The summary neglects to mention that the strongest result of the one study was that the rats exposed to microwave radiation had SIGNIFICANTLY longer lifepans than the ones not exposed.
Somehow I would have thought that this result was worth mentioning.
The entire thread replying to the first comment posted here seems to be ignoring the content of that comment: this is not new. Some of the detailed analysis might or might not be new, but the main result is known.
Here are some popular articles from years back:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11539913/Why-knuckle-cracking-makes-a-popping-sound-and-why-it-might-be-beneficial.html : Quote: "When muscle joints are pulled apart there forms a tiny cavity filled with gas which then collapses, creating a popping noise."
Conveniently, the unemployed have nothing better to do and have lots of free time on their schedules to support retraining. So no need to spend any money there.
Right, because education is free in America. Nobody poor needs to worry.
Oh, and that "student loan debt" thing? A myth. Nobody's worried about debt because pay is so high once you're educated it doesn't matter.
As far as the costs of hosting the training itself (instructors, materials, etc)
"hosting" the training? Is English actually your first language? You mean: the cost of education. Which is high, and the trend is for it to get even higher.
the companies should be able to recoup those costs from the future pay of the retreads.
Ah, let's see-- so, you're saying that companies should become schools that train unskilled laborers into useful professions, then they will be indentured servants until they pay for their education?
Yeah, that'll work.
I fail to see why any of this represents a financial challenge...
Your inability to see is fine, but is not really relevant to the conversation,
"We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated," said Tyson. "I worry about income inequality."
Just what is wrong with lower skilled people getting less income?
The worry is not about lower skilled people getting "less" income; it's about them having zero income and zero prospect of getting income.
Right now, the approach to welfare is to prioritize making anybody on welfare get a job. But what do we do if there are no jobs available, even if they are willing, even desparate, to work?
Of course, you can just take the libertarian approach: let them starve. The problem only exists if we have a society that is unwilling to have people starve to death if they are unable to find a job.
How high "high efficiency" is will be a judgement call. I had pointed out that the efficiency of photovoltaic panels is roughly the same as efficiency of the gasoline engine in your car, so if conversion efficiency is actually your criterion, actually, photovoltaics are not terribly bad compared to other engines. They're slightly lower in efficiency than the chemical-to-electrical-energy conversion efficiency of coal-fired power plants, but that's only the generating efficiency-- add in the fact that the coal has to be mined and transported to the plant, and the electricity has transformer and transmission losses, and they are comparable to on-site solar efficiencies. However, if (as the original topic proposes) the PV energy is to be distributed over long distances to smooth out geographical variations in power production, or stored, then transforming and transmission and storage losses have to be added to PV, too. As with many things, efficiency depends on application, and assumptions.
In general, though, "efficiency" is not the same as "awesome," and neither one is the same as "cost effective for a particular market."
commentator K. S. Kyosuke above had an interesting calculation of efficiency starting with the solar photons, pointing out that fossil fuel is actually just solar energy that was absorbed millions of years ago. Interesting, and in some ways insightful to trace the energy back to the source... but not terribly relevant.
But seriously, the manufacture of solar collectors is not exactly environmentally friendly...
That depends upon what type of "solar collectors" you're talking about. If you're talking about photovoltaic panels, then yes there are hazardous materials used in their manufacture
No, not inherently. That's a myth. Today's solar panels are basically made of silicon and glass. There's no reason that you can't make them in an environmentally friendly, low-waste way. Silicon production uses chlorosilane, of course, but you don't release this to the environment-- you want to use it up. The main waste is actually the solvents used for cleaning, but with economy of scale it's cheaper to recycle these.
People talking about how hazardous solar panels are usually point to cadmium telluride panels, which had a -- hold on to your hats-- two-micron thick layer incorporating cadmium. But CdTe never got traction as a solar array material; silicon technology just evolved to so low a cost that CdTe (whose only selling point was low price) got priced out of the market.
but a lot less hazardous materials than used in say, hydraulic fracturing.
If cost is no object, then yes, it is possible that we can power the country with wind and solar. However, it is not currently cost effective and will not likely be cost effective for a very long time.
Today, that is true (if you are considering the 100% case-- it is cost effective in some markets).
I don't think you have any basis to say "will not likely be cost effective for a very long time." That becomes untrue if you have efficient storage or efficient long-distance power transfer. Both of these technologies are improving rapidly.
Solar electricity generation is highly inefficient.
No, it's pretty efficient. you can buy 20% efficient solar panels today. That's roughly the same efficiency as your car's engine. You can make 35% efficient cells, but they're expensive. You can also make 35% efficient car engines, but they're expensive, too.
If it were cost effective, we'd all be doing it. Same goes with electric cars.
ICOs are, basically, scams right from the start: they are people saying "hey, give me money and I will give you a token that has collectable value because I say it does" (but probably not). Token sales may or may not be scams. Wallets shouldn't be scams per se, but I guess a lot of people advertising wallets may not include the fine print "this wallet has a backdoor so I can haz yr koinz.".
FWIW,
the Reuters article under discussion is actually here. I don't know why the link in the article is to a reprint instead of to the article.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
These users wouldn't necessarily qualify as trolls or sockpuppets; they're instigators, posting links to other subreddits and encouraging other users to target, harass, and fight with users on that subreddit.
For those of us old enough to remember what the word "troll" used to mean back in the usenet days, that sounds exactly like what we used to call a troll..
No. Old-style trolls just posted outrageous things, looking to draw a response.
This paper is about trolls who post a link in one subreddit telling people "go to this other subreddit.
It would be like if an old usenet troll posted in talk.politics.reagan "go over to rec.arts.sf.science and check out this idiotic post by user xxyxx".
That might happen, occasionally, but not the usual tactic.
we classify cross-links based on the sentiment of the source post. Overtly negative intent of the source post towards the post in the target community may signal outgroup derogation [30], which is a fundamental component of intergroup con ict [73, 75].
We collected labels from Mechanical Turk crowdworkers, who were shown source and target posts pairs, and were asked to label the sentiment of the source post towards the target as either negative, neutral, or positive.
Thus: conflict is defined as cases where (crowdsourced) evaluators label a sentiment toward the source post as negative, rather than neutral or positive.
Lie? He basically contradicted himself in one sentence. The article says:
He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
If he's going to double the security force, he needs to go from 15,000 to 30,000. That's quite a bit over "more than 20,000".
(Yes, technically 30,000 counts as "more than 20,000"-- but if he meant 30,000, it would have been just as easy to simply say.)
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors.
To the contrary, there is a tremendous barrier for entry. A social network's value to a user is dependent on how many people are already signed up. A network starting up-- with by definition zero users-- has no value; it will basically have to invest money to effectively pay people to join until it has enough users to attract other users.
The same is true for many systems-- dating services, for example.
It's a vastly unstable system-- little operations stay little, and big operations grow nearly in proportion to their bigness.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell us about your experience transitioning from male to female. When did you decide to transition?
The summary neglects to mention that the strongest result of the one study was that the rats exposed to microwave radiation had SIGNIFICANTLY longer lifepans than the ones not exposed.
Somehow I would have thought that this result was worth mentioning.
The entire thread replying to the first comment posted here seems to be ignoring the content of that comment: this is not new. Some of the detailed analysis might or might not be new, but the main result is known.
Here are some popular articles from years back:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11539913/Why-knuckle-cracking-makes-a-popping-sound-and-why-it-might-be-beneficial.html : Quote: "When muscle joints are pulled apart there forms a tiny cavity filled with gas which then collapses, creating a popping noise."
https://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/musculoskeletal/question437.htm
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/11/08/cracking-knuckles-harmful.aspx
I suggest we live up to the libertarian ideal of the second amendment. Give all those without work a rifle and all the ammo they can use....
That's socialism. The libertarian solution would require them to buy a rifle.
But, in the libertarian paradise rifles will be cheap, because free enterprise.
Conveniently, the unemployed have nothing better to do and have lots of free time on their schedules to support retraining. So no need to spend any money there.
Right, because education is free in America. Nobody poor needs to worry.
Oh, and that "student loan debt" thing? A myth. Nobody's worried about debt because pay is so high once you're educated it doesn't matter.
As far as the costs of hosting the training itself (instructors, materials, etc)
"hosting" the training? Is English actually your first language? You mean: the cost of education. Which is high, and the trend is for it to get even higher.
the companies should be able to recoup those costs from the future pay of the retreads.
Ah, let's see-- so, you're saying that companies should become schools that train unskilled laborers into useful professions, then they will be indentured servants until they pay for their education?
Yeah, that'll work.
I fail to see why any of this represents a financial challenge...
Your inability to see is fine, but is not really relevant to the conversation,
"We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated," said Tyson. "I worry about income inequality."
Just what is wrong with lower skilled people getting less income?
The worry is not about lower skilled people getting "less" income; it's about them having zero income and zero prospect of getting income.
Right now, the approach to welfare is to prioritize making anybody on welfare get a job. But what do we do if there are no jobs available, even if they are willing, even desparate, to work?
Of course, you can just take the libertarian approach: let them starve. The problem only exists if we have a society that is unwilling to have people starve to death if they are unable to find a job.
In general, one reads a post in the context it was written
Which is why I was so puzzled that, in a discussion of efficiency, you suddenly decide to discussing awesomeness.
But misuse of words, random changes to off-topic discussions, and whataboutism are not unusual in slashdot posts
Are you deliberately trying to be difficult?
No. Are you deliberately trying to be stupid?
"High efficiency"
Efficiency I can define. "Awesome" I can't.
How high "high efficiency" is will be a judgement call. I had pointed out that the efficiency of photovoltaic panels is roughly the same as efficiency of the gasoline engine in your car, so if conversion efficiency is actually your criterion, actually, photovoltaics are not terribly bad compared to other engines. They're slightly lower in efficiency than the chemical-to-electrical-energy conversion efficiency of coal-fired power plants, but that's only the generating efficiency-- add in the fact that the coal has to be mined and transported to the plant, and the electricity has transformer and transmission losses, and they are comparable to on-site solar efficiencies. However, if (as the original topic proposes) the PV energy is to be distributed over long distances to smooth out geographical variations in power production, or stored, then transforming and transmission and storage losses have to be added to PV, too. As with many things, efficiency depends on application, and assumptions.
In general, though, "efficiency" is not the same as "awesome," and neither one is the same as "cost effective for a particular market."
commentator K. S. Kyosuke above had an interesting calculation of efficiency starting with the solar photons, pointing out that fossil fuel is actually just solar energy that was absorbed millions of years ago. Interesting, and in some ways insightful to trace the energy back to the source... but not terribly relevant.
Okay, then wind and hydro power are awesome, and nuclear is lousy. Is that what you're going for?
I don't even know what you mean by "awesome," or how to measure it.
That depends upon what type of "solar collectors" you're talking about. If you're talking about photovoltaic panels, then yes there are hazardous materials used in their manufacture
No, not inherently. That's a myth. Today's solar panels are basically made of silicon and glass. There's no reason that you can't make them in an environmentally friendly, low-waste way. Silicon production uses chlorosilane, of course, but you don't release this to the environment-- you want to use it up. The main waste is actually the solvents used for cleaning, but with economy of scale it's cheaper to recycle these.
People talking about how hazardous solar panels are usually point to cadmium telluride panels, which had a -- hold on to your hats-- two-micron thick layer incorporating cadmium. But CdTe never got traction as a solar array material; silicon technology just evolved to so low a cost that CdTe (whose only selling point was low price) got priced out of the market.
but a lot less hazardous materials than used in say, hydraulic fracturing.
That's definitely true.
And some perspective can come from this graph: https://www.financialsense.com...
Nice graph, but it would be good to see it extended through 2017 if you wanted to look for the effect of LED lights and other such things.
Generally people mean "land use efficiency".
No, they don't.
Often, yes, people don't even know what they mean, but when they do mean efficiency, they mean efficiency.
If cost is no object, then yes, it is possible that we can power the country with wind and solar. However, it is not currently cost effective and will not likely be cost effective for a very long time.
Today, that is true (if you are considering the 100% case-- it is cost effective in some markets).
I don't think you have any basis to say "will not likely be cost effective for a very long time." That becomes untrue if you have efficient storage or efficient long-distance power transfer. Both of these technologies are improving rapidly.
Solar electricity generation is highly inefficient.
No, it's pretty efficient. you can buy 20% efficient solar panels today. That's roughly the same efficiency as your car's engine. You can make 35% efficient cells, but they're expensive. You can also make 35% efficient car engines, but they're expensive, too.
If it were cost effective, we'd all be doing it. Same goes with electric cars.
And, in fact, the world is rapidly installing solar capacity. https://octoenergy-production-...
At least Mr. Zuckerberg was candid enough to say right at the beginning, "they actually trust me with their data? Those stupid fucks."
Great quote. Do you have a citation?
ICOs are, basically, scams right from the start: they are people saying "hey, give me money and I will give you a token that has collectable value because I say it does" (but probably not). Token sales may or may not be scams. Wallets shouldn't be scams per se, but I guess a lot of people advertising wallets may not include the fine print "this wallet has a backdoor so I can haz yr koinz.".
FWIW, the Reuters article under discussion is actually here. I don't know why the link in the article is to a reprint instead of to the article. https://www.reuters.com/articl...
These users wouldn't necessarily qualify as trolls or sockpuppets; they're instigators, posting links to other subreddits and encouraging other users to target, harass, and fight with users on that subreddit.
For those of us old enough to remember what the word "troll" used to mean back in the usenet days, that sounds exactly like what we used to call a troll..
No. Old-style trolls just posted outrageous things, looking to draw a response.
This paper is about trolls who post a link in one subreddit telling people "go to this other subreddit.
It would be like if an old usenet troll posted in talk.politics.reagan "go over to rec.arts.sf.science and check out this idiotic post by user xxyxx".
That might happen, occasionally, but not the usual tactic.
I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.
The actual paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.036... states:
Thus: conflict is defined as cases where (crowdsourced) evaluators label a sentiment toward the source post as negative, rather than neutral or positive.
Link to the actual work, instead of an article commenting on it:
abstract
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web
Let me guess, 99% of that 1% are SRS regulars aren't they?
Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS) are required on all automobiles now.
I've been a moderator of a few forums over the years (not Reddit).
So, basically, you are saying that your experience does not apply to this statistic, which is about Reddit. OK.
Pareto Principle. Roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Reddit seems extreme, but it's not unusual.
Well, the Pareto principle you quote is a factor of (one in) five. This is a factor of a hundred. I'd say that's extreme, yes.
Can anyone think of something where this doesn't apply?
since you seem to define "this" as meaning "X percent of the input causes Y percent of the output," I'd say that this is always true
That's amusing, but of course there has to be some way to access the phone. Whatever they use, the cracking software will use that.
He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
If he's going to double the security force, he needs to go from 15,000 to 30,000. That's quite a bit over "more than 20,000".
(Yes, technically 30,000 counts as "more than 20,000"-- but if he meant 30,000, it would have been just as easy to simply say.)
Yes, there is very little barrier to entry for Facebook competitors.
To the contrary, there is a tremendous barrier for entry. A social network's value to a user is dependent on how many people are already signed up. A network starting up-- with by definition zero users-- has no value; it will basically have to invest money to effectively pay people to join until it has enough users to attract other users.
The same is true for many systems-- dating services, for example.
It's a vastly unstable system-- little operations stay little, and big operations grow nearly in proportion to their bigness.
Apparently you need to have a company starting with "A" to be on the most-valuable list.