careful. we're not talking about my never accessing anything outside of the country. we're talking about my choosing canadian suppliers over foreign ones.
in canada, that always takes the form of "if there are comparable suppliers".
microsoft exists in canada, I'm sure, or can with the flip of a switch. there's also no business alternative to microsoft products, nor alternative documentation.
also, I'd be allowed to buy both. as long as I also get the domestic alternative, I could have whatever foreign one I want.
and as a small business myself, it would be great for business. instead of competing with the world at large, I'd only need to worry about my own country competitors. so I wouldn't be competing with countries where people get slave wages, and I wouldn't need to wait for clients to finish getting screwed by $4/hour romanian programmers.
cory's got a lot of good points, but no solution to any of his stated problems. so take it for what it is, an observation, not a course of action. much like the occupy protests forget that the banks get most of their money from the protesters directly, and that most of their employers borrow large sums of money from the same banks, there's a cycle that needs to be noticed to be understood.
of course there would be huge differences. but since my country hands out large amounts of money to businesses like mine, it seems silly to then not have those companies be successful. why would I want to fund other companies who will likely lose to foreign companies?
think about this. there are countries that have book stores. populations of a total of 1 million humans, many of whom buy books. that country can't possible afford to have book stores who profit from sales when those million humans can buy from amazon at half the price. so, throw out the book stores.
it's not unfair, why shouldn't people buy from amazon.
the problem is that no one locally can beat amazon, because amazon benefits from a world market, whereas the local bookstore can't.
so, kill the local book store. that's fine.
the trouble is that every industry and market becomes like that. in every country, for everything.
so the u.s. will sell marketing services, and movies, not manufacture anything.
canada will produce oil, comedians, and medical research, but not books, nor movies.
so no one in the u.s. will do anything blue-collar.
specialization can work. it's great in organisms. but it fails when distances are involved.
the choice that I'd support is one to allow any canadian to have any type of career, without needing to move to another country to have it.
a) I can live without those. none of them is essential to anything I do. b) most of them have a canadian presence c) they all can. it needn't be a big one, just one large enough to support or to relay to the canadian market
oh boohoo, I won't have one search engine over eight other perfectly fine search engines. and instead, I have more wealth in my own country.
i think you need to remember that while your priorities are correct when contained within the internet, there are reaching consequences that actually matter in the real world. you know, like property value, homelessness, employment rate, exports, food, independence, and community. each of those is hindered when my money goes out of the country for something silly like facebook -- something which can easily be home-grown.
sure, there it is, you're right. But this law in Canada would work quite differently. it actually would be to support incentives. quite frankly, it wouldn't be a law so much as an incentive program.
yes, I'm supporting it being illegal. I like the idea that my country, and those within it, actually support it. what a concept. but hey, I'll vote my way, you vote yours.
I actually like this, which is weird, because I wouldn't have thought so. But it makes sense that in order to benefit from all of the various business-related incentives that your country may provide, including your business licence in the first place, that you continue to spend your money domestically.
I run a business in Canada, and I use Rackspace out of the U.S.A.. I've very happy with Rackspace, as anyone should be, they are indeed fantastic in every way. But I feel guilty for not remaining in Canada, and do wish that they'd open a Canadian datacentre. Recently, I've found a worthy Canadian competitor, and simply cannot justify the transitional effort.
But I'd appreciate such a law. Sure it would cause momentary distress for me and for my business, but I think it would improve competition amongst my competitors, and also attract foreign suppliers -- Rackspace included.
you're very much incorrect. I'm for all sorts of safety systems that allow the driver to drive safer. put more tools in the hands of the operator, always, and things will be better. but in this case, you're taking skills away from the operator. it doesn't matter why. if a driver chooses to drift across lanes, the car won't. there is now no way to instruct the car to drift. you just can't.
traction control is fantastic -- as long as you have the button to disable it when you need to. same with air bags, by the way. there are a great many times when airbags and seatbelts and traction control are more dangerous. but all of these things tend to become enforced upon the driver, who really should be able to control his own vehicle.
for example, in this case, I'd be fine with a system that occasionally notices that the driver is doing very little driving, and asks the driver to respond. if the driver doesn't, then by all means take over. but when I'm enjoying a mountain road, at full speed-limit speeds, on twisties typically taken at half-speed, you'd better believe that I drift across the line. very much intentionally. in those cases, fightitng even a minor change in my steering wheel dynamics could be lethal, causing me to crash into the mountain-side, or to fly off of the mountain itself.
the part of my brain that's very familiar with the false positives associated with computer decision-making algorithms.
people started driving faster when they got airbags. welcome to humans. there will be more drowsy drivers as a result of this. look up humans in a book and start to learn about them.
there are very few things that you can blame for a drowsy crash now. after weather and an actually broken car, you're down to minutia. by car crashed by itself will now become a legitimate reason -- whereas today, it doesn't hold up at all.
I don't think it'll save more people. I think it'll produce poorer drivers, and ultimately there will be more crashes. they won't be attributed to this feature, because the drivers won't be drowsy, they'll just be inexperienced -- because they never needed to cope with they own deficiencies. so crashes will go up because drivers won't have skills.
it's not a car analogy, we're talking about cars. and having your passenger turn your wheel is exactly the same as having anything else turn your wheel -- in this case, a webcam on the windshield.
it's not difficult to change lanes, nor to stay in one lane. that's, quite frankly, the easiest part of driving. I don't need help. And keeping me between lines when the road ignores the lines -- construction zones, test paint strips, icons, etc. -- is a terrible idea.
but more than anything else, why should I avoid driving drowsy when my car can help me out? you'll get more drowsy drivers, and more drunk drivers, than ever before.
you'll also have a whole host of drivers blaming a crash on this feature, whether or not it's true.
you've just taken both responsibilty and accountability away from the driver, and put it into something that can't be held accountable, and doesn't have a drivers licence. congrats.
but hey, here's the truth. this is EXACTLY like letting your 8-year old child steer from the passenger seat, while on a long highway drive. it's very dangerous and very illegal. not because your child can't stay between the lines. because the driver is the driver.
two things. first, you'll find that the reason they didn't do it without you is because it really wasn't worth it to them. so the amount of money they'd be willing to pay will be negligible. remember that they don't care if the solution is better software, or more of your team's time. it's all the same. so better software isn't any better of a solution -- they may not take advantage of the differences for a long time, and one of the advantages is being able to fire half of the team.
second, you're forgetting what taking money means. forget the work you've already done. if you take money for it, you become responsible for it. every bug, every request, every feature creep, every tech support call. every question, every answer.
ultimately, you did it for fun, keep it. if you want to donate it to the cause, that's great, it'll make you look good and be considered more valuable -- not because of what it does, but because you're willing to donate it.
you don't want the money, they won't pay the money; both are why you didn't get the money first.
lesser than the evils of not nose diving when nothing's wrong? this time, not nose diving would have caused zero problems. nose-diving caused injuries.
think of how many times a random nose dive like this would have saved lives, and how many times it would have simply injured people.
if this were to happen on every flight, if you knew that this exact scenario was going to happen on your next flight, would you board the plane?
if a giant alien had been picking it's nose with the plane, there'd have been a correct course of action for that too. the point is not to do the correct thing for a different situation. the idea is to do the correct thing for the current situation.
it's not any less wrong just because it could have been a different problem. it wasn't, it was this problem.
that's why we verify information, and ask for assistance, and outside perspectives, and build that into our procedures.
there were at least two pilots on board, and plenty of ground control to ask. the auto pilot didn't ask anyone for any coroberation.
acting alone makes you solely responsible for your decision. when you're wrong, you're entirely wrong. it doesn't matter why.
Figures that only a fellow fun-lover would pick up on it so easily.
Have you joined your local miata club? I got to say, I'm 32 now, and I joined not the young club but the elderly club -- average age is 65, some are well over 80. It's wonderful to go on multi-day trips with people who have the time and the money to organize such fantastic trips.
2009, then new, yellow (almost orange in daylight), power retractable hard top convertible, Mazda MX-5. And then I put scissor door hinges onto it. just for fun.
At some point, around 20 years ago, they stopped advertising the car part of the car. It's black, it has eyebrows, it gets good mileage, it has 8 music players, 12 bluetooth devices, phones, and video everything.
You know why it's all necessary? Because the car itself is just no fun to drive.
Instead, I bought a brand new, relatively inexpensive sports car about two year ago. It has none of the above said features. It has a radio, and a cd player, neither of which I can hear when the roof is down -- which is always, including throughout the winter, and in the rain when on the highway. And there's no road rage, no matter how bad the traffic -- and I'm in a city with an average commute time of 2 hours per day.
It's fun, because it's a joy to drive. The seats can't recline, there's no back seat, there's a small trunk, and a great engine. And lots and lots of mountain roads. Oh, so many mountain roads.
Is it good on gas? That depends. Sure I save money at the pump. But I drive it three times as much.
wow, a well thought-out coherent response to an opinion with which you disagree.
and no, a programmer actually -- one who already follows his own advice, and builds what he calls: interactive autonomous systems. it's an excellent oxymoron. much like you.
oh come on, you can't be that stupid. you can easily measure altitude relative to the sun if you want. that's not the point. this is why math fails. math quickly forgets the purpose. that's why math excells where it does, and why it fails crashes and burns here.
you can't abstract away the reason that we're measuring the altitude. there's only one reason that we care at all. i promise that inter-galactic travel will not measure altitude at all.
we don't care how far away from the ground we are. we care only if we're going to hit the ground or not. everything else is just fun. noise polution, laws, laneways, etc..
and yes, mountains make it change quickly. that's the whole point of having it. and much like the most famous player in his sport: don't measure the altitude where you are, measure that altitude where you're going to be.
if there were no chance of hitting the ground, you wouldn't need the altimiter.
i'm quite familiar with all of that. the pitot tubes that don't actually measure what people think they measure.
but the solution to increase speed does not require a nose dive. and a broken sensor, being always a possibility, means that you're not supposed to take any action without verifying the situation.
which the computer could have very easily done. the same way anyone verifies anything.
by asking someone else.
hey pilot, are we really stalled? no co-pilot, I can see the clouds going by.
it's the same conversation whether "co-" means "common", or "computer".
between human pilots, it's called crm: cockpit resource managemet -- using your teammates effectively.
they forgot to program it into the cockpit itself. because the programmers were never taught crm.
there is absolutely no way that your brain does calculus in order to walk around an obstacle. yet that's exactly what's taught in today's AI class.
it's not about probability. you don't grasp a glass by determining how much pressure you can apply to it based on its chemical structure. you add more pressure until it stops slipping through your hand.
you trust nothing, and you draw conclusions only through on-the-fly experimentation.
you computer pilot was not supposed to use the sensor for anything but convenience. the moment it says something unexpected, the computer was to determine the altitude in a proper way -- which takes longer. and don't tell me that it had no redundancy. it could have done EXACTLY what the pilot would have done.
absolutely. and out of all who have, look at what it took for them to choose to do so. and look at how many times it's happened. it takes a huge dicision for a pilot to decide to do it. it's not a single reading from a single instrument.
i'd say that there's no single malfunctioning device that could get a pilot to do that. in fact, I don't think any incorrect information could do it. the only malfunction to make it happen would probably need to be in the pilot.
the more you use math as an end-point for decisions, the more you'll find that you're doing what's been done with math for centuries: betting. Math is excellent at odds, but it sucks for decisions. And that's for one excellent reason -- it's NEVER complete. You've never measured everything. So you never have all of the variables.
drawing conclusions from 20% of the information is exactly what psychology does, because it's exactly what humans do.
if my google car drives slowly around student drivers, it's a simple rule. if it avoids chinese, black, and indian drivers, it will have drawn upon a stereotype purely out of fear for the unknown. that's what thought is all about. and that's life preservation at its best.
the idea that you can make a decision based on little, because a decision simple must be made right now is something that math fails to do time and time again.
think of all of the times when a small mistake in your math has produced hugely different results. that mean you can't make a quick calculation, and refine it later. which means that you're in a threshold situation where you need a certain amount of data before your result will have any probability of being actionable. in the real wold of biological actions, we don't ever have that level of knowledge.
certainly better. but anything they do which translates input into output suffers from the same lack of decision-making in the middle. There needs to be a step, the amigdala step, where a decision is questioned -- the official opposition step. And it's not about checking over the work. The work is fine. It's about self-doubt based purely on the most important observation available: I've been wrong before.
yup. all the while forgetting that the while altimeter shows altitude, it rarely actually measures distance to the ground, it measures air pressure, and then assumes an aweful lot.
Slashdot Mirror
careful. we're not talking about my never accessing anything outside of the country. we're talking about my choosing canadian suppliers over foreign ones.
in canada, that always takes the form of "if there are comparable suppliers".
microsoft exists in canada, I'm sure, or can with the flip of a switch. there's also no business alternative to microsoft products, nor alternative documentation.
also, I'd be allowed to buy both. as long as I also get the domestic alternative, I could have whatever foreign one I want.
and as a small business myself, it would be great for business. instead of competing with the world at large, I'd only need to worry about my own country competitors. so I wouldn't be competing with countries where people get slave wages, and I wouldn't need to wait for clients to finish getting screwed by $4/hour romanian programmers.
cory's got a lot of good points, but no solution to any of his stated problems. so take it for what it is, an observation, not a course of action. much like the occupy protests forget that the banks get most of their money from the protesters directly, and that most of their employers borrow large sums of money from the same banks, there's a cycle that needs to be noticed to be understood.
of course there would be huge differences. but since my country hands out large amounts of money to businesses like mine, it seems silly to then not have those companies be successful. why would I want to fund other companies who will likely lose to foreign companies?
think about this. there are countries that have book stores. populations of a total of 1 million humans, many of whom buy books. that country can't possible afford to have book stores who profit from sales when those million humans can buy from amazon at half the price. so, throw out the book stores.
it's not unfair, why shouldn't people buy from amazon.
the problem is that no one locally can beat amazon, because amazon benefits from a world market, whereas the local bookstore can't.
so, kill the local book store. that's fine.
the trouble is that every industry and market becomes like that. in every country, for everything.
so the u.s. will sell marketing services, and movies, not manufacture anything.
canada will produce oil, comedians, and medical research, but not books, nor movies.
so no one in the u.s. will do anything blue-collar.
specialization can work. it's great in organisms. but it fails when distances are involved.
the choice that I'd support is one to allow any canadian to have any type of career, without needing to move to another country to have it.
a) I can live without those. none of them is essential to anything I do.
b) most of them have a canadian presence
c) they all can. it needn't be a big one, just one large enough to support or to relay to the canadian market
oh boohoo, I won't have one search engine over eight other perfectly fine search engines. and instead, I have more wealth in my own country.
i think you need to remember that while your priorities are correct when contained within the internet, there are reaching consequences that actually matter in the real world. you know, like property value, homelessness, employment rate, exports, food, independence, and community. each of those is hindered when my money goes out of the country for something silly like facebook -- something which can easily be home-grown.
sure, there it is, you're right. But this law in Canada would work quite differently. it actually would be to support incentives. quite frankly, it wouldn't be a law so much as an incentive program.
yes, I'm supporting it being illegal. I like the idea that my country, and those within it, actually support it. what a concept. but hey, I'll vote my way, you vote yours.
I actually like this, which is weird, because I wouldn't have thought so. But it makes sense that in order to benefit from all of the various business-related incentives that your country may provide, including your business licence in the first place, that you continue to spend your money domestically.
I run a business in Canada, and I use Rackspace out of the U.S.A.. I've very happy with Rackspace, as anyone should be, they are indeed fantastic in every way. But I feel guilty for not remaining in Canada, and do wish that they'd open a Canadian datacentre. Recently, I've found a worthy Canadian competitor, and simply cannot justify the transitional effort.
But I'd appreciate such a law. Sure it would cause momentary distress for me and for my business, but I think it would improve competition amongst my competitors, and also attract foreign suppliers -- Rackspace included.
you're very much incorrect. I'm for all sorts of safety systems that allow the driver to drive safer. put more tools in the hands of the operator, always, and things will be better. but in this case, you're taking skills away from the operator. it doesn't matter why. if a driver chooses to drift across lanes, the car won't. there is now no way to instruct the car to drift. you just can't.
traction control is fantastic -- as long as you have the button to disable it when you need to. same with air bags, by the way. there are a great many times when airbags and seatbelts and traction control are more dangerous. but all of these things tend to become enforced upon the driver, who really should be able to control his own vehicle.
for example, in this case, I'd be fine with a system that occasionally notices that the driver is doing very little driving, and asks the driver to respond. if the driver doesn't, then by all means take over. but when I'm enjoying a mountain road, at full speed-limit speeds, on twisties typically taken at half-speed, you'd better believe that I drift across the line. very much intentionally. in those cases, fightitng even a minor change in my steering wheel dynamics could be lethal, causing me to crash into the mountain-side, or to fly off of the mountain itself.
the part of my brain that's very familiar with the false positives associated with computer decision-making algorithms.
people started driving faster when they got airbags. welcome to humans. there will be more drowsy drivers as a result of this. look up humans in a book and start to learn about them.
there are very few things that you can blame for a drowsy crash now. after weather and an actually broken car, you're down to minutia. by car crashed by itself will now become a legitimate reason -- whereas today, it doesn't hold up at all.
I don't think it'll save more people. I think it'll produce poorer drivers, and ultimately there will be more crashes. they won't be attributed to this feature, because the drivers won't be drowsy, they'll just be inexperienced -- because they never needed to cope with they own deficiencies. so crashes will go up because drivers won't have skills.
it's not a car analogy, we're talking about cars. and having your passenger turn your wheel is exactly the same as having anything else turn your wheel -- in this case, a webcam on the windshield.
it's not difficult to change lanes, nor to stay in one lane. that's, quite frankly, the easiest part of driving. I don't need help. And keeping me between lines when the road ignores the lines -- construction zones, test paint strips, icons, etc. -- is a terrible idea.
but more than anything else, why should I avoid driving drowsy when my car can help me out? you'll get more drowsy drivers, and more drunk drivers, than ever before.
you'll also have a whole host of drivers blaming a crash on this feature, whether or not it's true.
you've just taken both responsibilty and accountability away from the driver, and put it into something that can't be held accountable, and doesn't have a drivers licence. congrats.
but hey, here's the truth. this is EXACTLY like letting your 8-year old child steer from the passenger seat, while on a long highway drive. it's very dangerous and very illegal. not because your child can't stay between the lines. because the driver is the driver.
two things. first, you'll find that the reason they didn't do it without you is because it really wasn't worth it to them. so the amount of money they'd be willing to pay will be negligible. remember that they don't care if the solution is better software, or more of your team's time. it's all the same. so better software isn't any better of a solution -- they may not take advantage of the differences for a long time, and one of the advantages is being able to fire half of the team.
second, you're forgetting what taking money means. forget the work you've already done. if you take money for it, you become responsible for it. every bug, every request, every feature creep, every tech support call. every question, every answer.
ultimately, you did it for fun, keep it. if you want to donate it to the cause, that's great, it'll make you look good and be considered more valuable -- not because of what it does, but because you're willing to donate it.
you don't want the money, they won't pay the money; both are why you didn't get the money first.
lesser than the evils of not nose diving when nothing's wrong? this time, not nose diving would have caused zero problems. nose-diving caused injuries.
think of how many times a random nose dive like this would have saved lives, and how many times it would have simply injured people.
if this were to happen on every flight, if you knew that this exact scenario was going to happen on your next flight, would you board the plane?
if a giant alien had been picking it's nose with the plane, there'd have been a correct course of action for that too.
the point is not to do the correct thing for a different situation. the idea is to do the correct thing for the current situation.
it's not any less wrong just because it could have been a different problem. it wasn't, it was this problem.
that's why we verify information, and ask for assistance, and outside perspectives, and build that into our procedures.
there were at least two pilots on board, and plenty of ground control to ask. the auto pilot didn't ask anyone for any coroberation.
acting alone makes you solely responsible for your decision. when you're wrong, you're entirely wrong. it doesn't matter why.
Figures that only a fellow fun-lover would pick up on it so easily.
Have you joined your local miata club? I got to say, I'm 32 now, and I joined not the young club but the elderly club -- average age is 65, some are well over 80. It's wonderful to go on multi-day trips with people who have the time and the money to organize such fantastic trips.
Too bad you aren't near Toronto.
Is it so wrong that I wanted you to ask me?
2009, then new, yellow (almost orange in daylight), power retractable hard top convertible, Mazda MX-5. And then I put scissor door hinges onto it. just for fun.
At some point, around 20 years ago, they stopped advertising the car part of the car. It's black, it has eyebrows, it gets good mileage, it has 8 music players, 12 bluetooth devices, phones, and video everything.
You know why it's all necessary? Because the car itself is just no fun to drive.
Instead, I bought a brand new, relatively inexpensive sports car about two year ago. It has none of the above said features. It has a radio, and a cd player, neither of which I can hear when the roof is down -- which is always, including throughout the winter, and in the rain when on the highway. And there's no road rage, no matter how bad the traffic -- and I'm in a city with an average commute time of 2 hours per day.
It's fun, because it's a joy to drive. The seats can't recline, there's no back seat, there's a small trunk, and a great engine. And lots and lots of mountain roads. Oh, so many mountain roads.
Is it good on gas? That depends. Sure I save money at the pump. But I drive it three times as much.
wow, a well thought-out coherent response to an opinion with which you disagree.
and no, a programmer actually -- one who already follows his own advice, and builds what he calls: interactive autonomous systems. it's an excellent oxymoron. much like you.
oh come on, you can't be that stupid. you can easily measure altitude relative to the sun if you want. that's not the point. this is why math fails. math quickly forgets the purpose. that's why math excells where it does, and why it fails crashes and burns here.
you can't abstract away the reason that we're measuring the altitude. there's only one reason that we care at all. i promise that inter-galactic travel will not measure altitude at all.
we don't care how far away from the ground we are. we care only if we're going to hit the ground or not. everything else is just fun. noise polution, laws, laneways, etc..
and yes, mountains make it change quickly. that's the whole point of having it. and much like the most famous player in his sport: don't measure the altitude where you are, measure that altitude where you're going to be.
if there were no chance of hitting the ground, you wouldn't need the altimiter.
i'm quite familiar with all of that. the pitot tubes that don't actually measure what people think they measure.
but the solution to increase speed does not require a nose dive. and a broken sensor, being always a possibility, means that you're not supposed to take any action without verifying the situation.
which the computer could have very easily done. the same way anyone verifies anything.
by asking someone else.
hey pilot, are we really stalled? no co-pilot, I can see the clouds going by.
it's the same conversation whether "co-" means "common", or "computer".
between human pilots, it's called crm: cockpit resource managemet -- using your teammates effectively.
they forgot to program it into the cockpit itself. because the programmers were never taught crm.
on paper, that's definitely the argument against me. but in practice, i'd have had to keep up to date with encryption tech all that time.
there is absolutely no way that your brain does calculus in order to walk around an obstacle. yet that's exactly what's taught in today's AI class.
it's not about probability. you don't grasp a glass by determining how much pressure you can apply to it based on its chemical structure. you add more pressure until it stops slipping through your hand.
you trust nothing, and you draw conclusions only through on-the-fly experimentation.
you computer pilot was not supposed to use the sensor for anything but convenience. the moment it says something unexpected, the computer was to determine the altitude in a proper way -- which takes longer. and don't tell me that it had no redundancy. it could have done EXACTLY what the pilot would have done.
ask somebody.
not assume it's alone in the world.
hey pilot, hey tower, where am I?
absolutely. and out of all who have, look at what it took for them to choose to do so. and look at how many times it's happened. it takes a huge dicision for a pilot to decide to do it. it's not a single reading from a single instrument.
i'd say that there's no single malfunctioning device that could get a pilot to do that. in fact, I don't think any incorrect information could do it. the only malfunction to make it happen would probably need to be in the pilot.
the more you use math as an end-point for decisions, the more you'll find that you're doing what's been done with math for centuries: betting. Math is excellent at odds, but it sucks for decisions. And that's for one excellent reason -- it's NEVER complete. You've never measured everything. So you never have all of the variables.
drawing conclusions from 20% of the information is exactly what psychology does, because it's exactly what humans do.
if my google car drives slowly around student drivers, it's a simple rule. if it avoids chinese, black, and indian drivers, it will have drawn upon a stereotype purely out of fear for the unknown. that's what thought is all about. and that's life preservation at its best.
the idea that you can make a decision based on little, because a decision simple must be made right now is something that math fails to do time and time again.
think of all of the times when a small mistake in your math has produced hugely different results. that mean you can't make a quick calculation, and refine it later. which means that you're in a threshold situation where you need a certain amount of data before your result will have any probability of being actionable. in the real wold of biological actions, we don't ever have that level of knowledge.
lowering the nose, yes, absolutely. nose-dive, no. the kind of thing that injures passengers is not standard anything.
they all feed from the same malfunctioning sensor. and yeah, it's not a complete solution, so it's carp.
certainly better. but anything they do which translates input into output suffers from the same lack of decision-making in the middle. There needs to be a step, the amigdala step, where a decision is questioned -- the official opposition step. And it's not about checking over the work. The work is fine. It's about self-doubt based purely on the most important observation available: I've been wrong before.
yup. all the while forgetting that the while altimeter shows altitude, it rarely actually measures distance to the ground, it measures air pressure, and then assumes an aweful lot.