The extreme volume is at an inaudible frequency. What you're hearing in the recording would be a audible resonance frequency of that inaudible frequency. The relative power of resonance frequencies drop off pretty fast.
Why would I want to be able to dispute a charge? If I am making the transaction, it's not fraud. If I'm buying something like groceries, or a new shirt, there is exactly zero chance that I'm going to involve a credit card company in any dissatisfaction I may have.
Right, so there's exactly zero chance that a retailer is going to make a mistake in their advantage and then refuse to fix it?
The article is about 'today's modern cars". I wasn't talking about the ifs of the future, you are into fully autonomous driving which is a totally different discussion.
What he was describing doesn't require fully autonomous cars though. Semi-autonomous features such as adaptive cruise control (pretty standard on modern cars), and lane departure correction designed to gently nudge your car back into the lane if certain conditions are met would be have sufficient control over the car to cause a problem if it happened all at once and unexpectedly.
Yeah, 2004-2006ish was about the peak of the internet in my experience. It started going downhill as soon as the bar to post content was lowered to make it accessible to the lowest common denominator.
You can't spring a few million for a custom built or customized (e.g., based on OS/2, QNX, VXWorks, Linux, etc.) OS that has all the networking and other non-essential components removed?
I'd be willing to bet that most of the systems "running windows XP" are actually running XP embedded, which *is* a stripped down and highly customized OS with all non-essential components removed.
I don't know the specifics of this law, but it is odd that the anti-gun lobby reduced safe handling requirements and dumbed down the test. What sounds more likely is the pro-gun lobby reduced safe handling requirements and dumbed down the test while the anti-gun lobby raised the fee and made it expire after 5 years. I could be wrong though but through Google I can't find any details on when and how the certificate test was dumbed down and what lobbyist groups were behind it (I didn't look for long though).
I'll fully admit to being fuzzy on the specifics as well. It was quite a few years ago ago, and it's hard to find much reliable information. It also doesn't help that most gun laws in california are so poorly written and nonsensical (I suspect purposely so) that nobody even knows how the law is supposed to work until several months after it's passed. The bottom line is that we started out with something kind of reasonable in theory, but then the anti-gun people got their hands on it and mutilated it into a tool to hurt legitimate gun owners because they hate guns no matter who owns them (unless it's their own private security guards of course). That kind of thing really needs to stop if you want to see any real "progress" as far as gun control legislation goes.
I could show you a plethora of gun laws (particularly in california) that make no sense whatsoever, and are clearly there just to make things annoying for law abiding gun owners.
So how is it that guns remain so common place in rural California? Here in El Dorado county they seem to hand out concealed carry permits like candy. Clearly state law isn't getting in the way.
What does that have to do with anything? I didn't say it's getting rid of guns, I said it's harassing law abiding owners with pointless laws that don't actually do anything to gun crime. The prevalence of concealed carry permits in rural areas has nothing to do with the fact that you now have to pay for a background check and go through an FFL (yay more fees) to purchase ammo (so no more cheap online bulk purchases unless you can find a dealer who won't gouge the savings back out of you in consignment fees), can't buy certain models of handgun due to the color of their barrel, and have to pay a "fee" *cough* tax *cough* every few years in order to continue being allowed to purchase firearms.
Nearly all gun control advocates only want more sensible restrictions on gun ownership and usage, ironically similar to what we have for automobiles (although admittedly more strict than we have for automobiles).
There's a big problem with your statement here though. They don't want "sensible" restrictions, they want restrictions so strict and nonsensical that they effectively do ban guns. I could show you a plethora of gun laws (particularly in california) that make no sense whatsoever, and are clearly there just to make things annoying for law abiding gun owners. And I've talked to plenty of gun control advocates who will freely admit that if there was a law that banned usage of pink guns only on the 3rd tuesday of each month they'd be all for it, even though it does nothing to improve gun safety or reduce deaths.
If you want more concrete examples, look at californias handgun safety certificate. It started out as something you'd probably have been all for (and even something I don't have an issue with in theory): In order to purchase a handgun you had to pass a written test and then demonstrate knowledge of safe handling to an instructor. Once that was done, you paid a small fee to cover the administrative costs and received a lifetime card allowing you to buy a handgun in the state of california.
That lasted about 5 years, at which point the anti-gun lobby neutered the safe handling requirements, dumbed down the test, raised the fee by a lot, and made it expire after 5 years. So now what used to be a safety thing has been effectivly turned into a taxfee that I need to pay every 5 years if I want to continue to participate in my hobby. And don't get me started on the whole background checks for ammo thing that just happened. As long as gun control advocates such as yourself ignore abuses like this, you'll never make any headway in convincing gun owners to agree with "sensible" regulation.
On the off-chance that you really are genuinely curious, the simple answer is that I find it hilarious. I'm not forcing other people to get involved in a dumb argument, it's 100% their choice. I also consider it a public service, as it's teaching them (or if not them, possibly other observers) a valuable lesson about why sometimes it's best to just drop a discussion when it's clear you're not having any impact on the other person. Of course, most people would rather just escalate it to a screaming match (and usually expose themselves as hypocrites in the process) rather than let someone be wrong on the internet.
You're talking about a community with basically no rules other than an admin run dictatorship though. You may have rules (and even lots of them), but actual enforcement is left up to the sole discretion of the admins, and it sounds like they're free to do whatever they see fit. The effect of that is basically that you may call them rules, but it's really just guidelines about the social norms of the place. That's a fine system and probably one of the harder ones to mess with (provided, as you say, that you have good and level-headed admins), but nothing at all like the kind of rule-bound system I'm talking about here.
I guess keeping the facebook crowd and the 4chan crowd confined to their own threads would be ok, but then the game for the trolls becomes exploring the limits of the mod system. Are you safe with 10/1 good/troll posts, or can you bump that up to 8/1? Can you get the mods to tighten the system enough that non-trolls start to get identified?
Yep. As someone with a lot of trolling experience and a pretty high success ratio, I've always felt that the more rules a place has, the funner of a target it is (at least up until the point where interaction is so regulated you might as well be talking to computers). Whenever I went after a target in a strictly moderated community, I not only had a way better understanding of the rules than them (because I've spent time prepping for it), but also had more experience being on the wrong side of them and knew exactly how far I could go. Then it was just a simple matter of riling up the target to the point they step over the line and recruiting a moderator to dispose of them. And even if the moderator is good enough to realize what's up and refuse to play ball, I still get my fun because I can rile the community up about the clear double standard when it comes to enforcing things.
But you have a horn. Feel free to honk it before 10 seconds have elapsed if traffic isn't moving.
Though as a side note, I remember seeing people not move at traffic lights even back in the early 90s before cell phones were a thing. And the few times I've been honked at for not seeing a light change were due to getting lost in thought (it was a long light) rather than anything phone related.
Alright, either I'm missing something or the joke flew over your head. All cars today are equipped with horns. You're more than welcome to use it if the car in front of you doesn't start moving as soon as the light turns green.
Not very fun if you live near a traffic light. Especially when you want to sleep.
What we put this "air horn" inside all of the vehicles instead? That way the drivers could decide if it needs to be blown or not based on if the person in front of them is moving once the light turns green. It would keep loud noise to a minimum while still doing its intended purpose.
In some of the outside scenes i remember that rocks were falling very slowly, that made me sure that they are on the moon.
Ah yes, but but we mostly saw the slow falling rocks as viewed as from the cameras inside the habitat. During the movie I figured that bit could have been CGI to convince the guy that he was on the moon, though in hindsight I guess that wasn't the best of logic.
I do like your premise as well, I wonder why someone would do that though, except for "to experiment".
That's what I was hoping to see in the big reveal during my first watchthrough:P I could think of a bunch of reasons though. Reality TV show (I just learned from another commenter that this was actually done in 2005), some kind of twisted experiment, some kind of legit experiment gone wrong (e.g. some apocalyptic scenario happened outside and it was just computers running things inside not knowing they should have stopped years ago), crazy billionaire finding ways to entertain himself...
I thought Moon was a great movie, but my biggest issue was that carelessness on the part of the movie makers left a bunch of not-hints that misled me to believe that he wasn't actually on the moon. e.g. when he exited the airlocks he was clearly not entering a vacuum, there were a few opportunities to showcase low gravity that were (what I thought was intentionally at the time) passed up. Up until the very end I was expecting him to run one of the vehicles off the grid and through the side of a giant dome to reveal that he was basically in the truman show: moon edition.
And if you think about it, that actually would make an interesting premise. Take a guy off the street who doesn't understand science very well, tell him you'll pay him a bunch to go to the moon (or mars... mars one reality show anyone?) for 3 years, stick him in a box with some rocket noises, give him some handwavium technobabble during his "training" that explains why he won't feel the gravity difference (assuming your citizen of average intelligence even understands there would be a gravity difference), stress the fact that he'll die if he goes outside without his space suit on, and I bet you could trick someone for quite a bit of time.
That and then the scene at the end with the corridor stretching off into infinity really annoyed me. That was enough to last up into the 1000s of years, at which point I'd think shipping up that many replacements kind of exceeds the expected life of the station by several orders of magnitude, and kind of squandered any kind of cost advantage they thought they were gaining.
It doesn't guarantee bad things won't happen anymore than following good engineering practices guarantees that a building won't fall over. What it does do is guarantee the ability to trace back to a root cause of why the bad thing happened and pin the responsibility on the appropriate party. As a result, developers have motivation to make sure they're not taking shortcuts, and additionally have ammunition to push back on management if they're ordered to take shortcuts or ignore potential issues. From the management side, management are the ones who have to ultimately sign off on the fact that they were appraised of the risks and deem them acceptable, so they have strong motivation to listen to their developers and make sure that good standards and practices are being followed.
So do you think that the methodology laid out for safety critical development would work for AI development as far as chain of responsibility goes? That was actually one of the questions that came up in the software system safety course I took, and unfortunately never got a very good answer (I don't think the instructors really understood how machine learning works well enough to form a good opinion).
How do you come up with requirements for a hazard analysis on a heavy machine that can be anywhere in the world at any time, driving at any speed? Your set of conditions that the vehicle will encounter are almost limitless.
You can still do it. From the requirements side, define some reasonable operating conditions and the behavior if it detects itself leaving those conditions. From the safety analysis side, there are multiple methods that are usually used in concert. Generally it'll start with a top down analysis of the energy sources (fuel, kinetic energy in a big moving vehicle, batteries etc.) and work your way down to specific and reasonable failure modes. Then there are a variety of other analysis methods to supplement that, e.g. looking at what would happen if some specific individual component failed and propagated up through the software, etc.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with safety critical software and systems (you see it all the time in aviation), but there's actually a pretty well defined process for the entire thing. I'll make a really poor attempt at summing it up:
- A hazard analysis is performed on the system by various engineers (and occasionally even a 3rd party is brought in for peer review). There are a multitude of different ways to go about it, but eventually you end up with a long list of ways the product could fail, with a probability and severity assigned to each failure case.
- After this analysis, everyone comes up with ways to mitigate each of the risks. Removing the risk entirely is preferred, followed by passive safety mitigations are preferred, followed by active, followed by monitoring with alarms. Probabilities and severities are updated accordingly.
- Software is then analyzed in a similar way, except that no probability numbers are assigned. Mitigation steps for software range from self checks (a common example might be to read a sensor on a scale of 0-5v, then read a separate sensor using a separate function that measures the same thing but on a 5-0v scale), to having multiple CPUs of different manufacture running the same code in lockstep and checking each other on the fly. What methods are picked will depend on the hazard analysis and what severity has been assigned to each of the risks
Then in order to be safety certified you need to show documentation that all of those previous steps were followed, as well as show a software process in which:
- There's a clear set of requirements that are traceable to the hazard analysis
- Every line of code is traceable back to those requirements
- There's a set of test cases that are traceable back to the lines of code and the appropriate hazard analysis/requirement
- Documentation showing that all of these test cases have been run (sometimes a 3rd party is brought in to verify this)
Then after all of that is finished, the project managers look at the final risk analysis and sign off on it. They're the ones ultimately responsible for if it fails. In the event that it does fail, they have a stack of paperwork about a mile high to go back and trace how the failure occurred (note: this is the opposite of what Toyota had during the whole unintended acceleration thing). The idea is that in the unlikely event that your software fails and kills someone, you can prove in a court of law that appropriate measures were taken to assess and account for any possible risks.
Keep in mind that that unemployment number doesn't count "discouraged workers", which are people who have stopped looking for a job after some amount of time (6 months?) of unemployment.
Slashdot Mirror
The extreme volume is at an inaudible frequency. What you're hearing in the recording would be a audible resonance frequency of that inaudible frequency. The relative power of resonance frequencies drop off pretty fast.
Why would I want to be able to dispute a charge? If I am making the transaction, it's not fraud. If I'm buying something like groceries, or a new shirt, there is exactly zero chance that I'm going to involve a credit card company in any dissatisfaction I may have.
Right, so there's exactly zero chance that a retailer is going to make a mistake in their advantage and then refuse to fix it?
Yeah, I was also very disappointed at the lack of embedded device software and drivers.
The article is about 'today's modern cars". I wasn't talking about the ifs of the future, you are into fully autonomous driving which is a totally different discussion.
What he was describing doesn't require fully autonomous cars though. Semi-autonomous features such as adaptive cruise control (pretty standard on modern cars), and lane departure correction designed to gently nudge your car back into the lane if certain conditions are met would be have sufficient control over the car to cause a problem if it happened all at once and unexpectedly.
Yeah, 2004-2006ish was about the peak of the internet in my experience. It started going downhill as soon as the bar to post content was lowered to make it accessible to the lowest common denominator.
There just aren't that many home invasions that are solved by the homeowner shooting the burglar, outside of Hollywood.
Out of sheer curiosity, do you have any actual numbers or studies on that?
You can't spring a few million for a custom built or customized (e.g., based on OS/2, QNX, VXWorks, Linux, etc.) OS that has all the networking and other non-essential components removed?
I'd be willing to bet that most of the systems "running windows XP" are actually running XP embedded, which *is* a stripped down and highly customized OS with all non-essential components removed.
I don't know the specifics of this law, but it is odd that the anti-gun lobby reduced safe handling requirements and dumbed down the test. What sounds more likely is the pro-gun lobby reduced safe handling requirements and dumbed down the test while the anti-gun lobby raised the fee and made it expire after 5 years. I could be wrong though but through Google I can't find any details on when and how the certificate test was dumbed down and what lobbyist groups were behind it (I didn't look for long though).
I'll fully admit to being fuzzy on the specifics as well. It was quite a few years ago ago, and it's hard to find much reliable information. It also doesn't help that most gun laws in california are so poorly written and nonsensical (I suspect purposely so) that nobody even knows how the law is supposed to work until several months after it's passed. The bottom line is that we started out with something kind of reasonable in theory, but then the anti-gun people got their hands on it and mutilated it into a tool to hurt legitimate gun owners because they hate guns no matter who owns them (unless it's their own private security guards of course). That kind of thing really needs to stop if you want to see any real "progress" as far as gun control legislation goes.
So how is it that guns remain so common place in rural California? Here in El Dorado county they seem to hand out concealed carry permits like candy. Clearly state law isn't getting in the way.
What does that have to do with anything? I didn't say it's getting rid of guns, I said it's harassing law abiding owners with pointless laws that don't actually do anything to gun crime. The prevalence of concealed carry permits in rural areas has nothing to do with the fact that you now have to pay for a background check and go through an FFL (yay more fees) to purchase ammo (so no more cheap online bulk purchases unless you can find a dealer who won't gouge the savings back out of you in consignment fees), can't buy certain models of handgun due to the color of their barrel, and have to pay a "fee" *cough* tax *cough* every few years in order to continue being allowed to purchase firearms.
Nearly all gun control advocates only want more sensible restrictions on gun ownership and usage, ironically similar to what we have for automobiles (although admittedly more strict than we have for automobiles).
There's a big problem with your statement here though. They don't want "sensible" restrictions, they want restrictions so strict and nonsensical that they effectively do ban guns. I could show you a plethora of gun laws (particularly in california) that make no sense whatsoever, and are clearly there just to make things annoying for law abiding gun owners. And I've talked to plenty of gun control advocates who will freely admit that if there was a law that banned usage of pink guns only on the 3rd tuesday of each month they'd be all for it, even though it does nothing to improve gun safety or reduce deaths.
If you want more concrete examples, look at californias handgun safety certificate. It started out as something you'd probably have been all for (and even something I don't have an issue with in theory): In order to purchase a handgun you had to pass a written test and then demonstrate knowledge of safe handling to an instructor. Once that was done, you paid a small fee to cover the administrative costs and received a lifetime card allowing you to buy a handgun in the state of california.
That lasted about 5 years, at which point the anti-gun lobby neutered the safe handling requirements, dumbed down the test, raised the fee by a lot, and made it expire after 5 years. So now what used to be a safety thing has been effectivly turned into a taxfee that I need to pay every 5 years if I want to continue to participate in my hobby. And don't get me started on the whole background checks for ammo thing that just happened. As long as gun control advocates such as yourself ignore abuses like this, you'll never make any headway in convincing gun owners to agree with "sensible" regulation.
On the off-chance that you really are genuinely curious, the simple answer is that I find it hilarious. I'm not forcing other people to get involved in a dumb argument, it's 100% their choice. I also consider it a public service, as it's teaching them (or if not them, possibly other observers) a valuable lesson about why sometimes it's best to just drop a discussion when it's clear you're not having any impact on the other person. Of course, most people would rather just escalate it to a screaming match (and usually expose themselves as hypocrites in the process) rather than let someone be wrong on the internet.
You're talking about a community with basically no rules other than an admin run dictatorship though. You may have rules (and even lots of them), but actual enforcement is left up to the sole discretion of the admins, and it sounds like they're free to do whatever they see fit. The effect of that is basically that you may call them rules, but it's really just guidelines about the social norms of the place. That's a fine system and probably one of the harder ones to mess with (provided, as you say, that you have good and level-headed admins), but nothing at all like the kind of rule-bound system I'm talking about here.
I guess keeping the facebook crowd and the 4chan crowd confined to their own threads would be ok, but then the game for the trolls becomes exploring the limits of the mod system. Are you safe with 10/1 good/troll posts, or can you bump that up to 8/1? Can you get the mods to tighten the system enough that non-trolls start to get identified?
Yep. As someone with a lot of trolling experience and a pretty high success ratio, I've always felt that the more rules a place has, the funner of a target it is (at least up until the point where interaction is so regulated you might as well be talking to computers). Whenever I went after a target in a strictly moderated community, I not only had a way better understanding of the rules than them (because I've spent time prepping for it), but also had more experience being on the wrong side of them and knew exactly how far I could go. Then it was just a simple matter of riling up the target to the point they step over the line and recruiting a moderator to dispose of them. And even if the moderator is good enough to realize what's up and refuse to play ball, I still get my fun because I can rile the community up about the clear double standard when it comes to enforcing things.
wait... Telegram as in the old style messaging system? Or Telegram as in the chat program?
But you have a horn. Feel free to honk it before 10 seconds have elapsed if traffic isn't moving.
Though as a side note, I remember seeing people not move at traffic lights even back in the early 90s before cell phones were a thing. And the few times I've been honked at for not seeing a light change were due to getting lost in thought (it was a long light) rather than anything phone related.
Alright, either I'm missing something or the joke flew over your head. All cars today are equipped with horns. You're more than welcome to use it if the car in front of you doesn't start moving as soon as the light turns green.
Not very fun if you live near a traffic light. Especially when you want to sleep.
What we put this "air horn" inside all of the vehicles instead? That way the drivers could decide if it needs to be blown or not based on if the person in front of them is moving once the light turns green. It would keep loud noise to a minimum while still doing its intended purpose.
In some of the outside scenes i remember that rocks were falling very slowly, that made me sure that they are on the moon.
Ah yes, but but we mostly saw the slow falling rocks as viewed as from the cameras inside the habitat. During the movie I figured that bit could have been CGI to convince the guy that he was on the moon, though in hindsight I guess that wasn't the best of logic.
I do like your premise as well, I wonder why someone would do that though, except for "to experiment".
That's what I was hoping to see in the big reveal during my first watchthrough :P I could think of a bunch of reasons though. Reality TV show (I just learned from another commenter that this was actually done in 2005), some kind of twisted experiment, some kind of legit experiment gone wrong (e.g. some apocalyptic scenario happened outside and it was just computers running things inside not knowing they should have stopped years ago), crazy billionaire finding ways to entertain himself...
Oh wow, I'd never heard of that before. Basically exactly like that.
I thought Moon was a great movie, but my biggest issue was that carelessness on the part of the movie makers left a bunch of not-hints that misled me to believe that he wasn't actually on the moon. e.g. when he exited the airlocks he was clearly not entering a vacuum, there were a few opportunities to showcase low gravity that were (what I thought was intentionally at the time) passed up. Up until the very end I was expecting him to run one of the vehicles off the grid and through the side of a giant dome to reveal that he was basically in the truman show: moon edition.
And if you think about it, that actually would make an interesting premise. Take a guy off the street who doesn't understand science very well, tell him you'll pay him a bunch to go to the moon (or mars... mars one reality show anyone?) for 3 years, stick him in a box with some rocket noises, give him some handwavium technobabble during his "training" that explains why he won't feel the gravity difference (assuming your citizen of average intelligence even understands there would be a gravity difference), stress the fact that he'll die if he goes outside without his space suit on, and I bet you could trick someone for quite a bit of time.
That and then the scene at the end with the corridor stretching off into infinity really annoyed me. That was enough to last up into the 1000s of years, at which point I'd think shipping up that many replacements kind of exceeds the expected life of the station by several orders of magnitude, and kind of squandered any kind of cost advantage they thought they were gaining.
It doesn't guarantee bad things won't happen anymore than following good engineering practices guarantees that a building won't fall over. What it does do is guarantee the ability to trace back to a root cause of why the bad thing happened and pin the responsibility on the appropriate party. As a result, developers have motivation to make sure they're not taking shortcuts, and additionally have ammunition to push back on management if they're ordered to take shortcuts or ignore potential issues. From the management side, management are the ones who have to ultimately sign off on the fact that they were appraised of the risks and deem them acceptable, so they have strong motivation to listen to their developers and make sure that good standards and practices are being followed.
So do you think that the methodology laid out for safety critical development would work for AI development as far as chain of responsibility goes? That was actually one of the questions that came up in the software system safety course I took, and unfortunately never got a very good answer (I don't think the instructors really understood how machine learning works well enough to form a good opinion).
How do you come up with requirements for a hazard analysis on a heavy machine that can be anywhere in the world at any time, driving at any speed? Your set of conditions that the vehicle will encounter are almost limitless.
You can still do it. From the requirements side, define some reasonable operating conditions and the behavior if it detects itself leaving those conditions. From the safety analysis side, there are multiple methods that are usually used in concert. Generally it'll start with a top down analysis of the energy sources (fuel, kinetic energy in a big moving vehicle, batteries etc.) and work your way down to specific and reasonable failure modes. Then there are a variety of other analysis methods to supplement that, e.g. looking at what would happen if some specific individual component failed and propagated up through the software, etc.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with safety critical software and systems (you see it all the time in aviation), but there's actually a pretty well defined process for the entire thing. I'll make a really poor attempt at summing it up:
- A hazard analysis is performed on the system by various engineers (and occasionally even a 3rd party is brought in for peer review). There are a multitude of different ways to go about it, but eventually you end up with a long list of ways the product could fail, with a probability and severity assigned to each failure case.
- After this analysis, everyone comes up with ways to mitigate each of the risks. Removing the risk entirely is preferred, followed by passive safety mitigations are preferred, followed by active, followed by monitoring with alarms. Probabilities and severities are updated accordingly.
- Software is then analyzed in a similar way, except that no probability numbers are assigned. Mitigation steps for software range from self checks (a common example might be to read a sensor on a scale of 0-5v, then read a separate sensor using a separate function that measures the same thing but on a 5-0v scale), to having multiple CPUs of different manufacture running the same code in lockstep and checking each other on the fly. What methods are picked will depend on the hazard analysis and what severity has been assigned to each of the risks
Then in order to be safety certified you need to show documentation that all of those previous steps were followed, as well as show a software process in which:
- There's a clear set of requirements that are traceable to the hazard analysis
- Every line of code is traceable back to those requirements
- There's a set of test cases that are traceable back to the lines of code and the appropriate hazard analysis/requirement
- Documentation showing that all of these test cases have been run (sometimes a 3rd party is brought in to verify this)
Then after all of that is finished, the project managers look at the final risk analysis and sign off on it. They're the ones ultimately responsible for if it fails. In the event that it does fail, they have a stack of paperwork about a mile high to go back and trace how the failure occurred (note: this is the opposite of what Toyota had during the whole unintended acceleration thing). The idea is that in the unlikely event that your software fails and kills someone, you can prove in a court of law that appropriate measures were taken to assess and account for any possible risks.
Keep in mind that that unemployment number doesn't count "discouraged workers", which are people who have stopped looking for a job after some amount of time (6 months?) of unemployment.