We don't see any examples of banned terms, and no comparison and in fact completely ignoring all other aspects of media that indirectly induce this sort of thing. How many of these terms are really 'promoting' this?
Long distance power transmission by superconductor would making going 100% solar a very realistic choice.
Power to gas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and power to liquid seem like much more viable technologies to that end. I was surprised at the achievable efficiencies as well as how much energy the existing gas networks in Europe could 'store' ("The storage capacity of the German natural gas network is more than 200,000 GWh which is enough for several months of energy requirement.").
Apart from further developing battery technology, this seems to me like something that should be heavily invested in to increase the viability of going 100% solar (and wind).
They are very attractive as minimum one of them also has a gas station that is much cheaper than in the city.
Unless you don't have a car or are no longer fit to drive. Then the hypermarchés are just instruments that suck the life out of the city center and relegate the inhabitants in the aforementioned situation (such as the elderly) to depending on other people to buy their groceries for them or to buying their groceries in limited and/or expensive mini-markets.
Reporters could write 500 accurate articles for every sensationalist one, and the sensationalist article is the only one the public will ever read.
Nonsense. Accurate articles can be very interesting, even to non-scientists. That easily written sensationalist articles with clickbait titles full of falsehoods are read a lot is independent of that. Your argument amounts to saying that the lies published in tabloids are the only thing the public will ever read, because accurate reports on the lives of celebrities are not interesting. This is simply untrue. It is true that these articles compete which each other for eyeballs, however.
The real problem lies in news outlets being commercial entities. Their responsibility is to make money, not to inform the public, which leads to publishing the lowest quality shit they can get away with. This is why public funding for journalism is very, very important.
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m
Fun fact, in some countries it is actually almost never allowed to run a large supermarket outside city limits, which prevents consolidation of grocery stores and city supermarkets into hypermarkets on cheap ground outside the cities and towns. Such laws should be more prevalent to improve the quality of living, imho.
Every time I see people talking about keyboards nowadays it concerns which mechanical keyboard to buy. It is tunnel vision, nothing else. Just look at this post. "What Kind of Keyboard Do You Use With Your Computer and Why? [...] I am looking to buy a good mechanical keyboard"
Meanwhile, the performance of my Logitech K800 has been absolutely fantastic over the last decade. My fingers just fly over the keyboard, with great ease, accuracy, and silence. I'd love it if we could get past the nostalgia-driven mechanical craze and allow for proper keyboard innovation again.
Yep. From the original paper ( https://www.nature.com/article... ): "Owing to the limited length of the indoor space (60 m), we used a bungeed launch system to accelerate the aircraft from stationary to a steady flight velocity of 5 m/s within 5 m, and performed free flight in the remaining 55 m of flight space. "
Besides the weight of the batteries, the main issue is this: "Although we have shown that EAD thrust density is sufficient at the scale of unmanned aerial vehicles, where the available ratio of frontal area to weight is high, it is not currently sufficient for high-speed flight at the scale of commercial aviation: the area thrust density of our aeroplane was 3 N/m^2, that of a typical conventional unmanned aerial vehicle is of the order of 10 N/m^2, and that of a modern civil airliner is of the order of 1000 N/m^2."
Feel free to sell all of your possessions and contribute the proceeds to the betterment of humanity at any time.
You are attacking a straw man.
1. GP was talking about changing our economy from money-oriented to improvement-of-humanity-oriented (how to implement that is the big unknown there, of course). GP was not arguing against the wealthy in any way, just against chasing after money (which poor or averagely wealthy people can do as well). 2. Almost nobody ever argues that the wealthy should sell all their possessions. Also, if GP did that, it wouldn't fundamentally change the world and your suggestion thus does absolutely nothing.
a laissez-faire free market economy or one that is entirely centrally planned where all activities are directed by a monolithic entity
False dichotomy and a straw man again. Nobody was arguing for a centrally and monolithically planned economy and it is not the only alternative for a laissez-faire free market economy. You are intentionally misinterpreting GPs (albeit underdeveloped) point.
The discussion here should be centered on how profit-seeking is a bad proxy for the things we actually value in life / as a society, and how to improve upon it. Initiatives such as in TFA are nice, but structurally things such as legislation, subsidies, and taxes seem like the only measures we have to steer the profit-seeking into beneficial directions. It would be nicer if we could fundamentally change the core metric from 'profit gained' to 'improvement to society'.
Key in these cases is always what the researches corrected for. In this case they are: "age, sex, race/ethnicity, parental education, Spanish questionnaire, and later childhood near-road NOx exposure" ( https://ehjournal.biomedcentra... )
That is a pretty paltry list of possible other causes.
They are the bane of science. Note that 'linked to' just implies the correlation, not the causation. It goes south when the retarded 'science reporters' say things such as 'High levels of nitrogen dioxide, which is emitted by diesel engines, in the first year of life led to significantly faster weight gain later, the scientists found'. That implies causation, something never done in the original paper ( https://ehjournal.biomedcentra... ).
It reminds me how many times they flipped their stance on eggs.
Who flipped their stance, exactly? It wasn't the scientists. It was the reporters, dietary advisory boards, health blogs and other people who benefit from bending the truth.
When it comes to (food) science news, always look at the primary research. The rest is almost certain to be a misrepresentation of the truth.
People always want to find a problem with the EU, even though it is actually doing quite well. GP trevc is implying that there is some overlordish Germanic rule of the EU, when quite the opposite is the case. If there is any problem with the EU, then it is that individual member states can slow down or prevent decision making for the entire bloc to a large extent. Especially when member states start "having each other's back" and abuse this power in twos does it become problematic: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
One or two hours of missing overlap in office hours between Germany and Spain is not going to hurt trade in any significant manner. You are grasping at straws.
The Chinese Room is one of the worst thought experiments ever to have entered the discourse on functionalism. In its basic form it fails miserably at answering simple questions such as "how many fingers am I holding up?" When challenged with the requirements to answer such questions, staunch supporters then modify the Chinese Room again and again until the person in it is reduced to nothing more than a hand writing the results of a complex processing system on a piece of paper. Given that no one reasonably assumes understanding or consciousness of a hand, the argument against functionalism has then successfully defeated itself.
A much, much more interesting thought experiment is that of the China Brain. It is really, really hard to wrap your head around how consciousness would exist in a collection of scattered scraps of paper in possession of billions of individuals. The role of space and time in the constitution of our own consciousness become very important in that analysis.
Also, if 'stitching or sewing up patients' is an important skill for medical students, shouldn't they specifically be taught how to do so? I know I'd like the quality of my stitches not to be dependent on whether the surgeon liked his arts and crafts when he was a kid.
How the fuck are you even supposed to put that on a form??
I know, right?!
Thank god there are only 2 countries, places of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, last names, and first names on this planet, or forms would be impossible to make.
This is your utterly vapid comment, which is currently rated +5 Insightful:
MIT has been claiming this type of BS for decades. They haven't done anything. Literally they have been talking about this since the 1970s. Think about it: if it worked it would have been incorporated into something like Siri and be worth billions. But Siri is pathetic.
It adds nothing to the discussion but naysaying and bashing. It is a disgrace for the level of discourse I expect from Slashdot.
I am 'in IT' too, and I have been surprised by the speed at which self-driving car advancements have been made (I wasn't expecting us to be anywhere near where we are for at least 10 years -- go ahead, tell me you were). I've also been surprised at the effectiveness of deep learning in a project of one of our interns, whom I profusely warned about how ML can sound great but can lead to disappointing results (which it very much didn't).
That we are not at AGI level yet is obvious. The logic of the concept of AGI is that if we were, AGI would become ASI very, very quickly. I'm not going to predict when AGI is going to happen, but for everybody who actually understands technology it is clear that it will happen. All the "This isn't AI", "We don't even know how the human brain works" and "Siri is pathetic" comments are mostly just attempts at preservation of self-importance.
Whatever you want to call them, AI/ML/Expert Systems, those systems are absolutely slaying it and none of your Luddism is going to stop them.
Indeed. Slashdot has become Luddite central, especially with regard to AI. The endless stream of empty "AI isn't actually AI" comments are boring and tiring.
The researcher should try their knowledge of refrigerators next. Hell, most adults don't even have a clue as to how technology in general works, let alone something as complex as a computer. Dara O'Briain summarizes it nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"You don't like free?!? FINE! -- then we'll just charge you for everything!" and then sticking their middle finger up at the EU courts.
Yeah, because it was free because Google has a big heart. Don't be so naive.
If charging handset makers for Google Play Services was more preferable to Google from a business standpoint, they'd do it everywhere. Big businesses are a lot more rational than your mental anthropomorphization of them is.
But if "you look like an idiot" is a good enough reason to not ride safely, I'm not too sympathetic.
We don't need you to be. You're talking asinine shit about traffic situations you have no experience with. The point is that you were arguing 'she should have had her headlight on', which is an idiotic line of defense. Your 'standard advice' is bullshit and with regard to the strobing part even illegal in the Netherlands.
What's the next thing I said after that?
Irrelevant.
If you think a blonde white girl on a white bicycle in a 30km/h zone in broad fucking daylight classifies as 'difficult to see', you are unfit to drive or judge situations including any vehicle other than a tricycle.
she was the one driving unsafely
Don't change the subject. She had the right of way and would also have if she were in a 'car while texting'. The driver of the car in this situation did not. End. Of. Story.
Except that there is more then enough room for the bike to pass
There is some room for the bike to pass, but definitely not 'more than enough'. At the end you can see that her front wheel is against the pavement as she lifts it up to reposition her bike to be able to pass the car after the incident.
Yes, she could have probably passed the car if she was paying attention, but most drivers would just let the cyclist pass first before turning the corner and passing the parked car, especially if they see that they're dealing with a teenager (let alone a teenager on their phone). My guess is that the driver was simply not expecting the parked car to be there and made the wrong decision.
You can also see that the driver stops as soon as he notices that he bike isn't noticing the car and moving properly to the side of the road
Again: she has the right of way. I'm not trying to exonerate her, but you can't claim "but she could have moved out of my way" when you're on the wrong side of the road. Passing an obstacle in such a manner is considered to be a risky maneouvre, only to be performed when completely safe and always at the responsibility of the person passing the obstacle. The alternative is having to wait 5 seconds until the other side of the road is completely free, which is what the driver should have done. There is almost never a need to hurry, especially when piloting a ~1000kg vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't see any examples of banned terms, and no comparison and in fact completely ignoring all other aspects of media that indirectly induce this sort of thing. How many of these terms are really 'promoting' this?
Agreed, very annoying. I googled a bit and this article from last year is much more informative:
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Long distance power transmission by superconductor would making going 100% solar a very realistic choice.
Power to gas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and power to liquid seem like much more viable technologies to that end. I was surprised at the achievable efficiencies as well as how much energy the existing gas networks in Europe could 'store' ("The storage capacity of the German natural gas network is more than 200,000 GWh which is enough for several months of energy requirement.").
Apart from further developing battery technology, this seems to me like something that should be heavily invested in to increase the viability of going 100% solar (and wind).
https://octoverse.github.com/2...
They are very attractive as minimum one of them also has a gas station that is much cheaper than in the city.
Unless you don't have a car or are no longer fit to drive. Then the hypermarchés are just instruments that suck the life out of the city center and relegate the inhabitants in the aforementioned situation (such as the elderly) to depending on other people to buy their groceries for them or to buying their groceries in limited and/or expensive mini-markets.
Reporters could write 500 accurate articles for every sensationalist one, and the sensationalist article is the only one the public will ever read.
Nonsense. Accurate articles can be very interesting, even to non-scientists. That easily written sensationalist articles with clickbait titles full of falsehoods are read a lot is independent of that. Your argument amounts to saying that the lies published in tabloids are the only thing the public will ever read, because accurate reports on the lives of celebrities are not interesting. This is simply untrue. It is true that these articles compete which each other for eyeballs, however.
The real problem lies in news outlets being commercial entities. Their responsibility is to make money, not to inform the public, which leads to publishing the lowest quality shit they can get away with. This is why public funding for journalism is very, very important.
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m
Fun fact, in some countries it is actually almost never allowed to run a large supermarket outside city limits, which prevents consolidation of grocery stores and city supermarkets into hypermarkets on cheap ground outside the cities and towns. Such laws should be more prevalent to improve the quality of living, imho.
I feel you.
Every time I see people talking about keyboards nowadays it concerns which mechanical keyboard to buy. It is tunnel vision, nothing else. Just look at this post. "What Kind of Keyboard Do You Use With Your Computer and Why? [...] I am looking to buy a good mechanical keyboard"
Meanwhile, the performance of my Logitech K800 has been absolutely fantastic over the last decade. My fingers just fly over the keyboard, with great ease, accuracy, and silence. I'd love it if we could get past the nostalgia-driven mechanical craze and allow for proper keyboard innovation again.
Yep. From the original paper ( https://www.nature.com/article... ):
"Owing to the limited length of the indoor space (60 m), we used a bungeed launch system to accelerate the aircraft from stationary to a steady flight velocity of 5 m/s within 5 m, and performed free flight in the remaining 55 m of flight space. "
Besides the weight of the batteries, the main issue is this:
"Although we have shown that EAD thrust density is sufficient at the scale of unmanned aerial vehicles, where the available ratio of frontal area to weight is high, it is not currently sufficient for high-speed flight at the scale of commercial aviation: the area thrust density of our aeroplane was 3 N/m^2, that of a typical conventional unmanned aerial vehicle is of the order of 10 N/m^2, and that of a modern civil airliner is of the order of 1000 N/m^2."
Nevertheless it is really cool technology.
They were custom phones ('IronPhones'). Stop trying to inject Android/iOS-strife into this.
Compare:
"Some programs can fail dramatically when"
with
"Some black people can murder people when"
Now tell me again what a great idea posting your comment was!
Feel free to sell all of your possessions and contribute the proceeds to the betterment of humanity at any time.
You are attacking a straw man.
1. GP was talking about changing our economy from money-oriented to improvement-of-humanity-oriented (how to implement that is the big unknown there, of course). GP was not arguing against the wealthy in any way, just against chasing after money (which poor or averagely wealthy people can do as well).
2. Almost nobody ever argues that the wealthy should sell all their possessions. Also, if GP did that, it wouldn't fundamentally change the world and your suggestion thus does absolutely nothing.
a laissez-faire free market economy or one that is entirely centrally planned where all activities are directed by a monolithic entity
False dichotomy and a straw man again. Nobody was arguing for a centrally and monolithically planned economy and it is not the only alternative for a laissez-faire free market economy. You are intentionally misinterpreting GPs (albeit underdeveloped) point.
The discussion here should be centered on how profit-seeking is a bad proxy for the things we actually value in life / as a society, and how to improve upon it. Initiatives such as in TFA are nice, but structurally things such as legislation, subsidies, and taxes seem like the only measures we have to steer the profit-seeking into beneficial directions. It would be nicer if we could fundamentally change the core metric from 'profit gained' to 'improvement to society'.
No idea why you were downmodded.
Key in these cases is always what the researches corrected for. In this case they are:
"age, sex, race/ethnicity, parental education, Spanish questionnaire, and later childhood near-road NOx exposure"
( https://ehjournal.biomedcentra... )
That is a pretty paltry list of possible other causes.
WE HAVE THE ANSWER NOW! type articles
They are the bane of science. Note that 'linked to' just implies the correlation, not the causation. It goes south when the retarded 'science reporters' say things such as 'High levels of nitrogen dioxide, which is emitted by diesel engines, in the first year of life led to significantly faster weight gain later, the scientists found'.
That implies causation, something never done in the original paper ( https://ehjournal.biomedcentra... ).
It reminds me how many times they flipped their stance on eggs.
Who flipped their stance, exactly?
It wasn't the scientists. It was the reporters, dietary advisory boards, health blogs and other people who benefit from bending the truth.
When it comes to (food) science news, always look at the primary research. The rest is almost certain to be a misrepresentation of the truth.
Thank you.
People always want to find a problem with the EU, even though it is actually doing quite well. GP trevc is implying that there is some overlordish Germanic rule of the EU, when quite the opposite is the case. If there is any problem with the EU, then it is that individual member states can slow down or prevent decision making for the entire bloc to a large extent. Especially when member states start "having each other's back" and abuse this power in twos does it become problematic: https://www.reuters.com/articl...
One or two hours of missing overlap in office hours between Germany and Spain is not going to hurt trade in any significant manner. You are grasping at straws.
Thank you.
The Chinese Room is one of the worst thought experiments ever to have entered the discourse on functionalism. In its basic form it fails miserably at answering simple questions such as "how many fingers am I holding up?"
When challenged with the requirements to answer such questions, staunch supporters then modify the Chinese Room again and again until the person in it is reduced to nothing more than a hand writing the results of a complex processing system on a piece of paper. Given that no one reasonably assumes understanding or consciousness of a hand, the argument against functionalism has then successfully defeated itself.
A much, much more interesting thought experiment is that of the China Brain. It is really, really hard to wrap your head around how consciousness would exist in a collection of scattered scraps of paper in possession of billions of individuals. The role of space and time in the constitution of our own consciousness become very important in that analysis.
Exactly.
Also, if 'stitching or sewing up patients' is an important skill for medical students, shouldn't they specifically be taught how to do so? I know I'd like the quality of my stitches not to be dependent on whether the surgeon liked his arts and crafts when he was a kid.
Can we please just make it legal to punch these idiots in the face?
I am a firm believer in physical 'nudging'.
How the fuck are you even supposed to put that on a form??
I know, right?!
Thank god there are only 2 countries, places of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, last names, and first names on this planet, or forms would be impossible to make.
Oh stop.
This is your utterly vapid comment, which is currently rated +5 Insightful:
MIT has been claiming this type of BS for decades. They haven't done anything. Literally they have been talking about this since the 1970s. Think about it: if it worked it would have been incorporated into something like Siri and be worth billions. But Siri is pathetic.
It adds nothing to the discussion but naysaying and bashing. It is a disgrace for the level of discourse I expect from Slashdot.
I am 'in IT' too, and I have been surprised by the speed at which self-driving car advancements have been made (I wasn't expecting us to be anywhere near where we are for at least 10 years -- go ahead, tell me you were). I've also been surprised at the effectiveness of deep learning in a project of one of our interns, whom I profusely warned about how ML can sound great but can lead to disappointing results (which it very much didn't).
That we are not at AGI level yet is obvious. The logic of the concept of AGI is that if we were, AGI would become ASI very, very quickly. I'm not going to predict when AGI is going to happen, but for everybody who actually understands technology it is clear that it will happen. All the "This isn't AI", "We don't even know how the human brain works" and "Siri is pathetic" comments are mostly just attempts at preservation of self-importance.
Whatever you want to call them, AI/ML/Expert Systems, those systems are absolutely slaying it and none of your Luddism is going to stop them.
Indeed. Slashdot has become Luddite central, especially with regard to AI. The endless stream of empty "AI isn't actually AI" comments are boring and tiring.
The researcher should try their knowledge of refrigerators next. Hell, most adults don't even have a clue as to how technology in general works, let alone something as complex as a computer. Dara O'Briain summarizes it nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"You don't like free?!? FINE! -- then we'll just charge you for everything!" and then sticking their middle finger up at the EU courts.
Yeah, because it was free because Google has a big heart. Don't be so naive.
If charging handset makers for Google Play Services was more preferable to Google from a business standpoint, they'd do it everywhere. Big businesses are a lot more rational than your mental anthropomorphization of them is.
But if "you look like an idiot" is a good enough reason to not ride safely, I'm not too sympathetic.
We don't need you to be. You're talking asinine shit about traffic situations you have no experience with. The point is that you were arguing 'she should have had her headlight on', which is an idiotic line of defense. Your 'standard advice' is bullshit and with regard to the strobing part even illegal in the Netherlands.
What's the next thing I said after that?
Irrelevant.
If you think a blonde white girl on a white bicycle in a 30km/h zone in broad fucking daylight classifies as 'difficult to see', you are unfit to drive or judge situations including any vehicle other than a tricycle.
she was the one driving unsafely
Don't change the subject. She had the right of way and would also have if she were in a 'car while texting'. The driver of the car in this situation did not. End. Of. Story.
Except that there is more then enough room for the bike to pass
There is some room for the bike to pass, but definitely not 'more than enough'. At the end you can see that her front wheel is against the pavement as she lifts it up to reposition her bike to be able to pass the car after the incident.
Yes, she could have probably passed the car if she was paying attention, but most drivers would just let the cyclist pass first before turning the corner and passing the parked car, especially if they see that they're dealing with a teenager (let alone a teenager on their phone). My guess is that the driver was simply not expecting the parked car to be there and made the wrong decision.
You can also see that the driver stops as soon as he notices that he bike isn't noticing the car and moving properly to the side of the road
Again: she has the right of way. I'm not trying to exonerate her, but you can't claim "but she could have moved out of my way" when you're on the wrong side of the road. Passing an obstacle in such a manner is considered to be a risky maneouvre, only to be performed when completely safe and always at the responsibility of the person passing the obstacle. The alternative is having to wait 5 seconds until the other side of the road is completely free, which is what the driver should have done. There is almost never a need to hurry, especially when piloting a ~1000kg vehicle.