Especially with the large number of small devices in the mix. Increasingly, web sites are targeting tiny screens. Which actually makes the column feature moot; this feature would have come in handy a while ago.
Fortunately, if done properly, it degrades nicely. Small screen, one column. Wide screen, several columns (which has advantages over scrolling, since it's easier for the eye to jump a column than to keep track of a position during a scroll.)
It comes from cosmic rays, which are roughly constant over time. They're not completely constant, and so we already have to calibrate our C14 tests. (There's a whole bit of weirdness in the way we report dates as the calibration itself has been refined over time, and when you read an old document you need to know exactly how it was calibrated.)
But the variations in intensities happen over centuries, rather than years. And instead of covering the whole world, it's going to be localized by the varying factors of how much CO2 was emitted (as well as nuclear bomb testing, which has been making dating confusing for quite some time).
It may not be all that important, since it applies mainly to new objects, and we don't really need to date them if we actually know how old they are. And very recent objects are always problematic with respect to carbon dating; it's usually precise to decades, rather than years. But archaeologists from a thousand years from now may find this era very confusing.
It's not gonna help, though. Climate change doesn't wipe out humanity. It may wipe out other, less tenacious species. And it'll kill tens, maybe hundreds of millions of humans, and cost into the trillions of dollars. You might count it as just punishment, but it won't eliminate the problem. (It might teach them a lesson... but I doubt it.)
I find the lack of columns one of the more striking failures of CSS design. They don't appear to have consulted with anybody who actually knew anything about why things get laid on on a page the way they do. Line lengths are one of the more important factors in determining how easy it is to read something; the eye has a hard time tracking back on wide texts. Default layouts try to compensate with wide spacing, which just wastes a lot of space (and looks, at least to me, very unappealing).
I look forward to other browsers implementing this, so that web page designers (especially for responsible web pages) start using it instead of the hacks and design compromises they're currently forced into.
It's extremely impressive that they can do this without making to many false positives or negatives. Just picking faces out of a scene is already a dicey proposition. Being able to model "human" versus "non-human" when you get only a side or back view is a nifty trick, one we associate with full intelligence and not just heuristics. And you need to get it right the vast majority of the time, since if you get pareidolia'd into thinking that a piece of junk or a pothole is a human, you're going to need a lot of supervision. Or worse, mis-identify a human as a piece of junk and run over it.
It's clear that they're getting it right enough, often enough, and I'm really looking forward to letting them chauffeur me around. So apparently they can get it close enough without full AI. I wouldn't have said beforehand that I was certain it was possible.
It really is quite amazing to me that the one place that has an ideological interest in not believing in climate change (and the economic push to ensure that nothing is done about it) is the one place that's actually getting colder. If I were the type to believe in such a thing, I'd feel like somebody was playing a cosmic joke on us.
I don't think that the Republican party would really be taking all that different of a stance if the southern US were hitting heat records year after year... but it sure does make it easy on them to justify that stance to the public. To accept that it's going on requires believing in government reports rather than the evidence of your eyes, and since they've spent the last four decades insisting that the government has it out for you, they get a kind of perfect storm for denialism.
Hell, I've been through a few places where there are no left turning lanes, so if someone is trying to turn left traffic grinds to a halt.
Driving in DC's "arteries" is broken-field running, jumping into the right lane to get around people turning, then jumping left to get around cars that are somehow allowed to park on the arterial roads in some spots. It's really quite abysmal.
DC's traffic largely due to more cars than lane miles, but a fair bit of it is due to poor design that leaves a lot of pavement underused. I'm really looking forward to letting a computer do it. Computers could coordinate a far better system without having to build a lot more asphalt.
As long as the total liability is decreased, then it's a solvable problem. We already have mandatory insurance in a lot of places. We could piggyback off that. It would involve some legislating and contracting and other paper-shuffling, but it doesn't seem impossible to just treat it as part of your insurance.
Heck, the insurance companies might even offer you a discount for turning your car over to a superior mechanical driver.
People may want to go after Google's deep pockets, and that's up to lawyers to figure out. I'm not a lawyer myself, so I can't really say how the ins-and-outs play out. For all I know, it may end up with Google assuming full responsibility, and you pay your insurance premiums to Google rather than your insurer. Google then turns it around to whatever reinsurer was really handling your insurance in the first place.
The transition would, I'm sure, be ugly, just because this is a litigious society and the rules encourage people to sue. Not to mention two political parties whose first jobs will be "what side of this issue are we on, and how can we make sure that the other side doesn't get what they want?", blocking any legislation. But of all the tech companies in the world, Google seems the one with the most practice at lobbying for a change.
Plenty of people will try to stop it, but there's also going to be at least some impetus to fix it, since it has the potential to save many lives and reduce traffic massively. (Automated cars can be much better coordinated and timed. Go watch humans try a zipper merge and you'll scream at all of them to get their incompetent hands off the wheels.)
That all depends on it working, of course, and we're some years from that. So it's not too soon to start working on the political theory of the new system. But a new system shouldn't be impossible. (Note: I am being uncharacteristically optimistic. My usual response to political things is "it's going to fail because the system is designed for inaction". Try again tomorrow and I may well find it impossible.)
Thing is, the systems that are already on the road are also controlled by neural nets. Really crappy ones, with slow reaction times, a very limited sensor set (it has barely 110 degrees of vision), and is incredibly prone to impairing even those limited abilities. Yes, it's got a few advantages, with an almost preternaturally potent visual recognition system, but even so it's responsible for 10 million accidents per year, with tens of thousands of fatalities.
Humans just aren't very good drivers. Automated systems will make mistakes, though the more of them there are on the road, the fewer they will make, because they'll be able to communicate with each other to reduce accidents still further. Total accidents will likely be reduced dramatically. People will throw red flags as soon as somebody manages to actually get injured by one (most likely in an urban setting, with a small child laying in the middle of the road and being mistaken for road trash), but if we get lucky and avoid that for just a little while, people will realize eventually that the total number of deaths is far, far fewer when you turn it over to machines that don't get drunk, fall asleep, or take most of a second to get information from their brains to the brake pedals.
Well, lessee... a bit of Googling says that your average 9V will have about 15 to 20 kJ. Let's go with the high number.
For a 100 kg fridge, if I'm doing the math correctly, that comes out to 20 meters. Not bad, actually. Or 15 meters for the low end.
Of course you can't really get that kind of efficiency, I'm sure. And 100 kg is actually a pretty light fridge. But it's actually not completely out of the realm of possibility.
(Unless I've screwed up the math, which is entirely possible.)
I think you're kinda screwed either way, actually. Words do hurt; you can tell people to just tough it out but it means that you end up conceding large amounts of the political space to the ones most willing to be cruel and least injured by being defamed.
I'm not calling for speech policing here. I'm just pointing out that the real people who participate in political processes are subject to human failings. It's not a logical conversation; it's emotionally charged rhetoric. So just saying "everybody says whatever they want" amounts to a different kind of censorship. It may well be the most unbiased form of censorship and the one that is most "just", but it's not without downsides.
You see it in social media all the time. Trolls can shut down conversations. Web sites that don't want to be primarily about trolls and up providing tools to reduce their visibility, one way or another. It's often called "censorship", and in some senses it is, albeit not government censorship because it's not a state matter. The national conversation is a state matter, and a state may well want to think about what kinds of tools are appropriate for keeping the conversation civil and productive.
Again, not calling for censorship. I haven't got any policy to offer. It's just that I think it's important to recognize that free speech has non-obvious feedback loops that make it less free than it appears.
Is it necessary? Is there any particular reason to compel Estonia to change its laws? If they want to be the-country-that-censors, is there a reason not to let them (and deal with the consequences)?
The consequences could well be serious, and compel them to change their laws on their own. If web sites start fleeing because they don't want to risk what their users might say, the monetary loss might compel a legal change. But for all I know the Estonians themselves are more comfortable living in a country where they are free from offensive opinions. If they can coexist with the rest of Europe that way, maybe they should.
Maybe they can't; perhaps cross-border commerce means that the local law is incompatible with being a functioning part of the EU. But off the top of my head, I don't know of any specific reason why (being only passingly familiar with the rest of EU policy).
It's because nobody speaks the binary language of moisture vaporators. Sure, it's a lot like the language of binary loadlifters, but the joke just doesn't work in translation.
I'm not sure what you've been eating instead of butter, but if it's margarine, by all means ditch the stuff and buy a pound of butter. Margarine is full of trans fats (or at least, it used to be), and while most nutrition studies are full of caveats and qualifications, it really is pretty damn near universal that the trans fats are just horrible for you. Margarine makers have been switching away from trans fats for some years, precisely because of this, though this announcement is the final nail in that coffin.
The actual healthiness of butter is still heavily qualified, so we don't really know. The biggest problem, as always, is calories: high-fat foods (deep fried or otherwise) make it really easy to consume more calories than you need. Eaten in moderation, with half an eye on the bottom line (you don't need to count if you have a bias towards mimimizing the junk), you can go ahead and eat pretty much whatever you like, in small amounts.
We still don't really have a good handle on exactly what is "healthy". Many people thrive on a variety of different diets, some of which include fried foods. There is no magic bullet; removing saturated fats didn't turn out to be it. (The history of that is complicated and ugly, involving some really horrific biases and conflicts of interest.) The real consensus is that if you eat a diverse diet with a very large proportion of vegetables and your body will not begrudge you the occasional deep-fried treat. The rest is too murky for specific advice, especially since most people aren't even following that simple plan, so it's hard to optimize further.
I'm not aware of any physical protests. All that I recall were letter-writing campaigns about Cassini.
And none at all about Philiae. The ESA never uses them. I'd have been surprised if they'd included RTGs on Philiae, on which weight was already at a premium. A lot of things had to go wrong for the solar panels to be insufficient, and the space of things going wrong that don't also render the probe inoperable is fairly small. TFA makes its case only in one unsourced quote, and doesn't even begin to take any actual design considerations into account.
Space probes do get started on earth, and have to go through a somewhat unreliable launch process to get to space. There is a fear that if the rocket were to blow up, radioactive material released into the atmosphere would be dangerous.
It almost certainly wouldn't be. Even in the worst-case scenario, that the RTG vaporized on reentry, it would be heavily dispersed. Still, NASA calculated for a similar case, there could be several thousand deaths (page 66). (Not that you could peg any one death to it, but rather thousands of additional cancers compared to not having an accident with an RTG launch failure.) Plus some land contamination with radioactive dust.
So it's not completely insane to be concerned. They figure your personal odds of dying because of it to be one in a trillion, which most of us would say is too low to think about. But I can understand why a few people might say that even one-in-a-trillion (especially since it's repeated for everybody on the planet) is worth considering. It's not as simple as having it millions of miles away in space.
A lot of hate might be averted by making it clear that it's a review article rather than a news article. This is a news site, and its audience has a large numbers of experts and interested laymen. The assumption is that it's telling us something we don't already know, and the style of the summary is no different from any other Slashdot post. The effect sounds offensive and condescending: "Here's a thing you didn't know!" "Actually, I do, and better than the underlying article."
The article itself is (usually) fine in its original context. It's the appearance on Slashdot that aggravates the Slashdotters. Combined with the fact that people are rather sensitive to spam, and an out-of-place article looks like spam (even if it isn't), which ties into a whole separate set of aggravations.
If they were to present it with a different subtext: "Hey, we're nerds here. This is a topic that many of you know about, but many don't, and it would be interesting to discuss it amongst ourselves. This article is a good starting point." That would start with a different writing style, one that didn't imply that the information was brand new. It wouldn't hurt to add a visual differentiator as well: a different icon, maybe even a different color or shape. And perhaps a way for people to filter it from their streams.
I get that there isn't nearly as much interesting, discussable news as one might think, so Slashdot has to drag in some stuff from wider afield. If they acknowledged that, and adjusted for it, they could make it a positive experience for their audience, rather than a negative one.
Yeah, that was pretty much my response. I read the summary, and was trying to figure out what the actual news was. Then I hovered over the link, found it was medium, and clicked here to get a brief burst of schadenfreude from the people bashing medium. Achievement unlocked.
Has there ever been a country (or any political unit) that wasn't a plutocracy? Perhaps some are better than others, but I can't think of any government where the rich don't exercise a lot more control than the poor.
And in fact the Science article mentions that Schweitzer is skeptical of the new results. She's the expert in all the ways in which the conclusions could be wrong, since she's got one of those extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proofs. She's sincere and not stupid, but the things that she's trying to detect are extremely tiny and subject to a lot of contamination, and she's well aware that it could be wrong.
This is a preliminary result and will require a lot of different approaches to give the kind of confirmation that will lend it credence. It would be great, but extremely puzzling, if it's true. (It doesn't help that it gives the creationists a chance to inject more of their idiocy into the conversation.)
It's true: every denier is a worthless idiot, and the vast majority of those who accept anthropogenic climate change has a poor understanding of how and why it works. That's perhaps 90-95% of everybody discussing the question.
But there are still perhaps 5-10% of people who have at least a rough grasp of what's going on, and they're capable of actually discussing the real questions. Not the stupid questions, which are a waste of everybody's time, but real ones, like "how can we refine the models?" and "what are we going to do about it?" The latter may seem irrelevant, since government action is stymied by denialists, and individual actions are largely unimportant. (I'm glad you bought a Prius, and it is helping a bit, but not nearly enough by several orders of magnitude.)
Still... as bad as it is, stuff does get done. If we're locked in by chemistry and the suicide pact that our Constitution has turned into, we can at least take mitigating actions. The earlier we know about how agriculture is going to change, the better. We can take at least minor defensive measures for our flooded coastal cities. The US military needs to prepare for the various wars that are driven, in part, by climate-change driven poverty. It's even worthwhile to consider the "winners", like those Canadian farmers who will be able to take land that hasn't been touched and which finally has a growing season long enough.
It's not optimal; it's not even as good as is pragmatically feasible. But it's the best we can do in that paradox of democracy, where somehow all of us collectively are supposed to be smarter than the average of us individually. The majority of deniers and the majority of well-meaning but clueless (albeit correct) believers roughly cancel out and hopefully, hopefully it leaves a tiny minority able to do something that's better than not knowing at all. Thin gruel, but it's the best we can get.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially with the large number of small devices in the mix. Increasingly, web sites are targeting tiny screens. Which actually makes the column feature moot; this feature would have come in handy a while ago.
Fortunately, if done properly, it degrades nicely. Small screen, one column. Wide screen, several columns (which has advantages over scrolling, since it's easier for the eye to jump a column than to keep track of a position during a scroll.)
It comes from cosmic rays, which are roughly constant over time. They're not completely constant, and so we already have to calibrate our C14 tests. (There's a whole bit of weirdness in the way we report dates as the calibration itself has been refined over time, and when you read an old document you need to know exactly how it was calibrated.)
But the variations in intensities happen over centuries, rather than years. And instead of covering the whole world, it's going to be localized by the varying factors of how much CO2 was emitted (as well as nuclear bomb testing, which has been making dating confusing for quite some time).
It may not be all that important, since it applies mainly to new objects, and we don't really need to date them if we actually know how old they are. And very recent objects are always problematic with respect to carbon dating; it's usually precise to decades, rather than years. But archaeologists from a thousand years from now may find this era very confusing.
It's not gonna help, though. Climate change doesn't wipe out humanity. It may wipe out other, less tenacious species. And it'll kill tens, maybe hundreds of millions of humans, and cost into the trillions of dollars. You might count it as just punishment, but it won't eliminate the problem. (It might teach them a lesson... but I doubt it.)
I find the lack of columns one of the more striking failures of CSS design. They don't appear to have consulted with anybody who actually knew anything about why things get laid on on a page the way they do. Line lengths are one of the more important factors in determining how easy it is to read something; the eye has a hard time tracking back on wide texts. Default layouts try to compensate with wide spacing, which just wastes a lot of space (and looks, at least to me, very unappealing).
I look forward to other browsers implementing this, so that web page designers (especially for responsible web pages) start using it instead of the hacks and design compromises they're currently forced into.
It's extremely impressive that they can do this without making to many false positives or negatives. Just picking faces out of a scene is already a dicey proposition. Being able to model "human" versus "non-human" when you get only a side or back view is a nifty trick, one we associate with full intelligence and not just heuristics. And you need to get it right the vast majority of the time, since if you get pareidolia'd into thinking that a piece of junk or a pothole is a human, you're going to need a lot of supervision. Or worse, mis-identify a human as a piece of junk and run over it.
It's clear that they're getting it right enough, often enough, and I'm really looking forward to letting them chauffeur me around. So apparently they can get it close enough without full AI. I wouldn't have said beforehand that I was certain it was possible.
It really is quite amazing to me that the one place that has an ideological interest in not believing in climate change (and the economic push to ensure that nothing is done about it) is the one place that's actually getting colder. If I were the type to believe in such a thing, I'd feel like somebody was playing a cosmic joke on us.
I don't think that the Republican party would really be taking all that different of a stance if the southern US were hitting heat records year after year... but it sure does make it easy on them to justify that stance to the public. To accept that it's going on requires believing in government reports rather than the evidence of your eyes, and since they've spent the last four decades insisting that the government has it out for you, they get a kind of perfect storm for denialism.
They said we'd hit Peak Attention-Seeking-Moron in 2007. We've proven them wrong. The fools, the poor, mad fools.
New Jersey's much-derided jughandles do exactly that. People from out of town don't get them but they can considerably improve traffic flow.
Hell, I've been through a few places where there are no left turning lanes, so if someone is trying to turn left traffic grinds to a halt.
Driving in DC's "arteries" is broken-field running, jumping into the right lane to get around people turning, then jumping left to get around cars that are somehow allowed to park on the arterial roads in some spots. It's really quite abysmal.
DC's traffic largely due to more cars than lane miles, but a fair bit of it is due to poor design that leaves a lot of pavement underused. I'm really looking forward to letting a computer do it. Computers could coordinate a far better system without having to build a lot more asphalt.
As long as the total liability is decreased, then it's a solvable problem. We already have mandatory insurance in a lot of places. We could piggyback off that. It would involve some legislating and contracting and other paper-shuffling, but it doesn't seem impossible to just treat it as part of your insurance.
Heck, the insurance companies might even offer you a discount for turning your car over to a superior mechanical driver.
People may want to go after Google's deep pockets, and that's up to lawyers to figure out. I'm not a lawyer myself, so I can't really say how the ins-and-outs play out. For all I know, it may end up with Google assuming full responsibility, and you pay your insurance premiums to Google rather than your insurer. Google then turns it around to whatever reinsurer was really handling your insurance in the first place.
The transition would, I'm sure, be ugly, just because this is a litigious society and the rules encourage people to sue. Not to mention two political parties whose first jobs will be "what side of this issue are we on, and how can we make sure that the other side doesn't get what they want?", blocking any legislation. But of all the tech companies in the world, Google seems the one with the most practice at lobbying for a change.
Plenty of people will try to stop it, but there's also going to be at least some impetus to fix it, since it has the potential to save many lives and reduce traffic massively. (Automated cars can be much better coordinated and timed. Go watch humans try a zipper merge and you'll scream at all of them to get their incompetent hands off the wheels.)
That all depends on it working, of course, and we're some years from that. So it's not too soon to start working on the political theory of the new system. But a new system shouldn't be impossible. (Note: I am being uncharacteristically optimistic. My usual response to political things is "it's going to fail because the system is designed for inaction". Try again tomorrow and I may well find it impossible.)
Thing is, the systems that are already on the road are also controlled by neural nets. Really crappy ones, with slow reaction times, a very limited sensor set (it has barely 110 degrees of vision), and is incredibly prone to impairing even those limited abilities. Yes, it's got a few advantages, with an almost preternaturally potent visual recognition system, but even so it's responsible for 10 million accidents per year, with tens of thousands of fatalities.
Humans just aren't very good drivers. Automated systems will make mistakes, though the more of them there are on the road, the fewer they will make, because they'll be able to communicate with each other to reduce accidents still further. Total accidents will likely be reduced dramatically. People will throw red flags as soon as somebody manages to actually get injured by one (most likely in an urban setting, with a small child laying in the middle of the road and being mistaken for road trash), but if we get lucky and avoid that for just a little while, people will realize eventually that the total number of deaths is far, far fewer when you turn it over to machines that don't get drunk, fall asleep, or take most of a second to get information from their brains to the brake pedals.
Well, lessee... a bit of Googling says that your average 9V will have about 15 to 20 kJ. Let's go with the high number.
For a 100 kg fridge, if I'm doing the math correctly, that comes out to 20 meters. Not bad, actually. Or 15 meters for the low end.
Of course you can't really get that kind of efficiency, I'm sure. And 100 kg is actually a pretty light fridge. But it's actually not completely out of the realm of possibility.
(Unless I've screwed up the math, which is entirely possible.)
Yeah, the similarity of figures between the two did strike me as suspicious.
I think you're kinda screwed either way, actually. Words do hurt; you can tell people to just tough it out but it means that you end up conceding large amounts of the political space to the ones most willing to be cruel and least injured by being defamed.
I'm not calling for speech policing here. I'm just pointing out that the real people who participate in political processes are subject to human failings. It's not a logical conversation; it's emotionally charged rhetoric. So just saying "everybody says whatever they want" amounts to a different kind of censorship. It may well be the most unbiased form of censorship and the one that is most "just", but it's not without downsides.
You see it in social media all the time. Trolls can shut down conversations. Web sites that don't want to be primarily about trolls and up providing tools to reduce their visibility, one way or another. It's often called "censorship", and in some senses it is, albeit not government censorship because it's not a state matter. The national conversation is a state matter, and a state may well want to think about what kinds of tools are appropriate for keeping the conversation civil and productive.
Again, not calling for censorship. I haven't got any policy to offer. It's just that I think it's important to recognize that free speech has non-obvious feedback loops that make it less free than it appears.
Is it necessary? Is there any particular reason to compel Estonia to change its laws? If they want to be the-country-that-censors, is there a reason not to let them (and deal with the consequences)?
The consequences could well be serious, and compel them to change their laws on their own. If web sites start fleeing because they don't want to risk what their users might say, the monetary loss might compel a legal change. But for all I know the Estonians themselves are more comfortable living in a country where they are free from offensive opinions. If they can coexist with the rest of Europe that way, maybe they should.
Maybe they can't; perhaps cross-border commerce means that the local law is incompatible with being a functioning part of the EU. But off the top of my head, I don't know of any specific reason why (being only passingly familiar with the rest of EU policy).
It's because nobody speaks the binary language of moisture vaporators. Sure, it's a lot like the language of binary loadlifters, but the joke just doesn't work in translation.
It's not as simple as "butter is good for you", but here is a decent link:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ma...
I'm not sure what you've been eating instead of butter, but if it's margarine, by all means ditch the stuff and buy a pound of butter. Margarine is full of trans fats (or at least, it used to be), and while most nutrition studies are full of caveats and qualifications, it really is pretty damn near universal that the trans fats are just horrible for you. Margarine makers have been switching away from trans fats for some years, precisely because of this, though this announcement is the final nail in that coffin.
The actual healthiness of butter is still heavily qualified, so we don't really know. The biggest problem, as always, is calories: high-fat foods (deep fried or otherwise) make it really easy to consume more calories than you need. Eaten in moderation, with half an eye on the bottom line (you don't need to count if you have a bias towards mimimizing the junk), you can go ahead and eat pretty much whatever you like, in small amounts.
We still don't really have a good handle on exactly what is "healthy". Many people thrive on a variety of different diets, some of which include fried foods. There is no magic bullet; removing saturated fats didn't turn out to be it. (The history of that is complicated and ugly, involving some really horrific biases and conflicts of interest.) The real consensus is that if you eat a diverse diet with a very large proportion of vegetables and your body will not begrudge you the occasional deep-fried treat. The rest is too murky for specific advice, especially since most people aren't even following that simple plan, so it's hard to optimize further.
I'm not aware of any physical protests. All that I recall were letter-writing campaigns about Cassini.
And none at all about Philiae. The ESA never uses them. I'd have been surprised if they'd included RTGs on Philiae, on which weight was already at a premium. A lot of things had to go wrong for the solar panels to be insufficient, and the space of things going wrong that don't also render the probe inoperable is fairly small. TFA makes its case only in one unsourced quote, and doesn't even begin to take any actual design considerations into account.
Space probes do get started on earth, and have to go through a somewhat unreliable launch process to get to space. There is a fear that if the rocket were to blow up, radioactive material released into the atmosphere would be dangerous.
It almost certainly wouldn't be. Even in the worst-case scenario, that the RTG vaporized on reentry, it would be heavily dispersed. Still, NASA calculated for a similar case, there could be several thousand deaths (page 66). (Not that you could peg any one death to it, but rather thousands of additional cancers compared to not having an accident with an RTG launch failure.) Plus some land contamination with radioactive dust.
So it's not completely insane to be concerned. They figure your personal odds of dying because of it to be one in a trillion, which most of us would say is too low to think about. But I can understand why a few people might say that even one-in-a-trillion (especially since it's repeated for everybody on the planet) is worth considering. It's not as simple as having it millions of miles away in space.
A lot of hate might be averted by making it clear that it's a review article rather than a news article. This is a news site, and its audience has a large numbers of experts and interested laymen. The assumption is that it's telling us something we don't already know, and the style of the summary is no different from any other Slashdot post. The effect sounds offensive and condescending: "Here's a thing you didn't know!" "Actually, I do, and better than the underlying article."
The article itself is (usually) fine in its original context. It's the appearance on Slashdot that aggravates the Slashdotters. Combined with the fact that people are rather sensitive to spam, and an out-of-place article looks like spam (even if it isn't), which ties into a whole separate set of aggravations.
If they were to present it with a different subtext: "Hey, we're nerds here. This is a topic that many of you know about, but many don't, and it would be interesting to discuss it amongst ourselves. This article is a good starting point." That would start with a different writing style, one that didn't imply that the information was brand new. It wouldn't hurt to add a visual differentiator as well: a different icon, maybe even a different color or shape. And perhaps a way for people to filter it from their streams.
I get that there isn't nearly as much interesting, discussable news as one might think, so Slashdot has to drag in some stuff from wider afield. If they acknowledged that, and adjusted for it, they could make it a positive experience for their audience, rather than a negative one.
Yeah, that was pretty much my response. I read the summary, and was trying to figure out what the actual news was. Then I hovered over the link, found it was medium, and clicked here to get a brief burst of schadenfreude from the people bashing medium. Achievement unlocked.
Has there ever been a country (or any political unit) that wasn't a plutocracy? Perhaps some are better than others, but I can't think of any government where the rich don't exercise a lot more control than the poor.
And in fact the Science article mentions that Schweitzer is skeptical of the new results. She's the expert in all the ways in which the conclusions could be wrong, since she's got one of those extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proofs. She's sincere and not stupid, but the things that she's trying to detect are extremely tiny and subject to a lot of contamination, and she's well aware that it could be wrong.
This is a preliminary result and will require a lot of different approaches to give the kind of confirmation that will lend it credence. It would be great, but extremely puzzling, if it's true. (It doesn't help that it gives the creationists a chance to inject more of their idiocy into the conversation.)
It's true: every denier is a worthless idiot, and the vast majority of those who accept anthropogenic climate change has a poor understanding of how and why it works. That's perhaps 90-95% of everybody discussing the question.
But there are still perhaps 5-10% of people who have at least a rough grasp of what's going on, and they're capable of actually discussing the real questions. Not the stupid questions, which are a waste of everybody's time, but real ones, like "how can we refine the models?" and "what are we going to do about it?" The latter may seem irrelevant, since government action is stymied by denialists, and individual actions are largely unimportant. (I'm glad you bought a Prius, and it is helping a bit, but not nearly enough by several orders of magnitude.)
Still... as bad as it is, stuff does get done. If we're locked in by chemistry and the suicide pact that our Constitution has turned into, we can at least take mitigating actions. The earlier we know about how agriculture is going to change, the better. We can take at least minor defensive measures for our flooded coastal cities. The US military needs to prepare for the various wars that are driven, in part, by climate-change driven poverty. It's even worthwhile to consider the "winners", like those Canadian farmers who will be able to take land that hasn't been touched and which finally has a growing season long enough.
It's not optimal; it's not even as good as is pragmatically feasible. But it's the best we can do in that paradox of democracy, where somehow all of us collectively are supposed to be smarter than the average of us individually. The majority of deniers and the majority of well-meaning but clueless (albeit correct) believers roughly cancel out and hopefully, hopefully it leaves a tiny minority able to do something that's better than not knowing at all. Thin gruel, but it's the best we can get.
Oh, for the love of Pete... thanks for the headache. Now I know. (And wish I hadn't asked ;-)