It's not as simple as you think. Building the lunar lander is a major achievement. Indeed, google offered a $30,000,000 prize for the lunar lander part even after taking into account the existence of commercial launch systems. See: https://lunar.xprize.org/prize.... The Israeli team missed the deadline, but, if their lander succeeds, will have achieved the goal.
The neat thing about telling people about the 'Dunning-Krugar Effect' is its self feedback. A "low ability" individual thinks that he is "high ability". He is then sent to the Wikipedia article where he reads that "high ability" individuals underestimate their competence. Since he thinks he is "high ability" he figures "Ah! I have been underestimating my competence. I am even more competent than I thought."
I must be missing something. The oldest records they observed were from 3000 years ago, i.e. 30 centuries, or 60 milli-seconds. How in heavens sake do they decide that the recorded eclipse was off by that little? Their article mentions "thousands of observations". Even assuming 10,000 observations, the time accuracy for statistically meaningful results would seem to be sqrt(10,000)*60ms or 6sec. No way the ancient observations were so accurate.
Assuming the 4 asian applicants and the 17 non-asian were all equally competent, I get a cumulative binomial distribution probability of choosing 4 asians out of the 21 applicants as 0.0036, which is more than one in 300. Where do they get this "approximately one in a billion" statement?
If I installed this on my fridge I would use the app when I went to the pharmacy. That way I could check up on which antibiotics where already growing in my fridge.
"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."
"Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated"
You leave off the *only* number in the equation about which we have a lot of uncertainty: The probability that intelligent life will evolve on a planet. We have zero statistics about it and any number people give is just blowing in the wind. Indeed, Fermi's Paradox is probably one of the few pieces of hard fact that is relevant, and, if anything, it implies that the number is low.
Cuckoldry is not the same as mistaken paternity. Especially not now that birth control is common, but even in the past women had substantial control on what time of month they were unfaithful. The face that the mistaken paternity rate is only around 1% does not imply that cuckoldry is not *much* higher.
Also, the 1% result was for the average mistaken paternity rate per generation over the past 400 years or so. I wonder how it has changed over time?
A Tesla charger has an efficiency of over 90%. If this charger has an efficiency three times that, then it should be above 270%. Maybe it can feed the extra 170% back into the grid.
The article poster mis-quoted the article. The article actually states: "achieved 90 percent efficiency at three times the rate". So it is the same efficiency as the tesla, but it charges three times as fast.
Though the above is true, it is *not* the reason why we can't base the kilo on some arbitrary multiple of Pi. The point is that we want to be able to actually reproduce the reference kilo in any lab. Take for example the definition of the meter as the distance travelled by light in 1/(299,792,458) of a second. A lab can actually measure the length light travels in that amount of time and thus reproduce the canonical meter. If we just defined the meter as 1/Pi, there would be no way to convert this number to an actual length.
When the article says that they define the kilo in terms of Planck's constant, they mean that you take the ratio of all sorts of measured quantities in the lab and the laws of physics say that the result should be the mass of what you are measuring times Planck's constant. The true emphasis is that the measurement is proportional to the mass of what you measured, not that the constant of proportionality is Planck's constant (except of course for the fact that we assume that the constant of proportionality, Planck's constant, being part of the fundamental laws of physics, is independent of where and when we do the measurement (at least in the time and distance scales that physics has managed to probe).
Of course the same area tracks time and space. The space-time continuum is 4 dimensional. Would you expect a different brain region to track the X axis and one to track the Y axis?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as simple as you think. Building the lunar lander is a major achievement. Indeed, google offered a $30,000,000 prize for the lunar lander part even after taking into account the existence of commercial launch systems. See: https://lunar.xprize.org/prize.... The Israeli team missed the deadline, but, if their lander succeeds, will have achieved the goal.
Cat5 cable
"...will hitch a ride on an H-2B rocket"
Besides the 200 tons of gold coins, there were 5,500 boxes of gold. If each box is a cube with a side of 1 foot, it comes out to about $130 billion
Besides the 200 tons of gold coins, there were 5,500 boxes of gold bars. I have no idea how much that comes out to.
Memories! I played dnd, Oubliette and Moria in 1977 on Plato. It was an amazing system for its time. MMORPG (trek) and touch panels way back in '77
There even exists a PLATO emulation for those who really miss it: https://cyber1.org/
"Ninety percent of coding is taking some business specs and translating them into computer logic".
Business spec: Write a program that determines if any given program halts after a finite amount of time.
Due to its training set, it identifies a potential pathology in anyone without slanted eyes :-)
Broadcast started
According to their twitter feed
Oh, it has, it has.
The neat thing about telling people about the 'Dunning-Krugar Effect' is its self feedback. A "low ability" individual thinks that he is "high ability". He is then sent to the Wikipedia article where he reads that "high ability" individuals underestimate their competence. Since he thinks he is "high ability" he figures "Ah! I have been underestimating my competence. I am even more competent than I thought."
Lovely!
I must be missing something. The oldest records they observed were from 3000 years ago, i.e. 30 centuries, or 60 milli-seconds. How in heavens sake do they decide that the recorded eclipse was off by that little? Their article mentions "thousands of observations". Even assuming 10,000 observations, the time accuracy for statistically meaningful results would seem to be sqrt(10,000)*60ms or 6sec. No way the ancient observations were so accurate.
Assuming the 4 asian applicants and the 17 non-asian were all equally competent, I get a cumulative binomial distribution probability of choosing 4 asians out of the 21 applicants as 0.0036, which is more than one in 300. Where do they get this "approximately one in a billion" statement?
Ah, I think you missed the sarcasm in the parent post.
If I installed this on my fridge I would use the app when I went to the pharmacy. That way I could check up on which antibiotics where already growing in my fridge.
Why did you use 54.4 years for the discounting?
sed -e 's/niggers/muslims/g' | sed -e 's/muslims/jews/g' | sed -e 's/jews/chinks/g' | sed -e 's/chinks/other_ethnic_groups/g' > /dev/null
In the continuation of the article it says:
"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."
So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...
"Unless estimates of the age, size, or number of planets in the Milky Way are vastly overstated"
You leave off the *only* number in the equation about which we have a lot of uncertainty: The probability that intelligent life will evolve on a planet. We have zero statistics about it and any number people give is just blowing in the wind. Indeed, Fermi's Paradox is probably one of the few pieces of hard fact that is relevant, and, if anything, it implies that the number is low.
Cuckoldry is not the same as mistaken paternity. Especially not now that birth control is common, but even in the past women had substantial control on what time of month they were unfaithful. The face that the mistaken paternity rate is only around 1% does not imply that cuckoldry is not *much* higher.
Also, the 1% result was for the average mistaken paternity rate per generation over the past 400 years or so. I wonder how it has changed over time?
A Tesla charger has an efficiency of over 90%. If this charger has an efficiency three times that, then it should be above 270%. Maybe it can feed the extra 170% back into the grid.
The article poster mis-quoted the article. The article actually states: "achieved 90 percent efficiency at three times the rate". So it is the same efficiency as the tesla, but it charges three times as fast.
Thanks for "picking up" on that :-)
Though the above is true, it is *not* the reason why we can't base the kilo on some arbitrary multiple of Pi. The point is that we want to be able to actually reproduce the reference kilo in any lab. Take for example the definition of the meter as the distance travelled by light in 1/(299,792,458) of a second. A lab can actually measure the length light travels in that amount of time and thus reproduce the canonical meter. If we just defined the meter as 1/Pi, there would be no way to convert this number to an actual length.
When the article says that they define the kilo in terms of Planck's constant, they mean that you take the ratio of all sorts of measured quantities in the lab and the laws of physics say that the result should be the mass of what you are measuring times Planck's constant. The true emphasis is that the measurement is proportional to the mass of what you measured, not that the constant of proportionality is Planck's constant (except of course for the fact that we assume that the constant of proportionality, Planck's constant, being part of the fundamental laws of physics, is independent of where and when we do the measurement (at least in the time and distance scales that physics has managed to probe).
Of course the same area tracks time and space. The space-time continuum is 4 dimensional. Would you expect a different brain region to track the X axis and one to track the Y axis? :-)