What you are proposing is a series hybrid; this is useful in situation where driving the wheels with your engine requires a complex, heavy, and usually inefficient transmission.
Bicycle transmissions are extremely light weight and efficient -- efficiencies of over 95% are achievable in a properly maintained bike. So while series hybrid arrangement makes sense for a diesel electric locomotive, parallel hybrid makes sense for an ebike. It doesn't make sense to add stuff in series with a powertrain that is already as efficient as anything could be.
Bikes are almost unique in the mechanical world: they operate at extremely low powers and speeds. An elite cyclist over a long race stage might produce an average of 300 watts. To put that in perspective moderate walking takes about 60 watts. It doesn't take a very large motor or battery to close the gap between an average cyclist and an extremely fit cyclist. So the usual arrangement on the ebike world is to use pedal sensors to control a motor of 500-750 watts in parallel with your own power output.
Riding a series hybrid ebike would be riding an ergonomically awkward electric motorcycle. Riding a parallel hybrid ebike is very much like riding an ordinary bicycle would be, if you had superhuman legs and lungs.
It's not a question of whether Linus's opinions are infallible or fallible; no one even questions that is his opinions are the ones that govern the kernel. If anyone did, they could just fork the kernel and run the new project how they like.
The question is whether the process for using those opinions is effective. That this problem repeatedly takes up Linus's time and energy indicates the process could probably be improved.
That's not the issue at all. The question is whether they should enabled by default. The kernel development policy is not to do that with new drivers, unless there is some compelling reason to do so.
The driver in question might be the finest driver ever written, but the policy exists because the kernel development team is huge, and if everybody did things their own way the result would be chaos.
This study is talking about biostatisticians. Most of those guys are bound to be working for pharmaceutical companies.
As for the social science Brian Wansink was recently stripped of his Cornell professorship when he and is lab were caught doing extensive "p-hacking". Interestingly, the research they were doing was essentially psychological in nature, but Wansink has no academic training in psychology; he has a BA in business administration, an MA in journalism and a PhD in marketing, and his lab was operated out of Cornell's business school.
None of those use cases are made better by identifying grass and trees as green. If the GPS misses a turn, it's still got you in the ballpark. And not being able to look at your device makes the question of land use color moot.
I think Apple's chosen to optimzie for the use-case "Show me some landmarks so I know where I am" over âoeI need to quickly identifiy all state and federal parks in this area".
If only there were some kind of global system that would tell you your position.
Iran's government is extremely complicated, combining elements of democracy, republicanism, and theocracy. The Iranian Constitution reflects a deep-seated Shia ambivalence toward authority -- both a longing for it and a distrust of it.
So the thing Americans on both sides of our political divide tend to miss is that Iran has internal politics too. The Iranian Republic in a way resembles the Roman republic, with a confusing profusion of specialized legislative and judicial bodies, all potentially under the control of rival groups.
It's a mistake to personify Iran the country or even the government of Iran, because any way you characterize it is bound to represent some faction or another. For American conservatives it is the Revolutionary Guards that represent Iran -- imagine if American evangelicals had their own branch of the military that pursued its own foreign policy. For American liberals, Iranian liberals like Rouhani and Zarif represent Iran. And between those two groups you have Khamenei, who is notoriously uncharismatic and who has dubious qualifications as a cleric. He's done well out of the leadership, estimates are he's raked in a hundred billion dollars, but to stay in power he's got to throw the hardliners red meat while not letting them do anything that would destabilize his position.
Most of the methods Iranians used would have been familiar to George Smiley. They looked at what the Americans obviously knew about Iran and figured out who could have told them. Then they leaned on those people and found out how they were communicating with the CIA.
This is where Google came in. These people were using phony websites to communicate with the CIA, and Iranian intelligence used Google to uncover similar websites. Then they hacked into those websites after which they had the keys to the kingdom.
It was the CIA's reliance on a bodged-together, vulnerable system that killed those assets. They used it even after they'd been warned by their own analysts in 2008 that it had been compromised.
One of the things that struck me about this rocket is how its very recognizably the same rocket family that launched Sputnik, only refined.
That's a good thing. Americans' attitude is that anything old is automatically junk. We throw it away and look for something completely new and different. The Russians keep it and tweak it to make it a little better, and after years and years of doing that the old stuff gets very good indeed. That's why the Russians never lost the ability to put men in space, where the American space program fell between two chairs: unable to remake the old stuff and unable to get the new stuff to work.
Clean sheet, that's our way. Sometimes it works, and sometimes you get the Space Shuttle, F35, or Littoral Combat Ship.
5% of the time you get statistically significant results by chance. But assuming this is a reproducible effect you're jumping the gun by attributing it to a specific mechanism.
Translation from one human language to another is a different problem than understanding the semantics of natural language.
Human babies don't learn to translate English into some other language; they convert English into understanding. Learning to be fluent in a foreign language isn't learning to translate that language into your native language, it's learning to understand that language without translation.
So the ability of machines to translate from one human language to another does not at all look like what humans do. Again it's "AI" in the sense of replacing a human worker, but it doesn't shed any light on how that human worker would do the job.
You are making my point: if the scooter is catching fire because of use, it's an engineering design fault. That said, if the cells are catching fire due to load-intitiated thermal runaway, it's not just a system design fault, it's likely that substandard cells were used -- possibly gray market counterfeits. Individual cells are supposed to have thermal runaway protection, usually in the form of a pressure/temperature/current switch built into the anode end of the battery and a current interrupt device built into the cathode end. These should convert a cell under load stress into an open circuit.
So for load-initiated thermal runaway to be a problem in your EV fleet, you have to do two things: (1) use defective (possibly gray market counterfeit) cells AND (2) not build proper load or charging protections into your system.
My original point was that the methods used by a vandal would likely leave some kind of forensic evidence behind, and that the fires are likely a design or construction fault. For that point to be wrong (stupidly wrong, in your words), we'd have to expect well-designed and correctly constructed EVs to catch fire.
That the burden of proof is affected by social conventions I should think is stating the obvious; "burden of proof" is itself a convention.
But it's a useful one. Without that every physics paper would have to include justification for conservation of energy; every biology paper would have to justify evolution. These things are taken for granted by the scientific establishment because they represent the collective experience of the scientific establishment.
What if we rephrased the question, e.g., "What would an AI need to be able to acquire grammar and semantics by being trained on natural language sentences (the way human children are)?"
Those of us who have a mechanistic position on consciousness and intelligence see no theoretical obstacle to building a machine that does anything or indeed everything humans do. But many of us are dubious that AI will ever achieve true parity with the full range of human abilities. My doubts are economic in nature. I doubt that any such generalist AI will ever be the cheapest way to get whatever it is we want out of a machine.
Take the "AI" that's hot in the market now. It's not an AI like the robots in Asimov's storeis -- a mechanistic simulation of what people can do. The machine learning stuff being flogged by companies today is just a way of replacing people on certain tasks with something that is cheaper and in some case more consistent, albeit less versatile.
There's one exception to the rule that a generalist AI isn't really what we want, and that's if we want to prove a non-material soul is unnecessary for explaining anything about humanity. And I doubt anyone really cares enough about such a demonstration to pay what it would take to do it convincingly.
No, you don't get to claim to be a scientific revolutionary until you successfully overthrow some piece of settled science. And there's a procedure for doing that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so you start with small claims that tug at the loose ends of the scientific consensus. If you keep it up, eventually you unravel the whole thing. That's how global warming overtook global cooling; it took years, but it got there.
I read a few years ago about a climate researcher who was a fundamentalist Christian; he didn't believe in climate change because he thinks climate change violates God's will. That makes him a crackpot in most other scientists' eyes, but what you believe isn't important in science. It's what you can demonstrate. He still publishes papers which are respected, because he doesn't make wild claims he can't substantiate.
From roughly 1940 to around 1980, the world did not warm; in fact over most of that period it cooled. There was a lot of concern in the 1960s about "global cooling" due to anthropogenic aerosol emissions, which is a real thing.
During of this time advanced in instrumentation, ocean chemistry (see Roger Revelle), spectroscopy and most especially computers allowed the development of models which would allowed climatologists to make predictions about the effect of aerosol emissions against other factors like CO2 driven warming. Those models predicted that CO2-based warming would overtake cooling by the 1980s. This is a particularly robust result because it correctly predicted a reversal in the current trend.
Now there are some things climate models inherently can't predict. They can't predict weather events, like El Niños or La Niñas, which are weather events that skew individual years or pairs of years warm or cool. They can't predict local weather events like cold snaps or snow storms. They can't predict the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in ten years, which depends on economic growth, technology, regulation and consumer behavior. But in general the prediction that rising CO2 correlates to rising temperature is quite robust.
Are you stupid? The vertical portion is a column filled with Lithium-based batteries. It would be trivial to cause them to explode. Oh, sorry, I mean "experience thermal runaway, with ejecta and flaming report".
So you don't carry a mobile phone because of the danger of thermal runaway, right?
I may be stupid, but I do know enough about battery technology to know that even though the underlying lithion chemistry is unstable, it's not trivial to get an assembled li-battery to explode by thermal runaway. In fact it's hard to get them to explode by an external heat source, unless it's something like a gas torch, in which case you'll get a localized explosion of a single cell.
That shouldn't be hard to figure out by an examination of the remains.
It should be extremely difficult to get one of these things to burn, and the effort required will leave traces. If it's easy to set one on fire, that'd be a design flaw in itself.
I guess you can believe what you want and most people do, very few actually dig through the numbers themselves.
Of course you can believe what you want, but personally I'd like anthropogenic warming to be wrong. Unfortunately, it's the best-supported position at present.
I have seen more scientists of late who early on said climate change was real are now very skeptical if not completely convinced its not a issue.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are proposing is a series hybrid; this is useful in situation where driving the wheels with your engine requires a complex, heavy, and usually inefficient transmission.
Bicycle transmissions are extremely light weight and efficient -- efficiencies of over 95% are achievable in a properly maintained bike. So while series hybrid arrangement makes sense for a diesel electric locomotive, parallel hybrid makes sense for an ebike. It doesn't make sense to add stuff in series with a powertrain that is already as efficient as anything could be.
Bikes are almost unique in the mechanical world: they operate at extremely low powers and speeds. An elite cyclist over a long race stage might produce an average of 300 watts. To put that in perspective moderate walking takes about 60 watts. It doesn't take a very large motor or battery to close the gap between an average cyclist and an extremely fit cyclist. So the usual arrangement on the ebike world is to use pedal sensors to control a motor of 500-750 watts in parallel with your own power output.
Riding a series hybrid ebike would be riding an ergonomically awkward electric motorcycle. Riding a parallel hybrid ebike is very much like riding an ordinary bicycle would be, if you had superhuman legs and lungs.
It's not a question of whether Linus's opinions are infallible or fallible; no one even questions that is his opinions are the ones that govern the kernel. If anyone did, they could just fork the kernel and run the new project how they like.
The question is whether the process for using those opinions is effective. That this problem repeatedly takes up Linus's time and energy indicates the process could probably be improved.
That's not the issue at all. The question is whether they should enabled by default. The kernel development policy is not to do that with new drivers, unless there is some compelling reason to do so.
The driver in question might be the finest driver ever written, but the policy exists because the kernel development team is huge, and if everybody did things their own way the result would be chaos.
Why is this moderated flamebait? It's a legitimate question.
Design isn't invention; that doesn't mean it isn't valuable, or can't be innovative.
This study is talking about biostatisticians. Most of those guys are bound to be working for pharmaceutical companies.
As for the social science Brian Wansink was recently stripped of his Cornell professorship when he and is lab were caught doing extensive "p-hacking". Interestingly, the research they were doing was essentially psychological in nature, but Wansink has no academic training in psychology; he has a BA in business administration, an MA in journalism and a PhD in marketing, and his lab was operated out of Cornell's business school.
None of those use cases are made better by identifying grass and trees as green. If the GPS misses a turn, it's still got you in the ballpark. And not being able to look at your device makes the question of land use color moot.
I think Apple's chosen to optimzie for the use-case "Show me some landmarks so I know where I am" over âoeI need to quickly identifiy all state and federal parks in this area".
If only there were some kind of global system that would tell you your position.
I guess next time I'm looking for exceptionally grassy highway medians, I'll buy an Apple device.
I've always suspected Apple fanbois were sheep...
Iran's government is extremely complicated, combining elements of democracy, republicanism, and theocracy. The Iranian Constitution reflects a deep-seated Shia ambivalence toward authority -- both a longing for it and a distrust of it.
So the thing Americans on both sides of our political divide tend to miss is that Iran has internal politics too. The Iranian Republic in a way resembles the Roman republic, with a confusing profusion of specialized legislative and judicial bodies, all potentially under the control of rival groups.
It's a mistake to personify Iran the country or even the government of Iran, because any way you characterize it is bound to represent some faction or another. For American conservatives it is the Revolutionary Guards that represent Iran -- imagine if American evangelicals had their own branch of the military that pursued its own foreign policy. For American liberals, Iranian liberals like Rouhani and Zarif represent Iran. And between those two groups you have Khamenei, who is notoriously uncharismatic and who has dubious qualifications as a cleric. He's done well out of the leadership, estimates are he's raked in a hundred billion dollars, but to stay in power he's got to throw the hardliners red meat while not letting them do anything that would destabilize his position.
Most of the methods Iranians used would have been familiar to George Smiley. They looked at what the Americans obviously knew about Iran and figured out who could have told them. Then they leaned on those people and found out how they were communicating with the CIA.
This is where Google came in. These people were using phony websites to communicate with the CIA, and Iranian intelligence used Google to uncover similar websites. Then they hacked into those websites after which they had the keys to the kingdom.
It was the CIA's reliance on a bodged-together, vulnerable system that killed those assets. They used it even after they'd been warned by their own analysts in 2008 that it had been compromised.
One of the things that struck me about this rocket is how its very recognizably the same rocket family that launched Sputnik, only refined.
That's a good thing. Americans' attitude is that anything old is automatically junk. We throw it away and look for something completely new and different. The Russians keep it and tweak it to make it a little better, and after years and years of doing that the old stuff gets very good indeed. That's why the Russians never lost the ability to put men in space, where the American space program fell between two chairs: unable to remake the old stuff and unable to get the new stuff to work.
Clean sheet, that's our way. Sometimes it works, and sometimes you get the Space Shuttle, F35, or Littoral Combat Ship.
5% of the time you get statistically significant results by chance. But assuming this is a reproducible effect you're jumping the gun by attributing it to a specific mechanism.
If client-side javascript is part of the security check, I don't see how that prevents a crook from forging an authentic-looking HTTP request.
Translation from one human language to another is a different problem than understanding the semantics of natural language.
Human babies don't learn to translate English into some other language; they convert English into understanding. Learning to be fluent in a foreign language isn't learning to translate that language into your native language, it's learning to understand that language without translation.
So the ability of machines to translate from one human language to another does not at all look like what humans do. Again it's "AI" in the sense of replacing a human worker, but it doesn't shed any light on how that human worker would do the job.
You are making my point: if the scooter is catching fire because of use, it's an engineering design fault. That said, if the cells are catching fire due to load-intitiated thermal runaway, it's not just a system design fault, it's likely that substandard cells were used -- possibly gray market counterfeits. Individual cells are supposed to have thermal runaway protection, usually in the form of a pressure/temperature/current switch built into the anode end of the battery and a current interrupt device built into the cathode end. These should convert a cell under load stress into an open circuit.
So for load-initiated thermal runaway to be a problem in your EV fleet, you have to do two things: (1) use defective (possibly gray market counterfeit) cells AND (2) not build proper load or charging protections into your system.
My original point was that the methods used by a vandal would likely leave some kind of forensic evidence behind, and that the fires are likely a design or construction fault. For that point to be wrong (stupidly wrong, in your words), we'd have to expect well-designed and correctly constructed EVs to catch fire.
That the burden of proof is affected by social conventions I should think is stating the obvious; "burden of proof" is itself a convention.
But it's a useful one. Without that every physics paper would have to include justification for conservation of energy; every biology paper would have to justify evolution. These things are taken for granted by the scientific establishment because they represent the collective experience of the scientific establishment.
What if we rephrased the question, e.g., "What would an AI need to be able to acquire grammar and semantics by being trained on natural language sentences (the way human children are)?"
Those of us who have a mechanistic position on consciousness and intelligence see no theoretical obstacle to building a machine that does anything or indeed everything humans do. But many of us are dubious that AI will ever achieve true parity with the full range of human abilities. My doubts are economic in nature. I doubt that any such generalist AI will ever be the cheapest way to get whatever it is we want out of a machine.
Take the "AI" that's hot in the market now. It's not an AI like the robots in Asimov's storeis -- a mechanistic simulation of what people can do. The machine learning stuff being flogged by companies today is just a way of replacing people on certain tasks with something that is cheaper and in some case more consistent, albeit less versatile.
There's one exception to the rule that a generalist AI isn't really what we want, and that's if we want to prove a non-material soul is unnecessary for explaining anything about humanity. And I doubt anyone really cares enough about such a demonstration to pay what it would take to do it convincingly.
No, you don't get to claim to be a scientific revolutionary until you successfully overthrow some piece of settled science. And there's a procedure for doing that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so you start with small claims that tug at the loose ends of the scientific consensus. If you keep it up, eventually you unravel the whole thing. That's how global warming overtook global cooling; it took years, but it got there.
I read a few years ago about a climate researcher who was a fundamentalist Christian; he didn't believe in climate change because he thinks climate change violates God's will. That makes him a crackpot in most other scientists' eyes, but what you believe isn't important in science. It's what you can demonstrate. He still publishes papers which are respected, because he doesn't make wild claims he can't substantiate.
From roughly 1940 to around 1980, the world did not warm; in fact over most of that period it cooled. There was a lot of concern in the 1960s about "global cooling" due to anthropogenic aerosol emissions, which is a real thing.
During of this time advanced in instrumentation, ocean chemistry (see Roger Revelle), spectroscopy and most especially computers allowed the development of models which would allowed climatologists to make predictions about the effect of aerosol emissions against other factors like CO2 driven warming. Those models predicted that CO2-based warming would overtake cooling by the 1980s. This is a particularly robust result because it correctly predicted a reversal in the current trend.
Now there are some things climate models inherently can't predict. They can't predict weather events, like El Niños or La Niñas, which are weather events that skew individual years or pairs of years warm or cool. They can't predict local weather events like cold snaps or snow storms. They can't predict the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in ten years, which depends on economic growth, technology, regulation and consumer behavior. But in general the prediction that rising CO2 correlates to rising temperature is quite robust.
You didn't finish reading before responding. The science *is* settled.
Are you stupid? The vertical portion is a column filled with Lithium-based batteries. It would be trivial to cause them to explode. Oh, sorry, I mean "experience thermal runaway, with ejecta and flaming report".
So you don't carry a mobile phone because of the danger of thermal runaway, right?
I may be stupid, but I do know enough about battery technology to know that even though the underlying lithion chemistry is unstable, it's not trivial to get an assembled li-battery to explode by thermal runaway. In fact it's hard to get them to explode by an external heat source, unless it's something like a gas torch, in which case you'll get a localized explosion of a single cell.
Seriously, you find kale pretentious? Isn't that a little pretentious?
Frankly, I hate the stuff, but I can't wrap my brain around acting superior to someone who does.
That shouldn't be hard to figure out by an examination of the remains.
It should be extremely difficult to get one of these things to burn, and the effort required will leave traces. If it's easy to set one on fire, that'd be a design flaw in itself.
I guess you can believe what you want and most people do, very few actually dig through the numbers themselves.
Of course you can believe what you want, but personally I'd like anthropogenic warming to be wrong. Unfortunately, it's the best-supported position at present.
I have seen more scientists of late who early on said climate change was real are now very skeptical if not completely convinced its not a issue.
Oh, really? Who?
...when they say their findings were flawed.
This $hit is ridiculous.
It's normal for findings to be flawed. In fact, there's always flaws.