People always make the same mistake about processes like this; they imagine the country with a stable population, perhaps somewhat smaller than it is today, and ask themselves is that a bad idea? Or they imagine a world 4 degrees warmer than it was in the 1800s; that doesn't sound so bad, does it?
The mistake is that they're imagining the stable aftermath and ignoring the stress that the rate of change puts on our ability to adapt.
The population of the US has been growing briskly since 1776, and our society is dependent upon that fact. While a stable, smaller population would be arguably better, a rapid transition to zero population growth will feel like the demographic equivalent of cancer chemotherapy. It depends on our ability to prepare for the transition in advance.
Oh, wait, the underclasses will breed like rabbits and immigrants will flood our country because we're rich. Fuck.
Actually this is quite easy to fix. Provide birth control and abortion services to women and teenage girls and the problem would be sorted. But right there you see why change is generally bad for the US. We'd rather deny change is happening or complain about it than do something.
While I appreciate that's it's frustrating, you can't expect to always know what to do about a problem until you've studied it.
You seem to think we're better off being unaware of things we aren't prepared for yet. But I think it's better to know than to continue to act under false assumptions. Even if we can't fix a problem, we can reduce our exposure to it.
I think the real problem comes with things where we actually could do something useful about. Those are the problems people fight rather than admit.
As for the collusion investigation, we don't know what' they've got yet, because unlike the White House the Mueller team doesn't leak very much. But it's not surprising to see peripheral pressure being put on the President's associates; that's the way prosecutors work. The way you take down a mob boss isn't that you go straight for him; you put pressure on his associates using whatever you can find.
Actually, my thought was "why not a cyborg fly?" Implant circuits in an actual fly that would control its movements. They've already done computer controlled cockroaches.
Powering this thing by laser isn't really that different than powering it with a wire. Biological flies are efficient enough for sustained autonomous flight, and come in even tinier packages.
It's just a more expensive, and complicated way of doing the job that has the advantage of being buzzword compliant.
There's always rampant engineering malpractice in these technology fads, with guys padding their resumes rather than solving real problems. In this case you also have management angling to snag gullible investors and customers, but you expect managers to have no ethics.
I have an LG G30, which has an IP68 rating and a headphone jack.
Apple didn't remove the headphone jack for waterproofing. They removed it because 3.5mm is a lot when you're making a phone that's only 7.1mm thick.
I don't know about rage, but I don't like phones without a jack because I can't use my good headphones with them. As for the Google phones, which my kids have, I can tell you that the USB-C to audio dongles don't last more than a couple of weeks, so you have to use bluetooth. If that meets your needs, good for you, but it's a deal breaker for me.
As for bluetooth, I was an early A2DP adopter, but your mileage may vary depending on the codecs supported and source material. While you need golden ears to hear the faults in most modern codecs, you don't necessarily need them to hear the faults in materials that have been encoded/decoded with one codec and then re-encoded/re-decoded with another.
A lot of design going on here is not design for use, but design for impression. It's all about generating that "ooh" when you pick up the next gen phone in the story. Putting the various sensors and transducers at the edge of the phone outside the screen area is the simple, cheap, good solution for use, but it doesn't make you go "ooh" the way a screen that is starting to wrap around the edge of the phone does, even though that has zero utility.
It's not based on science, but it has it's advantage that it's not based on pseudoscience.
Look at the places where people have the best health outcomes -- let's say the so-called "blue zones". Are people in those places consciously managing their nutrient intake?
The journalist Michael Pollan calls the ideology of treating food like a drug "nutritionism". It has a very poor track record stretching back over a hundred years, when protein was the evil macronutrient and carbs were the good macronutrient.
His alternative proposal: eat food, mostly plants, and not too much. By "food" he mean something your (or somebody's) great-grandmother would recognize as food, not some highly processed industrial convenience product.
Take Cheetos -- from a marketing perspective there has never been a more perfect consumable product. Each puff is designed to give you a little burst of pleasure, but to have zero satiation value. It's engineered to make you eat forever.
Well, this is a different war. It's about Iran sanctions. I think the reason this is happening is they're actually trying to contain a possible Chinese trade war.
It's brinksmanship, and when you're on the brink shutting down a billion dollar Chinese company with 75,000 employees might send you over the edge. He needs China's leadership to swallow its pride and make some trade concessions.
No, it's that trying to understand all the possible motivations people might have to do something like this is pointless.
Early in the days of the Internet I would have clients challenge the need for security. "Why would anyone want to hack me?"
And I'd answer, "The people you have to worry about don't think like you. Their motivations wouldn't make any sense to you, even if you knew them, which you probably won't."
The right framework to understand this isn't psychology, it's statistics. The probability of an event occurring as the number of trials approaches infinity is either 0, or 1.
That's the way to understand a lot of what happens in the world, like school shootings. If they can happen, given enough people who are capable of doing them, someone will.
The idea they need us more than we need them isn't as true as it was in 1990.
The US share of world GDP peaked at around 36% at the end of WW2 and then fell as the world recovered until around 1975. From 1975-2000 it remained at about 21%, then dropped rapidly after 2000 so that today it it's roughly where it was in 1900 -- about 16% -- and is still falling rapidly.
One of the effects of the competition trade liberalization brought is that nobody is indispensable anymore. Look at America's top twenty exports or so. There's nothing we make the world can't get somewhere else, except a few big ticket weapons systems like the F35. Many of our exports, such as cars, or refined petroleum, have significant foreign content already.
The day is coming, if it's not already here, when the US won't be able to dictate economic relations on our terms. Then if the world says we have to trade carbon credits, we'll have to trade carbon credits. And if we don't have our own carbon data we'll just have to use theirs.
By that logic, the contrary assumption that we cannot manage carbon emissions is equally foolish.
Again using that logic solely as our guide, our only choice is to make our best possible effort to manage carbon emissions, not because we assume it will work, but because that's the only way we'll find out.
I think you might have found the perfect US political spin for this: it's not that canceling monitoring is bad for the environment, it's that it helps China cheat.
In this case the pesticide used was brodifacoum -- a chemical analog of the anticoagulant warfarin. The reason brodifacoum is used in this application is that it is a large molecule that breaks down rapidly in the environment -- residue is undetectable after 100 days. The rapid breakdown in soil meaans that there is low potential for bioaccumulation or tolerance development. On the other hand repeated treatments are necessary.
This is why the eradication was so expensive. Had they tried this 100 years ago they'd have used thallium sulfate. Since pretty much all thallium compounds are toxic, fewer retreatments are needed, making thallium cost effective, if you don't count the side effects.
I don't have a problem if the Russian government wants to influence US elections, as long as it identifies himself. In fact, I'd very much like to hear their take on things.
But that's not what they're doing. They're pretending to be Americans in order to sow discord. They don't really care about what they're saying, it's the effect they're after.
Slashdot Mirror
And nobody cares if a welder is over 40.
People always make the same mistake about processes like this; they imagine the country with a stable population, perhaps somewhat smaller than it is today, and ask themselves is that a bad idea? Or they imagine a world 4 degrees warmer than it was in the 1800s; that doesn't sound so bad, does it?
The mistake is that they're imagining the stable aftermath and ignoring the stress that the rate of change puts on our ability to adapt.
The population of the US has been growing briskly since 1776, and our society is dependent upon that fact. While a stable, smaller population would be arguably better, a rapid transition to zero population growth will feel like the demographic equivalent of cancer chemotherapy. It depends on our ability to prepare for the transition in advance.
Oh, wait, the underclasses will breed like rabbits and immigrants will flood our country because we're rich. Fuck.
Actually this is quite easy to fix. Provide birth control and abortion services to women and teenage girls and the problem would be sorted. But right there you see why change is generally bad for the US. We'd rather deny change is happening or complain about it than do something.
While I appreciate that's it's frustrating, you can't expect to always know what to do about a problem until you've studied it.
You seem to think we're better off being unaware of things we aren't prepared for yet. But I think it's better to know than to continue to act under false assumptions. Even if we can't fix a problem, we can reduce our exposure to it.
I think the real problem comes with things where we actually could do something useful about. Those are the problems people fight rather than admit.
who read the title and pictured pigeons wheeling around the Piazza San Marco.
It's their job to enforce technicalities.
As for the collusion investigation, we don't know what' they've got yet, because unlike the White House the Mueller team doesn't leak very much. But it's not surprising to see peripheral pressure being put on the President's associates; that's the way prosecutors work. The way you take down a mob boss isn't that you go straight for him; you put pressure on his associates using whatever you can find.
Actually, my thought was "why not a cyborg fly?" Implant circuits in an actual fly that would control its movements. They've already done computer controlled cockroaches.
Powering this thing by laser isn't really that different than powering it with a wire. Biological flies are efficient enough for sustained autonomous flight, and come in even tinier packages.
The second link is to work by the same group.
If you want to set an electric towing record, you have to do better than this.
It's just a more expensive, and complicated way of doing the job that has the advantage of being buzzword compliant.
There's always rampant engineering malpractice in these technology fads, with guys padding their resumes rather than solving real problems. In this case you also have management angling to snag gullible investors and customers, but you expect managers to have no ethics.
I have an LG G30, which has an IP68 rating and a headphone jack.
Apple didn't remove the headphone jack for waterproofing. They removed it because 3.5mm is a lot when you're making a phone that's only 7.1mm thick.
I don't know about rage, but I don't like phones without a jack because I can't use my good headphones with them. As for the Google phones, which my kids have, I can tell you that the USB-C to audio dongles don't last more than a couple of weeks, so you have to use bluetooth. If that meets your needs, good for you, but it's a deal breaker for me.
As for bluetooth, I was an early A2DP adopter, but your mileage may vary depending on the codecs supported and source material. While you need golden ears to hear the faults in most modern codecs, you don't necessarily need them to hear the faults in materials that have been encoded/decoded with one codec and then re-encoded/re-decoded with another.
A lot of design going on here is not design for use, but design for impression. It's all about generating that "ooh" when you pick up the next gen phone in the story. Putting the various sensors and transducers at the edge of the phone outside the screen area is the simple, cheap, good solution for use, but it doesn't make you go "ooh" the way a screen that is starting to wrap around the edge of the phone does, even though that has zero utility.
First you show me the proof that carbohydrates are evil in the current mainstream scientific opinion.
It's not based on science, but it has it's advantage that it's not based on pseudoscience.
Look at the places where people have the best health outcomes -- let's say the so-called "blue zones". Are people in those places consciously managing their nutrient intake?
The journalist Michael Pollan calls the ideology of treating food like a drug "nutritionism". It has a very poor track record stretching back over a hundred years, when protein was the evil macronutrient and carbs were the good macronutrient.
His alternative proposal: eat food, mostly plants, and not too much. By "food" he mean something your (or somebody's) great-grandmother would recognize as food, not some highly processed industrial convenience product.
Take Cheetos -- from a marketing perspective there has never been a more perfect consumable product. Each puff is designed to give you a little burst of pleasure, but to have zero satiation value. It's engineered to make you eat forever.
Well, this is a different war. It's about Iran sanctions. I think the reason this is happening is they're actually trying to contain a possible Chinese trade war.
It's brinksmanship, and when you're on the brink shutting down a billion dollar Chinese company with 75,000 employees might send you over the edge. He needs China's leadership to swallow its pride and make some trade concessions.
Possibly ZTE is an Essential Consultants client?
So now we have an immigration program that is openly intended to move US jobs overseas.
What we should have is a program which ends in the recipient receiving a green card.
No, it's that trying to understand all the possible motivations people might have to do something like this is pointless.
Early in the days of the Internet I would have clients challenge the need for security. "Why would anyone want to hack me?"
And I'd answer, "The people you have to worry about don't think like you. Their motivations wouldn't make any sense to you, even if you knew them, which you probably won't."
The right framework to understand this isn't psychology, it's statistics. The probability of an event occurring as the number of trials approaches infinity is either 0, or 1.
That's the way to understand a lot of what happens in the world, like school shootings. If they can happen, given enough people who are capable of doing them, someone will.
Thank you, Ivan.
It has nothing to do with how I feel about sovereignty. The flip side of sovereignty is that you can't make other countries trade with you.
If you want to live in Wakanda, and can make that happen, more power to you.
The idea they need us more than we need them isn't as true as it was in 1990.
The US share of world GDP peaked at around 36% at the end of WW2 and then fell as the world recovered until around 1975. From 1975-2000 it remained at about 21%, then dropped rapidly after 2000 so that today it it's roughly where it was in 1900 -- about 16% -- and is still falling rapidly.
One of the effects of the competition trade liberalization brought is that nobody is indispensable anymore. Look at America's top twenty exports or so. There's nothing we make the world can't get somewhere else, except a few big ticket weapons systems like the F35. Many of our exports, such as cars, or refined petroleum, have significant foreign content already.
The day is coming, if it's not already here, when the US won't be able to dictate economic relations on our terms. Then if the world says we have to trade carbon credits, we'll have to trade carbon credits. And if we don't have our own carbon data we'll just have to use theirs.
By that logic, the contrary assumption that we cannot manage carbon emissions is equally foolish.
Again using that logic solely as our guide, our only choice is to make our best possible effort to manage carbon emissions, not because we assume it will work, but because that's the only way we'll find out.
I think you might have found the perfect US political spin for this: it's not that canceling monitoring is bad for the environment, it's that it helps China cheat.
Well, it depends on the poison, doesn't it?
In this case the pesticide used was brodifacoum -- a chemical analog of the anticoagulant warfarin. The reason brodifacoum is used in this application is that it is a large molecule that breaks down rapidly in the environment -- residue is undetectable after 100 days. The rapid breakdown in soil meaans that there is low potential for bioaccumulation or tolerance development. On the other hand repeated treatments are necessary.
This is why the eradication was so expensive. Had they tried this 100 years ago they'd have used thallium sulfate. Since pretty much all thallium compounds are toxic, fewer retreatments are needed, making thallium cost effective, if you don't count the side effects.
I don't have a problem if the Russian government wants to influence US elections, as long as it identifies himself. In fact, I'd very much like to hear their take on things.
But that's not what they're doing. They're pretending to be Americans in order to sow discord. They don't really care about what they're saying, it's the effect they're after.