Timing is a big part of innovation. To be innovative you've got to have something that can be sold to users today but nobody is making yet. What you end up when you try too hard to be innovative is making a technically impressive thing that turns out to be a dead end because not enough people want to buy it.
For example I at one point was carrying around a Hitachi SH-G1000, an early converged device what was a technical tour-de-force in its day, but utterly uncompelling to the public at large.
I was a mobile developer back to the days of the Newton -- which is a great example of what I'm talking about. Palm came along with a much more primitive device that fit in your pocket, and clobbered any chance Newton had of gaining traction. That's largely because of the DragonBall, a low-power CMOS implementation of the 32 bit 68000 architecture that had an integrated LCD controller too. The PalmPilot came out as soon as the DragonBall was shipping in quantity.
Palm eventually lost its way exactly as this guy is talking about: focusing too much on what Microsoft was doing with Windows Mobile. The iPhone clobbered all the other entries by taking a clean sheet approach, putting together a lot of stuff that was already on the market -- including the multi-touch UI technology it got by acquiring FingerWorks. Another huge thing that people forget was that Apple did an end-run around the carriers, who were keen on monetizing individual user applications of their network. If you want to know what non-net-neutrality looks like, look at cell phone data networks on June 28, 2007, the day before the iPhone launched.
Right, although I am not entirely sure a micro aggression is rude. It strikes me as something that is actually civil,
Well, there's the problem. True politeness is rooted in being considerate, but since it has to govern interactions between even strangers, it needs conventions that people share.
When I was young I was taught that gentlemen opened doors for ladies. Yes, I am that old; I was even taught to place myself on a sidewalk between a lady and the street. Now the door convention is you hold the door open long enough for the person following you to catch it, unless one of you is carrying something and the other is not. Then the unencumbered person (male or female) holds the door for the encumbered one (male or female).
So now what was once conventionally polite can in fact carry an unintended message. Holding a door for an unencumbered woman can be perceived as a slight on her ability, rather than a gesture of respect. Neither interpretation is objective, it's all a matter of context.
This by the way points out another good reason to bring back etiquette: it provides a whole vocabulary of disrespect that is less provocative than calling someone names. If you presented the Queen of England to the US President, and were presumed to know better, that would correctly be interpreted as a slight on the UK. It also gives the recipient a pretext under which to ignore the slight. Since we no longer regard such norms as important, we have nothing to ascribe our hurt feelings to but malice.
I understand. But I'm just saying that you need to look at the effect and manage it pragmatically.
It may well be that the concept itself might have utility, if applied by objective and trained observers. But it seems to me that people use these things to deal with what I think is an unchanging reality: dealing with other people is frustrating. Past generations would have dealt with such problems by through etiquette. I think there's a lot to say for the idea of restoring some formality to our public lives -- although widely accepted etiquette norms never succeeded in eliminating rudeness.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Politeness isn't part of our mindset anymore, so we can only conceptualize behavioral transgressions as harm.
TFA is just a stupid strawman argument. Sure, if we implement geoengineering in the stupidest possible way.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. "What could go wrong if we do this wrong" is an entirely valid question to study when you're at the back-of-the-envelope stage of a major project.
I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is. If the article concluded, "... and that's why we should rule out geoengineering approaches," then it would have been a straw man.
Amusing, yes. Sad, no. Let me tell you why this person became a successful writer where so many like her failed: she knows how to use criticism intelligently.
You can't avoid this sort of thing short of never having read anything else or watched any movies or TV. The trick is to be aware you're doing it.
This is exactly on-point. If it were just about me, I'd work with every single employee until he became a success. But it costs the other people in the workplace; at some point being kind to one person is being unkind to everyone else
I love working with people who rock the boat for a good reason, but it's not the rocking per se that is important; it's the struggle over the best direction to head the boat in. Hijacking the boat so you can act out your personal psychodrama may have the effect of rocking the boat, but it's not the same thing.
I don't subscribe to -isms of any kind because they spin a piece of truth into an entire world view. That's why I prefer "being a dick" to a piece of -ism jargon -- because it involves using discretion and judgment to evaluate context. Some ideologues always end up taking idiotic positions because what matters is purity rather than truth. For example I prefer the capitalist theory of value to the socialist labor theory of value for setting commodity prices, but I don't value a man's life by his income, as some capitalist ideologues do.
Sweden pioneered gender reassignment surgery and has allowed people to legally change their gender since 1972. It's also second on the list.
As for "microagressions", as an old fart I don't like that word. I prefer to call it "acting like a dick". One thing years of hiring people taught me is to not hire anyone if the interview gives even a whiff of dickishness.
If I could go back in time and tell my younger self one thing to avoid doing, it would be working with all those workplace trouble makers, trying to teach them how to be better team players. Firing would be more effective sensitivity training and a lot less trouble for me.
I don't know. The point is she wasn't one of those writers who just recycle tropes. That is incredibly hard to do, because it means giving up on a huge trove of stereotypes that readers instantly understand without you having to do much work.
I have a friend who's been successful enough as an urban fantasy writer to quit her day job. I was critiquing her first novel and one of the scenes where two men are alone discussing the female protagonist stuck out. It didn't ring true. Then I realized -- as a woman she her idea what men like when there's no women around came from television.
So I wrote in the manuscript, "Men don't actually sound like this. Rewrite this scene as if these characters were human beings rather than men."
I think our implicit model of what the brain is doing when we talking about being "fully attentive" is too simplistic. Who hasn't found themselves thinking about something while they drive and at least starting to go to the wrong place out of habit? Clearly when you do that you are not being "fully attentive", and yet your brain is constantly monitoring for dangers and obstacles, adjusting the car, even navigating.
Here's another thing I've noticed. On a long drive, especially in difficult conditions, your performance degrades. Your reaction time drops, your movements are slugglish and less precise, and your body exhibits stress symptoms. Taking a break for fifteen or twenty minutes dramatically restores your performance. And yet you are no more conscious of what is going on around you. Your brain is simply performing better.
Driving is a highly complex activity involving the coordination of many conscious and unconscious thinking, perception and motor processes. It's not as simple as "were you paying attention or not". I think normally it's fine not to be paying conscious attention as long as you're feeding your brain the input it needs to preserve itself.
So to answer your question, here's what I think the application may be: demanding fewer brain resources and thus reducing fatigue. Even a simple cruise control can make a long drive less tiring, although you can't use it most of the time. Just the break from having to control that one thing for a few minutes is helpful.
It's not technically correct to say that Hz is a measure of frequency, any more than it's technically correct to say that ohms are a measure of conductance, but the reasoning stands either way: frame timings aren't an integral number of nanoseconds long, and 1 GHz isn't an integral multiple of frame frequencies either.
If computers had unlimited precision arithmetic, or if using floats made no difference to calculation speed, it wouldn't matter. Apparently Facebook is concerned about the limited precision of 2's complement 32 bit integer, otherwise they could measure timings in integer numbers of femtoseconds or something like that with a 64 bit integer. You get more precision with a 64 bit signed integer than with a 64 bit float, because the float uses 11 bits for the exponent.
The legal justification for a tariff under our treaty obligations is that the foreign competition is unfairly subsidized. In that is *true* then American company innovation *might* also be retarded by making payback times too long to justify investments.
The political argument is that this will be good for US workers, but that's an open question. If the solar installation industry collapses, that would be bad for workers doing that, and it might even be bad for US solar manufacturers who need those guys to stay in business.
So really all the possible outcomes are on the table.
The fact that the study accepted the null hypothesis argues against this being junk science. The flux in the field, with established concepts like priming being vigorously challenged, is actually good sign.
This reminds me of the various colorful circumlocutions people around the world use for death. In France someone who dies "eats daisies by the roots". In Germany he "gives up his spoon". In China he "goes to sell salted duck eggs."
I suppose in Intel-speak death would be "non-transitory pulmonary quiescence."
I don't think education or status are perfect vaccines against mob thinking, either. In every historical instance of a society driving off the cliff into folly has plenty of people who should have known better egging it on.
Facebook is to bullshit as crack is to cocaine. Crack is cocaine, but packaged to provide a cheap, short-lived high. Facebook is a means of consuming a lot of bullshit by repeatedly deciding to consume just little bit more.
Just look at the basic Facebook mechanic: the like. What the easiest way to get that sweet hit of external validation? Find a group of like-minded people and express a completely conventional thought in an outrageously provocative way. And how long does that hit last? Days? Hours? Minutes?
Facebook didn't invent getting yourself lost in an epistemic bubble; it just made it accessible to people who don't have the time to invest in joining a cult. That makes a difference.
You cannot retrain a toilet cleaner to be a robot repairman.
It's not clear to me this is true. Sure, there may be some janitors who literally cannot be trained for better jobs, but of the millions of people doing those kinds of jobs there's bound to be many who could be trained for something more challenging.
I don't think, however, retraining toilet cleaners is in the cards, for two reasons. First, there isn't a job "toilet cleaner"; it's a task glommed onto various low status jobs. It's unlikely we'll see that task automated because it's not a big, immediate head count win. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think politicians care about people doing low status jobs to do anything for them if they lose their jobs.
Look at rural and small town census tracts after the Great Recession -- there was no "after the recession" for them, it's still on. Sure they get lip service, but if you think anyone is going to prioritize the interests of an out-of-work coal miner over a fracking billionaire, consider that these are also the places which are ravaged by the opioid crisis. There's lots of posturing on that issue too, but no action. Drug wholesalers, over the course of two years, shipped nine million pills to a single pharmacy in West Virginia serving a community of less than four hundred people, and no politicians have proposed anything to prevent things like that happening again.
59,000 people are killed in the US by the opioid crisis annually, the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every two weeks, but we must tread carefully lest we harm drug company profits. I submit to you that demonstrates the lower value we put on the lives of those people relative to the lives of bankers.
If we can't be bothered lift a finger to save their lives, why would we save their jobs?
Slashdot Mirror
And if it allows no current to pass during a voltage transient?
If you're going to be pedantic, do it right.
As for being a team player, what makes you think anybody wants to "play on your team"?
Er... they cash their paycheck?
Timing is a big part of innovation. To be innovative you've got to have something that can be sold to users today but nobody is making yet. What you end up when you try too hard to be innovative is making a technically impressive thing that turns out to be a dead end because not enough people want to buy it.
For example I at one point was carrying around a Hitachi SH-G1000, an early converged device what was a technical tour-de-force in its day, but utterly uncompelling to the public at large.
I was a mobile developer back to the days of the Newton -- which is a great example of what I'm talking about. Palm came along with a much more primitive device that fit in your pocket, and clobbered any chance Newton had of gaining traction. That's largely because of the DragonBall, a low-power CMOS implementation of the 32 bit 68000 architecture that had an integrated LCD controller too. The PalmPilot came out as soon as the DragonBall was shipping in quantity.
Palm eventually lost its way exactly as this guy is talking about: focusing too much on what Microsoft was doing with Windows Mobile. The iPhone clobbered all the other entries by taking a clean sheet approach, putting together a lot of stuff that was already on the market -- including the multi-touch UI technology it got by acquiring FingerWorks. Another huge thing that people forget was that Apple did an end-run around the carriers, who were keen on monetizing individual user applications of their network. If you want to know what non-net-neutrality looks like, look at cell phone data networks on June 28, 2007, the day before the iPhone launched.
A diode that blocks current in both directions is defective.
Right, although I am not entirely sure a micro aggression is rude. It strikes me as something that is actually civil,
Well, there's the problem. True politeness is rooted in being considerate, but since it has to govern interactions between even strangers, it needs conventions that people share.
When I was young I was taught that gentlemen opened doors for ladies. Yes, I am that old; I was even taught to place myself on a sidewalk between a lady and the street. Now the door convention is you hold the door open long enough for the person following you to catch it, unless one of you is carrying something and the other is not. Then the unencumbered person (male or female) holds the door for the encumbered one (male or female).
So now what was once conventionally polite can in fact carry an unintended message. Holding a door for an unencumbered woman can be perceived as a slight on her ability, rather than a gesture of respect. Neither interpretation is objective, it's all a matter of context.
This by the way points out another good reason to bring back etiquette: it provides a whole vocabulary of disrespect that is less provocative than calling someone names. If you presented the Queen of England to the US President, and were presumed to know better, that would correctly be interpreted as a slight on the UK. It also gives the recipient a pretext under which to ignore the slight. Since we no longer regard such norms as important, we have nothing to ascribe our hurt feelings to but malice.
I understand. But I'm just saying that you need to look at the effect and manage it pragmatically.
It may well be that the concept itself might have utility, if applied by objective and trained observers. But it seems to me that people use these things to deal with what I think is an unchanging reality: dealing with other people is frustrating. Past generations would have dealt with such problems by through etiquette. I think there's a lot to say for the idea of restoring some formality to our public lives -- although widely accepted etiquette norms never succeeded in eliminating rudeness.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Politeness isn't part of our mindset anymore, so we can only conceptualize behavioral transgressions as harm.
What pause?
TFA is just a stupid strawman argument. Sure, if we implement geoengineering in the stupidest possible way.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. "What could go wrong if we do this wrong" is an entirely valid question to study when you're at the back-of-the-envelope stage of a major project.
I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is. If the article concluded, "... and that's why we should rule out geoengineering approaches," then it would have been a straw man.
Amusing, yes. Sad, no. Let me tell you why this person became a successful writer where so many like her failed: she knows how to use criticism intelligently.
You can't avoid this sort of thing short of never having read anything else or watched any movies or TV. The trick is to be aware you're doing it.
Any writer who thinks he doesn't do this is deluding himself. It's a matter of using tropes consciously.
This is exactly on-point. If it were just about me, I'd work with every single employee until he became a success. But it costs the other people in the workplace; at some point being kind to one person is being unkind to everyone else
I love working with people who rock the boat for a good reason, but it's not the rocking per se that is important; it's the struggle over the best direction to head the boat in. Hijacking the boat so you can act out your personal psychodrama may have the effect of rocking the boat, but it's not the same thing.
I don't subscribe to -isms of any kind because they spin a piece of truth into an entire world view. That's why I prefer "being a dick" to a piece of -ism jargon -- because it involves using discretion and judgment to evaluate context. Some ideologues always end up taking idiotic positions because what matters is purity rather than truth. For example I prefer the capitalist theory of value to the socialist labor theory of value for setting commodity prices, but I don't value a man's life by his income, as some capitalist ideologues do.
Sweden pioneered gender reassignment surgery and has allowed people to legally change their gender since 1972. It's also second on the list.
As for "microagressions", as an old fart I don't like that word. I prefer to call it "acting like a dick". One thing years of hiring people taught me is to not hire anyone if the interview gives even a whiff of dickishness.
If I could go back in time and tell my younger self one thing to avoid doing, it would be working with all those workplace trouble makers, trying to teach them how to be better team players. Firing would be more effective sensitivity training and a lot less trouble for me.
That would obviously favor larger countries.
I don't know. The point is she wasn't one of those writers who just recycle tropes. That is incredibly hard to do, because it means giving up on a huge trove of stereotypes that readers instantly understand without you having to do much work.
I have a friend who's been successful enough as an urban fantasy writer to quit her day job. I was critiquing her first novel and one of the scenes where two men are alone discussing the female protagonist stuck out. It didn't ring true. Then I realized -- as a woman she her idea what men like when there's no women around came from television.
So I wrote in the manuscript, "Men don't actually sound like this. Rewrite this scene as if these characters were human beings rather than men."
I think our implicit model of what the brain is doing when we talking about being "fully attentive" is too simplistic. Who hasn't found themselves thinking about something while they drive and at least starting to go to the wrong place out of habit? Clearly when you do that you are not being "fully attentive", and yet your brain is constantly monitoring for dangers and obstacles, adjusting the car, even navigating.
Here's another thing I've noticed. On a long drive, especially in difficult conditions, your performance degrades. Your reaction time drops, your movements are slugglish and less precise, and your body exhibits stress symptoms. Taking a break for fifteen or twenty minutes dramatically restores your performance. And yet you are no more conscious of what is going on around you. Your brain is simply performing better.
Driving is a highly complex activity involving the coordination of many conscious and unconscious thinking, perception and motor processes. It's not as simple as "were you paying attention or not". I think normally it's fine not to be paying conscious attention as long as you're feeding your brain the input it needs to preserve itself.
So to answer your question, here's what I think the application may be: demanding fewer brain resources and thus reducing fatigue. Even a simple cruise control can make a long drive less tiring, although you can't use it most of the time. Just the break from having to control that one thing for a few minutes is helpful.
That's a very interesting theory. Thanks for giving me something to think about.
It's not technically correct to say that Hz is a measure of frequency, any more than it's technically correct to say that ohms are a measure of conductance, but the reasoning stands either way: frame timings aren't an integral number of nanoseconds long, and 1 GHz isn't an integral multiple of frame frequencies either.
If computers had unlimited precision arithmetic, or if using floats made no difference to calculation speed, it wouldn't matter. Apparently Facebook is concerned about the limited precision of 2's complement 32 bit integer, otherwise they could measure timings in integer numbers of femtoseconds or something like that with a 64 bit integer. You get more precision with a 64 bit signed integer than with a 64 bit float, because the float uses 11 bits for the exponent.
The legal justification for a tariff under our treaty obligations is that the foreign competition is unfairly subsidized. In that is *true* then American company innovation *might* also be retarded by making payback times too long to justify investments.
The political argument is that this will be good for US workers, but that's an open question. If the solar installation industry collapses, that would be bad for workers doing that, and it might even be bad for US solar manufacturers who need those guys to stay in business.
So really all the possible outcomes are on the table.
The fact that the study accepted the null hypothesis argues against this being junk science. The flux in the field, with established concepts like priming being vigorously challenged, is actually good sign.
Drunk person alone with car... not exactly grist for the Sherlock Holmes mill, is it?
In other words their patch crashes your machine.
This reminds me of the various colorful circumlocutions people around the world use for death. In France someone who dies "eats daisies by the roots". In Germany he "gives up his spoon". In China he "goes to sell salted duck eggs."
I suppose in Intel-speak death would be "non-transitory pulmonary quiescence."
I don't think education or status are perfect vaccines against mob thinking, either. In every historical instance of a society driving off the cliff into folly has plenty of people who should have known better egging it on.
Facebook is to bullshit as crack is to cocaine. Crack is cocaine, but packaged to provide a cheap, short-lived high. Facebook is a means of consuming a lot of bullshit by repeatedly deciding to consume just little bit more.
Just look at the basic Facebook mechanic: the like. What the easiest way to get that sweet hit of external validation? Find a group of like-minded people and express a completely conventional thought in an outrageously provocative way. And how long does that hit last? Days? Hours? Minutes?
Facebook didn't invent getting yourself lost in an epistemic bubble; it just made it accessible to people who don't have the time to invest in joining a cult. That makes a difference.
You cannot retrain a toilet cleaner to be a robot repairman.
It's not clear to me this is true. Sure, there may be some janitors who literally cannot be trained for better jobs, but of the millions of people doing those kinds of jobs there's bound to be many who could be trained for something more challenging.
I don't think, however, retraining toilet cleaners is in the cards, for two reasons. First, there isn't a job "toilet cleaner"; it's a task glommed onto various low status jobs. It's unlikely we'll see that task automated because it's not a big, immediate head count win. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think politicians care about people doing low status jobs to do anything for them if they lose their jobs.
Look at rural and small town census tracts after the Great Recession -- there was no "after the recession" for them, it's still on. Sure they get lip service, but if you think anyone is going to prioritize the interests of an out-of-work coal miner over a fracking billionaire, consider that these are also the places which are ravaged by the opioid crisis. There's lots of posturing on that issue too, but no action. Drug wholesalers, over the course of two years, shipped nine million pills to a single pharmacy in West Virginia serving a community of less than four hundred people, and no politicians have proposed anything to prevent things like that happening again.
59,000 people are killed in the US by the opioid crisis annually, the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every two weeks, but we must tread carefully lest we harm drug company profits. I submit to you that demonstrates the lower value we put on the lives of those people relative to the lives of bankers.
If we can't be bothered lift a finger to save their lives, why would we save their jobs?