will likely be very beneficial. If you simply cut off screen time and don't give them an alternative, expect something awful to grow in the shadows that might be far worse.
That seems to be a video of idiots driving poorly, mostly in Teslas. Last I checked, idiots (before incarceration and/or death) are free to drive whatever they want.
Are you suggesting that Tesla drivers are predominately idiots? If so, I see a lot of idiot driver and crash videos for pretty much every make of car.
While bicycling through my neighborhood yesterday I almost crashed into a Tesla that was backing out of a driveway. The lack of engine and exhaust noise did seem like some kind of fraud....
I tell you what won't be pulling out early: the uncircmsized 14 inch nígger penis JAMMED good and hard right up your nasty rancid POOPER, ravagina you for an hour with blood from intense anal tearing as the ONLY lube. You'll be shitting blood and nígger cum for days!!
I was going to ask for clarification on how this contributes to the discussion, as the above AC response seemed... odd.
But then I researched the term Giggity, (I haven't watched television, except Firefly and Agents of Shield, in almost two decades) and now the AC response makes perfect sense.
Upending the defense contract rocket launch industry, the auto industry, and scaring the shit out of the energy industry will likely inspire some rather powerful establishments to ass-rape Elon.
Rei, your previous use of the word "spalling" in reference to concrete, and this post above, peg you as a civil engineer of some sort, or...
You are the evil spawn the the USENET newsgroup alt.pave.the.earth., as you seem to be suggesting that coating the planet in concrete will save us from CO2.
Which is a brilliant idea as we'll have more space to drive and park our electric cars:)
I think I see the problem here... increased atmospheric CO2 levels have led to an increase in coffee production, the over-consumption of which HAS CAUSED EXCESSIVE USE OF ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!
Keep sipping that coffee, you and Juan Valdez will sequester carbon and save the world, one cup at a time.
If you examine crude oil pumped straight from the ground you'll find the fossilized single-cell plants that produced the oil - algae and related diatoms. The slow, natural processes involving pressure and heat that convert this natural vegetable oil from everything between natural gas to heavy crude just contaminates the feedstock with nasties from the ground (arsenic, cadmium, etc) and makes processing into usable products more expensive and environmentally polluting. So your idea has great merit.
The program started by identifying and isolating strains of algae that were the most efficient oil producers, then setting up a pilot-scale plant. The challenges were that these strains of algae were easily taken over by more dominant, less efficient strains, so open-air ponds were problematic. More elaborate infrastructure to isolate the algae while exposure to sunlight have been proposed and tested on a small scale by others.
The most problematic aspect of this program was that it was political in nature. As soon as the Saudis/OPEC called off the oil embargo all political will to spend money on such a scheme evaporated, along with the Carter administration's energy independence initiatives. Reagan began dismantling and de-funding Carter's programs almost immediately upon entering office.
Solar PV in the 70's was an expensive side-show with future potential, at best. What was immediately available at that time and somewhat economical was solar thermal. In a bizarre and sad twist of fate, the solar thermal panels that once sat atop the United States White House now reside in a museum in China.
Sequestering CO2 probably won't get much serious attention from the US government until the 'politics' of global warming get personal - i.e. when sea levels rise by a few meters, which would put much of Washington DC under water. The Lincoln Memorial is currently 4 meters above sea level. The White House is approximately 15 meters above sea level. The ground level of Trump Tower in NY is at 18 meters above sea level. Currently.
Right, what I said is counter-intuitive based on anecdotal popular media 'stories'. Smoking is a wonderful stimulant, especially in low doses, aids concentration, help relaxation...
But, over an extended period of consistent use, months to years - nicotine suppresses thyroid function. If your thyroid is a rock-star, you'll never notice before you die from cardiovascular disease or a stroke.
If.
If your thyroid has other undiagnosed issues, is a little weak, you have a rather common auto-immune condition that attacks the thyroid called Hashimotos, which is often coupled with undiagnosed gluten-based food allergies (also common)... then smoking is going to make these issues seemingly appear out of nowhere, eventually, and with likely much more severity than they would have otherwise.
Another problem with heavy smoking: stopping suddenly often leads to a rapid negative effect on thyroid function, which further increases the weight gain and throws the adrenal glands into a panic, leading to adrenal failure, anxiety and sleep problems... the heavy use of sleep aids such as Ambien or alcohol masks these issues, poorly. For people that experience this, they were likely already experiencing suppressed thyroid function (not necessarily only from smoking!) and were already overweight (like over 50% of Americans), so stopping smoking suddenly just makes an unknown underlying problem worse. This is definitely not a reason to keep smoking. The addiction to nicotine, the apparent relaxation it brings, aid in clarity and focus... often mask underlying problems that further contribute to this negative feedback loop.
Low thyroid hormone levels, T3 & T4, lead to not only weight gain, but also varying levels of depression, reduced memory and ability to concentrate, and a general feeling of 'malaise', i.e. guys become curmudgeons and 'perform' poorly, thus the market for little blue pills, women become bitchy and, um, 'cold', leading to unhappy men and an increase in the world's oldest profession. If you smoke, or are a little older, a full thyroid panel should be part of an annual check-up. If you smoke heavily and stop smoking, then you should monitor thyroid function closely for months while you stop smoking, then monitor at least annually or semi-annually. This monitoring doesn't even take a doctor, you can order these blood tests online yourself for $50 or less. Amazon sells test kits as well, although probably not as accurate as a blood draw and a lab analysis. Then you might face the daunting task of dealing with marginally competent MDs who simply throw T4-only treatments at people - a different rant, also with various alternatives. Overall, the lack of comprehensive insurance and healthcare in the US is a tragedy, yet another rant.
Nicotine was designed by plants to mess with insects to repel them, so it shouldn't be surprising that it also messes with humans in interesting ways. Do your own reading and research, and hopefully, don't smoke or ingest enhanced levels of nicotine from any source. It's just stupid.
Nicotine creates a negative feedback loop. It suppresses thyroid function, which causes depressions and a general feeling of malaise, along with the expected weight gain.
If you give up nicotine you'll find that life overall become much more enjoyable. Get frequent blood tests, including free T3 and free T4 levels. If not already in the middle of the normal range, get them there. Stop smoking first, they might get there on their own. TSH is next to worthless - personal issue, long back story.
Get a puppy (and hardwood floors, a carpet cleaner, etc...). Take puppy for walks daily. Cute, friendly puppies, even friendly old dogs at dog parks, are chick magnets. Puppies, sunshine and chicks are really, really good for one's outlook on life, at any age.
30 minutes per day of walking a dog and throwing a tennis ball/playing fetch is all the exercise you need. If you want 6-pack abs and the ability to do 20 chin-ups, a wee bit more discipline may be needed, but that level of exercise is just narcissism, or... something:)
Not true. Birds do a very good job of seeing and avoiding aircraft, and bird strikes are incredibly rare. Drone close encounters with aircraft are growing. They must be regulated, must have mandated position alerting equipment (ADS-B), and their 'operators' must get training in order to interact with the national airspace system - i.e. other aircraft, or they can stay in close to the ground and withing visual range of the operator.
Keep digging, you'll find it. You might have to actually look at archived printed media, because MIT and other really don't want that part of their history known, and they spend a bit of time and money polishing their image.
What forced Minsky into the Icon Media Lab? (He didn't go by choice) Who was his fellow MIT professor that was fired?
Frank Rosenblatt's official cause of death is listed as a boating accident, but was it?
When mob rule decides what makes it into the history books, or in this case, Wikipedia, a healthy dose of skepticism is... healthy.
If I'm reading the XKCD correctly, there will be a lot of "AI" jobs for those of us that actually know the underlying math, even if it means we're closer to 41 than 15.
Yep, but you better be able to deal with the bright young punks, or they'll put you out to pasture:)
It's certainly out of reach for me at 41 years old.
Probably, but because of your attitude, not your age.
Perfect. Thank you for that.
Your son will not push the state of the art, and will likely not be able to keep up in competitive new markets, with just the 'use a library' mentality. But you already know that, as your other comments hint at it. A bit of formal education in AI will help anyone, and is not out of reach for anyone that wants to learn.
Your son sounds like a very bright kid who probably has a very bright mentor to encourage him along. Well done!
You are somewhat correct, if esoteric research in the 1960's is what you are referring to as 'known techniques'. Modern AI techniques weren't truly implemented until the mid 70's, with broader acceptance and applications demonstrated in the mid 80's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you are referring to the 1960's symbolic (lisp) techniques espoused by the disgraced Marvin Minsky, nearly fired from MIT for borderline fraud, a case that saw MIT forced to repay DARPA millions in wasted research money, then you are a bit behind the times. Modern AI techniques are now quite far from Minsky's self-aggrandized approach. Modern techniques were pioneered more by Minksy's high-school rival and a victim of Minky's petulant personal and private bullying, the truly brilliant Frank Rosenblatt. Frank was so close. Had he lived just a few more years and kept his confidence, he would have seen his dream realized.
Anyway, modern AI takes a bit of calculus to truly understand, and some statistics. An undergraduate with a solid math foundation should be able to derive the backprop algorithm and explain it. Then there's catastrophic forgetfulness, SLAM techniques with grid and place cells... probably things beyond a typical undergraduate curriculum, but possible.
Any technician can be trained to push buttons. It might take a bit more fundamental understanding of what is going on under the covers to catch training pitfalls and prevent inefficiencies. Maybe this is what companies hiring for AI work are after.
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
Nice job with the scare tactic - nuclear power or we all die! The sky is falling! And nice try in your post below, in using the very specialized case of the US Navy in their attempt to project power around the globe with boats. Fortunately US consumers have a few more choices and a little more flexibility than the Navy.
Scare tactics and false dichotomies aside, there's a long history behind the two old arguments you are making, now cleverly rolled into one. And they're both a shell game. Where's the pea, quick, follow my hands! There is no pea. And there is no argument for nuclear saving us, or that the sky is falling. We have work to do, but we're not all gonna die. Unless you make me spill my drink, or cheat me in a card game, or look at my woman... except I don't drink or gamble, and my woman is fiercely independent and loyal, and I am unnaturally studly... so, we're probably not all gonna die. Not even from global warming. There are many potential solutions, and we're just getting started.
First, big nuclear has been living on life support from the government tit from day one. The full-cycle economics have always been questionable, but the lure of 'more funding!' and 'more research, we're almost there!' have kept that ball rolling. Niche markets for nuclear will continue on - like aircraft carriers and submarines. For civilian energy, pick a fission design - the latest and greatest is just around the corner, if we just try that, then we're saved! Except, human error. Hey, we can design that out. Great! Except, tidal wave. Damn, we can fix that too. What next? Sabotage? Meteorite? Rapid disruptive innovation making massive, nation-state enterprise level energy projects obsolete? Don't laugh.
Fission, the neglected ugly stepchild of Nuclear, is even more interesting. Always 30 years away with the promise of 'saving the world' with abundant, clean energy. That only a nation-state can build, maintain, and provide. For which you will pay taxes. For energy. And protection. And god knows what else. Just give us more research money. Any day now. For what, 40 years now? Great, no thanks.
They aren't mentioned because there's no Westinghouse behind them to buy publicity. Or is it Toshiba now, no, wait, it's Brookfield Business Partners". Just follow the money and the claims of saving the world (and corporate desperation) - they will both lead to a special interest group somewhere, with their own little Buddy Jesus bobble head and claims of salvation.
The same goes for the fossil fuel shell games. If we can just keep the promise of abundant,cheap fossil fuels alive, we'll keep our increasingly monopolistic empire alive! Look, we can make fossil fuels, sans new carbon, and it will save the world! Everybody will be happy! Especially the status quo.
Bzzt! Wrong. The Russians didn't leave eastern Europe after WW2, and their expansion into Cuba was seen as an attempt to expand their empire.
Yes, the US placed missiles in Eastern Europe, but NATO members could never have been called US conquered territory. A US military base does not make an occupation. The old Soviet countries didn't fare so well, or they'd still be part of the USSR.
Slashdot Mirror
From the very foundation that manages the estate of Thomas Jefferson at the home he built, Monticello, including his descendants, both black and white:
“Though enslaved, Sally Hemings helped shape her life and the lives of her children, who got an almost 50-year head start on emancipation, escaping the system that had engulfed their ancestors and millions of others. Whatever we may feel about it today, this was important to her.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, 2017
I don't think Thomas Jefferson was quite as evil as you make him out to be. He seems to have been more interested in keeping his relationship with Sally Hemings secret, rather than in keeping anyone a slave. I also challenge you to produce a record of Jefferson selling any of his children with Sally Hemings, or a record of any of Sally's children being abused. Jefferson went out of his way to provide Sally with a private adjoining bedroom with his own. This woman had unfettered access to Jefferson. She could have easily killed him in his sleep, for decades, but she didn't. They also fell in love while in France, where mixed race relationships where no big deal.
It's also not fair to use modern values to judge those from a different culture and era. If you have references to paint a clear picture of Jefferson as someone who was truly evil, rather than someone who was trying to avoid persecution for a forbidden love, I'd love to see them.
Jefferson did leave clear instructions that all his slaves were to be freed, but I don't think this happened until after he died. I do love history, but I do not claim to be knowledgeable about Jefferson, although I have visited his home.
If you want an example of evil in the founding fathers of US history - look at Alexander Hamilton. That SOB used anonymous news articles and stories to libel and belittle Aaron Burr for decades, a rather competent military man who went on to become vice president. Both Burr and Jefferson were not terribly fond of Hamilton's Federalist agenda, which has issues reverberating in American politics to this day.
Burr eventually got tired of Hamilton's shit and challenged him to a duel, which was accepted. Hamilton, being inept with a pistol, his few competencies being running his mouth and flinging ink with his pen, lost the duel and died. A fitting end for an Anonymous Coward.
I agree with you completely. My post was too brief and unclear. I used the examples of the red foxes becoming more social when their selective breading inadvertently reduced the size of their adrenal glands, resulting in less adrenaline, because my son loves animals. At the time we had a fox den under a porch in our back yard and got to watch foxes and their kits develop and mature for several seasons. As they matured, they stopped playing and became more solitary.
The intent isn't to selectively breed any humans for an attribute, rather it was to couple behavior with it's measurable effect on hormone levels, thus behavior.
This 'hypothesis' is that if children selectively choose behaviors that increase adrenaline, over time they will develop behavioral traits that are coupled with induced hormone levels, and that these traits will likely last a lifetime.
Basically, animals, including humans, are a product of their environment, and not some type of etch-a-sketch that can simply wipe the slate clean and learn a new behavior at any point in time. Humans _can_ be a little more general purpose, but generally carry the baggage of our childhood in many complex ways.
This issue is less about kids than it is about their parents.
Forbidding something for most children simply creates a black market that they will find a way to fulfill, so no, ending or forbidding screen time alone would be some weird form of parental fascism.
That said, the role of being a parent is to do what is necessary and beneficial, which isn't always popular. Not being popular is fine, but parenting must be done in a way to earn and maintain respect, and harsh rules and fear ain't it.
What I discovered was that video games increased aggression in my son, especially after the age of 12. Your son may kill zombies in harmony with the universe while floating in the lotus position, so your mileage may vary. The more aggressive, the poorer his performance in everything, especially school. Screen time always seemed to turn into some form of video game or time-suck social media black hole resulting in an alarming level of anger and frustration. So I gave my son a hypothesis, that humans and domesticated red foxes would behave in a similar fashion - increased adrenaline levels from any source, including video games would decrease social interaction and increase aggression, and reducing external adrenaline-causing sources like video games would have the opposite effect - more social behavior, increased curiosity, and easier learning.
If he agreed to abandon video games and significantly reduce social media, I would agree to work with him to keep him engaged in extra-curricular activities. The long story short - after about a year of this, with me spending far more of my time than I had originally anticipated in helping him with projects and pursuing his other interests, he told me that he thought my hypothesis was sound, and that reducing video games and social media had made him a calmer, happier person. At first he was angry and upset and he though I was full of shit, and he told me so. After a year, he thanked me. He's now living on his own, pays his own rent, and has a very active social life.
His younger brother saw all this shit going down from a much younger age and simply elected to avoid video games and social media all on his own, which saved me a lot of ass-pain, except I spent just as much time working to keep son 2 engaged in extracurricular activities.
If you can man-up and be a good parent then yes, less screen time will likely be very beneficial. If you simply cut off screen time and don't give them an alternative, expect something awful to grow in the shadows that might be far worse.
That was genuinely funny, thank you for that :)
Here’s a better video faggot.
That seems to be a video of idiots driving poorly, mostly in Teslas. Last I checked, idiots (before incarceration and/or death) are free to drive whatever they want.
Are you suggesting that Tesla drivers are predominately idiots? If so, I see a lot of idiot driver and crash videos for pretty much every make of car.
So please, clarify...
Cool, it's on Amazon Prime, thanks!
Classic musk faggot whataboutism.
Here, calm down with some nice videos:
Help with anger management, courtesy of the Muppets and Jack Black.
Technological advances should not be seen as an enemy.
While bicycling through my neighborhood yesterday I almost crashed into a Tesla that was backing out of a driveway. The lack of engine and exhaust noise did seem like some kind of fraud....
So... they pulled out too early?
Giggity.
I tell you what won't be pulling out early: the uncircmsized 14 inch nígger penis JAMMED good and hard right up your nasty rancid POOPER, ravagina you for an hour with blood from intense anal tearing as the ONLY lube. You'll be shitting blood and nígger cum for days!!
I was going to ask for clarification on how this contributes to the discussion, as the above AC response seemed... odd.
But then I researched the term Giggity, (I haven't watched television, except Firefly and Agents of Shield, in almost two decades) and now the AC response makes perfect sense.
Upending the defense contract rocket launch industry, the auto industry, and scaring the shit out of the energy industry will likely inspire some rather powerful establishments to ass-rape Elon.
No further clarification needed :-p
... the value of political contributions and tolerating Trump's 'Business' panel.
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Rei, your previous use of the word "spalling" in reference to concrete, and this post above, peg you as a civil engineer of some sort, or...
You are the evil spawn the the USENET newsgroup alt.pave.the.earth., as you seem to be suggesting that coating the planet in concrete will save us from CO2.
Which is a brilliant idea as we'll have more space to drive and park our electric cars :)
I think I see the problem here... increased atmospheric CO2 levels have led to an increase in coffee production, the over-consumption of which HAS CAUSED EXCESSIVE USE OF ALL CAPS AND SUPERFLUOUS PUNCTUATION!!!!
Keep sipping that coffee, you and Juan Valdez will sequester carbon and save the world, one cup at a time.
If you examine crude oil pumped straight from the ground you'll find the fossilized single-cell plants that produced the oil - algae and related diatoms. The slow, natural processes involving pressure and heat that convert this natural vegetable oil from everything between natural gas to heavy crude just contaminates the feedstock with nasties from the ground (arsenic, cadmium, etc) and makes processing into usable products more expensive and environmentally polluting. So your idea has great merit.
Under the Carter administration, as a result of the politicalization of middle-east oil and the subsequent embargo and US oil crisis, a program was initiated to do just what you propose - the massive, large-scale biological production of oil using algae. This program was called the Aquatic Species Program..
The program started by identifying and isolating strains of algae that were the most efficient oil producers, then setting up a pilot-scale plant. The challenges were that these strains of algae were easily taken over by more dominant, less efficient strains, so open-air ponds were problematic. More elaborate infrastructure to isolate the algae while exposure to sunlight have been proposed and tested on a small scale by others.
The most problematic aspect of this program was that it was political in nature. As soon as the Saudis/OPEC called off the oil embargo all political will to spend money on such a scheme evaporated, along with the Carter administration's energy independence initiatives. Reagan began dismantling and de-funding Carter's programs almost immediately upon entering office.
Solar PV in the 70's was an expensive side-show with future potential, at best. What was immediately available at that time and somewhat economical was solar thermal. In a bizarre and sad twist of fate, the solar thermal panels that once sat atop the United States White House now reside in a museum in China.
Sequestering CO2 probably won't get much serious attention from the US government until the 'politics' of global warming get personal - i.e. when sea levels rise by a few meters, which would put much of Washington DC under water. The Lincoln Memorial is currently 4 meters above sea level. The White House is approximately 15 meters above sea level. The ground level of Trump Tower in NY is at 18 meters above sea level. Currently.
Source: https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/vie...
This might be a belated but amateurish tit for tat.
The problem with failing at covert actions is that they become, ah, not covert, and provide justification for a more conventional response.
It turns out there's quite a bit of water on Mars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Right, what I said is counter-intuitive based on anecdotal popular media 'stories'. Smoking is a wonderful stimulant, especially in low doses, aids concentration, help relaxation...
But, over an extended period of consistent use, months to years - nicotine suppresses thyroid function. If your thyroid is a rock-star, you'll never notice before you die from cardiovascular disease or a stroke.
If.
If your thyroid has other undiagnosed issues, is a little weak, you have a rather common auto-immune condition that attacks the thyroid called Hashimotos, which is often coupled with undiagnosed gluten-based food allergies (also common)... then smoking is going to make these issues seemingly appear out of nowhere, eventually, and with likely much more severity than they would have otherwise.
Another problem with heavy smoking: stopping suddenly often leads to a rapid negative effect on thyroid function, which further increases the weight gain and throws the adrenal glands into a panic, leading to adrenal failure, anxiety and sleep problems... the heavy use of sleep aids such as Ambien or alcohol masks these issues, poorly. For people that experience this, they were likely already experiencing suppressed thyroid function (not necessarily only from smoking!) and were already overweight (like over 50% of Americans), so stopping smoking suddenly just makes an unknown underlying problem worse. This is definitely not a reason to keep smoking. The addiction to nicotine, the apparent relaxation it brings, aid in clarity and focus... often mask underlying problems that further contribute to this negative feedback loop.
Low thyroid hormone levels, T3 & T4, lead to not only weight gain, but also varying levels of depression, reduced memory and ability to concentrate, and a general feeling of 'malaise', i.e. guys become curmudgeons and 'perform' poorly, thus the market for little blue pills, women become bitchy and, um, 'cold', leading to unhappy men and an increase in the world's oldest profession. If you smoke, or are a little older, a full thyroid panel should be part of an annual check-up. If you smoke heavily and stop smoking, then you should monitor thyroid function closely for months while you stop smoking, then monitor at least annually or semi-annually. This monitoring doesn't even take a doctor, you can order these blood tests online yourself for $50 or less. Amazon sells test kits as well, although probably not as accurate as a blood draw and a lab analysis. Then you might face the daunting task of dealing with marginally competent MDs who simply throw T4-only treatments at people - a different rant, also with various alternatives. Overall, the lack of comprehensive insurance and healthcare in the US is a tragedy, yet another rant.
Nicotine was designed by plants to mess with insects to repel them, so it shouldn't be surprising that it also messes with humans in interesting ways. Do your own reading and research, and hopefully, don't smoke or ingest enhanced levels of nicotine from any source. It's just stupid.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Nicotine creates a negative feedback loop. It suppresses thyroid function, which causes depressions and a general feeling of malaise, along with the expected weight gain.
If you give up nicotine you'll find that life overall become much more enjoyable. Get frequent blood tests, including free T3 and free T4 levels. If not already in the middle of the normal range, get them there. Stop smoking first, they might get there on their own. TSH is next to worthless - personal issue, long back story.
Get a puppy (and hardwood floors, a carpet cleaner, etc...). Take puppy for walks daily. Cute, friendly puppies, even friendly old dogs at dog parks, are chick magnets. Puppies, sunshine and chicks are really, really good for one's outlook on life, at any age.
30 minutes per day of walking a dog and throwing a tennis ball/playing fetch is all the exercise you need. If you want 6-pack abs and the ability to do 20 chin-ups, a wee bit more discipline may be needed, but that level of exercise is just narcissism, or... something :)
Not true. Birds do a very good job of seeing and avoiding aircraft, and bird strikes are incredibly rare. Drone close encounters with aircraft are growing. They must be regulated, must have mandated position alerting equipment (ADS-B), and their 'operators' must get training in order to interact with the national airspace system - i.e. other aircraft, or they can stay in close to the ground and withing visual range of the operator.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals...
Here I go again, replying to an AC...
Keep digging, you'll find it. You might have to actually look at archived printed media, because MIT and other really don't want that part of their history known, and they spend a bit of time and money polishing their image.
What forced Minsky into the Icon Media Lab? (He didn't go by choice) Who was his fellow MIT professor that was fired?
Frank Rosenblatt's official cause of death is listed as a boating accident, but was it?
When mob rule decides what makes it into the history books, or in this case, Wikipedia, a healthy dose of skepticism is... healthy.
If I'm reading the XKCD correctly, there will be a lot of "AI" jobs for those of us that actually know the underlying math, even if it means we're closer to 41 than 15.
Yep, but you better be able to deal with the bright young punks, or they'll put you out to pasture :)
It's certainly out of reach for me at 41 years old.
Probably, but because of your attitude, not your age.
Perfect. Thank you for that.
Your son will not push the state of the art, and will likely not be able to keep up in competitive new markets, with just the 'use a library' mentality. But you already know that, as your other comments hint at it. A bit of formal education in AI will help anyone, and is not out of reach for anyone that wants to learn.
Your son sounds like a very bright kid who probably has a very bright mentor to encourage him along. Well done!
You are somewhat correct, if esoteric research in the 1960's is what you are referring to as 'known techniques'. Modern AI techniques weren't truly implemented until the mid 70's, with broader acceptance and applications demonstrated in the mid 80's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you are referring to the 1960's symbolic (lisp) techniques espoused by the disgraced Marvin Minsky, nearly fired from MIT for borderline fraud, a case that saw MIT forced to repay DARPA millions in wasted research money, then you are a bit behind the times. Modern AI techniques are now quite far from Minsky's self-aggrandized approach. Modern techniques were pioneered more by Minksy's high-school rival and a victim of Minky's petulant personal and private bullying, the truly brilliant Frank Rosenblatt. Frank was so close. Had he lived just a few more years and kept his confidence, he would have seen his dream realized.
Why it took the span of a human lifetime for people to see through Marvin is baffling: https://www.reddit.com/r/Machi...
Anyway, modern AI takes a bit of calculus to truly understand, and some statistics. An undergraduate with a solid math foundation should be able to derive the backprop algorithm and explain it. Then there's catastrophic forgetfulness, SLAM techniques with grid and place cells... probably things beyond a typical undergraduate curriculum, but possible.
Any technician can be trained to push buttons. It might take a bit more fundamental understanding of what is going on under the covers to catch training pitfalls and prevent inefficiencies. Maybe this is what companies hiring for AI work are after.
Again, which am I to fear more, nuclear power or global warming? Pick one, because we are running out of time for wind and sun to save us.
Nice job with the scare tactic - nuclear power or we all die! The sky is falling! And nice try in your post below, in using the very specialized case of the US Navy in their attempt to project power around the globe with boats. Fortunately US consumers have a few more choices and a little more flexibility than the Navy.
Scare tactics and false dichotomies aside, there's a long history behind the two old arguments you are making, now cleverly rolled into one. And they're both a shell game. Where's the pea, quick, follow my hands! There is no pea. And there is no argument for nuclear saving us, or that the sky is falling. We have work to do, but we're not all gonna die. Unless you make me spill my drink, or cheat me in a card game, or look at my woman... except I don't drink or gamble, and my woman is fiercely independent and loyal, and I am unnaturally studly... so, we're probably not all gonna die. Not even from global warming. There are many potential solutions, and we're just getting started.
First, big nuclear has been living on life support from the government tit from day one. The full-cycle economics have always been questionable, but the lure of 'more funding!' and 'more research, we're almost there!' have kept that ball rolling. Niche markets for nuclear will continue on - like aircraft carriers and submarines. For civilian energy, pick a fission design - the latest and greatest is just around the corner, if we just try that, then we're saved! Except, human error. Hey, we can design that out. Great! Except, tidal wave. Damn, we can fix that too. What next? Sabotage? Meteorite? Rapid disruptive innovation making massive, nation-state enterprise level energy projects obsolete? Don't laugh.
Fission, the neglected ugly stepchild of Nuclear, is even more interesting. Always 30 years away with the promise of 'saving the world' with abundant, clean energy. That only a nation-state can build, maintain, and provide. For which you will pay taxes. For energy. And protection. And god knows what else. Just give us more research money. Any day now. For what, 40 years now? Great, no thanks.
When nuclear is discussed, why is so little mentioned about the promising young upstarts - the Filo T. Farnsworth inspired (yep, the guy that invented the television picture tube while trying to make a fusion reactor new designs, such as the Polywell? Or something really new, like Helion's Magneto-inertial fusion reactor, or even Lockheed Martin's Compact Fusion Reactor?
They aren't mentioned because there's no Westinghouse behind them to buy publicity. Or is it Toshiba now, no, wait, it's Brookfield Business Partners". Just follow the money and the claims of saving the world (and corporate desperation) - they will both lead to a special interest group somewhere, with their own little Buddy Jesus bobble head and claims of salvation.
The same goes for the fossil fuel shell games. If we can just keep the promise of abundant ,cheap fossil fuels alive, we'll keep our increasingly monopolistic empire alive! Look, we can make fossil fuels, sans new carbon, and it will save the world! Everybody will be happy! Especially the status quo.
Back in the 1970's the US ran out of oil because it was controlled by a few who didn't see eye to eye with the US, and your grandparents had to wait in line at the gas station due to federally mandated rationing.
Bzzt! Wrong. The Russians didn't leave eastern Europe after WW2, and their expansion into Cuba was seen as an attempt to expand their empire.
Yes, the US placed missiles in Eastern Europe, but NATO members could never have been called US conquered territory. A US military base does not make an occupation. The old Soviet countries didn't fare so well, or they'd still be part of the USSR.