It's pedantically stupid, not interesting. What most people mean by the closest planet is the planet which comes closest to Earth during its orbit not which is closest on average. Indeed the example of Neptune which they give is particularly stupid since its orbit is 165 years long so even if you averaged over an entire human lifespan you would not get that result. What this really boils down to a silly wordplay but I am sure it will be amusing when it turns up on QI!
If perfectly circular, average distance from any planet to any planet should be equal to the center of their path circle
Sorry but that is wrong. If we assume that the Earth is fixed and we then look at the path of a purely circular orbit around the Sun we can draw a circle centred on the Earth with a radius equal to the Earth-Sun distance. Now if you look at the length of the orbit that is inside the circular you will see that this is less than half the orbit and slightly more than half the orbit is outside. Hence the average distance to the planet from Earth is going to be slightly more than the distance to the centre of the planet's orbit i.e. the sun.
The reason for this difference is that there are two dimensions and the x and y displacements add in quadrature, not linearly. It's a subtle point but, as pedantically stupid as the article is, sadly it is not wrong.
That's just repeating the (false) trope that rising wages lead to fewer jobs.
Hang on isn't that exactly what happened here? Amazon increased the hourly wage and then immediately cut back on hours. How is this "false"?
I can also provide another example of this. The university where I work is in a province which recently significantly increased the minimum wage. Unfortunately, we employ students using research grants which did not similarly increase so now we have fewer research jobs for undergrad students which means fewer students gaining research experience.
I'm not saying that increasing the minimum wage to a "living wage" is not the right thing to do but we have to realize that there are real, negative consequences along with the beneficial ones and we should weigh up both to make sure that ultimately we are helping people and not making things worse. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that there are no negative consequences is not a helpful strategy.
No. It's not the same. Your bank is earning interest on the money it loans out.
So it's exactly the same. The bank expects to get the loan amount plus interest back whereas these guys expected to make money when the crypto rose in value. In either case, there is a risk that the bet will not pay off and the person making it will end up in trouble because they have lost the assets they need to repay the customer.
The only difference is that banks are highly regulated and, as a result, have to keep the risk of the bets they make under control. In return they have a central, government infrastructure to provide emergency cash and loans plus usually deposit guarantees.
Unless you plan on being some sort of miracle worker who never loses a patient both are fundamental. There is also certainly no shortage of medical school applicants and way more than 10% of the current applicants are capable of doing this. Indeed perhaps if they included things like this as part of the selection factor (as they used to do in the past) instead of relying solely on grades we would actually have better doctors.
It doesn't "cut both ways" because poor people having more money to spend means more economic activity.
Yes, and if all the affected people had more money to spend as a result of this then you would be absolutely right. However, the effect in this particular case seems to have been to give some poor people more money and some less such that the overall amount of money spent is just about the same, the only difference is that it is given to fewer people. Ultimately there is no more economic activity than there was before, and probably slightly less since those better off individuals are more likely to be able to save some of their extra money instead of spending it all on essentials. You then also have to spend more on social care looking after those who now have no job at all.
There is certainly some truth to that but, on the flip side if you raise wages then job expectations also rise because you can attract better people. This means that those less competent workers are going to be let go and replaced with fewer, more effective workers.
The end result may not actually affect a companies bottom line much but it will mean that those less capable workers are going to find it harder and harder to find jobs as they are squeezed out by automation and higher job expectations. So while raising wages may reduce the number of people in poverty for some it is likely to make things a lot worse.
You have no "right" to a familiar face telling you bad news.
I never said that you did have a right to this. When you go to a doctor you expect to have someone who cares about treating you. As such it is not at all unreasonable to expect your doctor to care enough to deliver serious news like this in person. This is clearly not medical malpractice it is a doctor being an arsehole much like someone who breaks up over text or email.
I find it hard to judge medical staff harshly on this given that the population in general can't deal with less complex, less traumatic and less final issues.
The population in general also can't perform complex medical procedures. Would you likewise find it hard to judge medical staff who can't perform these procedures competently harshly too? My dad was a GP and telling people bad news like this is an important part of the job. I have a lot of sympathy for people not wanting to do something like that but then they should realise that this is something they cannot do and not sign up for a job that requires it.
Her insinuation that she was called into an ethics and grievance meeting of eight senior academics without advance notification doesn't pass the smell test.
Agreed. Where I work the discipline process is well scripted and students are given multiple opportunities to explain the evidence against them all with advance notice. Also, her claim that she is "guilty until proven innocent" is also false.
There is a preponderance of evidence apparently proving that she is guilty so yes, she does need to explain how this evidence does not imply that she is guilty. The most serious evidence is that her grades were improved using her laptop. It is possible that her laptop was hacked but then why would a random hacker improve her grades?
Finally, the letter indicating that the hospital records of her rounds do not match the one she provided also raises some serious doubts about her alibis. It seems likely that there is more to her account than meets the eye, either that or there is some tech-savvy individual who seriously has it in for her which would suggest that she probably knows them.
If you can't handle the truth of someone near death's fate stay out of hospitals.
Likewise, if you cannot be bothered to take the time to tell your dying patient the truth in person then don't be a doctor. The problem here is not that the patient can't handle the truth it's that the doctor either didn't care enough to tell his patient in person or was, himself, unable to handle a serious conversation like this.
You seem to have lost the point here. We were talking about using consumer electronics to spy. However, since you do bring it up while it does do this on the same scale as China the US's record is pretty abysmal.
The technology is certainly a huge leap forward from the 1960s but you have to admit that the quote from NASA:
"This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."
suggests that he is completely unaware of what was happening in the 1960's and 70's which is even more surprising given that he was the NASA spokesperson.
So, if you want to be paranoid, you have to ban everything made in China.
Why China? China is only suspected of using consumer electronics to spy whereas we actually know for certain that the US government has been using consumer electronics to spy on people.
when they get told that "scientific consensus" is a euphemism for argumentum ad popolum.
It isn't. It is a euphemism for "argumentum ab auctoritate" i.e. appeal to authority. The point is not that lots of people believe it but that experts in the relevant field (who are presumed to know the truth) believe it.
The air density, and thus the drag, is far higher on the ground than at 30,000 feet.
You are certainly right that the lack of infrastructure for Hyperloop is a major disadvantage but Hyperloop runs in a vacuum so the above is not a valid criticism.
Trains are not much better than current aircraft [energy.gov] at energy efficiency
These are statistics from US trains. If you look at the data for European Trains the data show 65 MJ/km vs. 209.1 l/100 km for US trains which already tells you something about the age of US trains. Converting this into energy 1 l diesel is 38.29 MJ so this gives 80 MJ/km. So EU trains use 81% of the energy of US trains. Using the statistics you linked airlines use 91% of the energy of US trains. Hence, modern trains, such as those in the EU, are definitely more efficient per passenger kilometre than airlines and can run on renewable sources of electricity which aeroplanes currently cannot. US trains are old-fashioned diesels so it is not surprising that they are much less efficient.
I agree it will be very interesting to see what happens. In my case, I have to admit that I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with Netflix. Their original content is definitely high quality but a lot of it is not at all suitable for family viewing and seems to often be the same sort of dark, gritty drama. When they lose the Marvel/Disney content then this will mean even less family-friendly shows and it will be interesting to see whether this results in them losing a portion of their audience - I know that if this loss affects Canada we are likely to think carefully about whether it is worth keeping our subscription after the recent price hike.
It's even more rubbish than that. Netflix actively supports family viewing. Both my kids and wife have profiles in our account and up to two of us can watch simultaneously. It's part of the Netflix package we have. If we needed more simultaneous views then there are packages for that as well. This is not piracy at all - it using the service we purchased from Netflix in a manner completely consistent with the terms of that service and which is supported by Netflix. Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.
Just be thankful that's all he did. With all the neutron and gamma radiation from the fusion reaction, the side effects could have been a lot more serious.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you can pay with all of your body parts.
Well if it is expensive enough it could cost an arm and a leg.
It's pedantically stupid, not interesting. What most people mean by the closest planet is the planet which comes closest to Earth during its orbit not which is closest on average. Indeed the example of Neptune which they give is particularly stupid since its orbit is 165 years long so even if you averaged over an entire human lifespan you would not get that result. What this really boils down to a silly wordplay but I am sure it will be amusing when it turns up on QI!
If perfectly circular, average distance from any planet to any planet should be equal to the center of their path circle
Sorry but that is wrong. If we assume that the Earth is fixed and we then look at the path of a purely circular orbit around the Sun we can draw a circle centred on the Earth with a radius equal to the Earth-Sun distance. Now if you look at the length of the orbit that is inside the circular you will see that this is less than half the orbit and slightly more than half the orbit is outside. Hence the average distance to the planet from Earth is going to be slightly more than the distance to the centre of the planet's orbit i.e. the sun.
The reason for this difference is that there are two dimensions and the x and y displacements add in quadrature, not linearly. It's a subtle point but, as pedantically stupid as the article is, sadly it is not wrong.
That's just repeating the (false) trope that rising wages lead to fewer jobs.
Hang on isn't that exactly what happened here? Amazon increased the hourly wage and then immediately cut back on hours. How is this "false"?
I can also provide another example of this. The university where I work is in a province which recently significantly increased the minimum wage. Unfortunately, we employ students using research grants which did not similarly increase so now we have fewer research jobs for undergrad students which means fewer students gaining research experience.
I'm not saying that increasing the minimum wage to a "living wage" is not the right thing to do but we have to realize that there are real, negative consequences along with the beneficial ones and we should weigh up both to make sure that ultimately we are helping people and not making things worse. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that there are no negative consequences is not a helpful strategy.
No. It's not the same. Your bank is earning interest on the money it loans out.
So it's exactly the same. The bank expects to get the loan amount plus interest back whereas these guys expected to make money when the crypto rose in value. In either case, there is a risk that the bet will not pay off and the person making it will end up in trouble because they have lost the assets they need to repay the customer.
The only difference is that banks are highly regulated and, as a result, have to keep the risk of the bets they make under control. In return they have a central, government infrastructure to provide emergency cash and loans plus usually deposit guarantees.
One is fundamental, one is not.
Unless you plan on being some sort of miracle worker who never loses a patient both are fundamental. There is also certainly no shortage of medical school applicants and way more than 10% of the current applicants are capable of doing this. Indeed perhaps if they included things like this as part of the selection factor (as they used to do in the past) instead of relying solely on grades we would actually have better doctors.
It doesn't "cut both ways" because poor people having more money to spend means more economic activity.
Yes, and if all the affected people had more money to spend as a result of this then you would be absolutely right. However, the effect in this particular case seems to have been to give some poor people more money and some less such that the overall amount of money spent is just about the same, the only difference is that it is given to fewer people. Ultimately there is no more economic activity than there was before, and probably slightly less since those better off individuals are more likely to be able to save some of their extra money instead of spending it all on essentials. You then also have to spend more on social care looking after those who now have no job at all.
What better way is there to get the rules fixed than using their inadequacies to annoy the hell out of those responsible for making them?
There is certainly some truth to that but, on the flip side if you raise wages then job expectations also rise because you can attract better people. This means that those less competent workers are going to be let go and replaced with fewer, more effective workers.
The end result may not actually affect a companies bottom line much but it will mean that those less capable workers are going to find it harder and harder to find jobs as they are squeezed out by automation and higher job expectations. So while raising wages may reduce the number of people in poverty for some it is likely to make things a lot worse.
Yes, well it is rather hard to complain when you are dead.
You have no "right" to a familiar face telling you bad news.
I never said that you did have a right to this. When you go to a doctor you expect to have someone who cares about treating you. As such it is not at all unreasonable to expect your doctor to care enough to deliver serious news like this in person. This is clearly not medical malpractice it is a doctor being an arsehole much like someone who breaks up over text or email.
I find it hard to judge medical staff harshly on this given that the population in general can't deal with less complex, less traumatic and less final issues.
The population in general also can't perform complex medical procedures. Would you likewise find it hard to judge medical staff who can't perform these procedures competently harshly too? My dad was a GP and telling people bad news like this is an important part of the job. I have a lot of sympathy for people not wanting to do something like that but then they should realise that this is something they cannot do and not sign up for a job that requires it.
Her insinuation that she was called into an ethics and grievance meeting of eight senior academics without advance notification doesn't pass the smell test.
Agreed. Where I work the discipline process is well scripted and students are given multiple opportunities to explain the evidence against them all with advance notice. Also, her claim that she is "guilty until proven innocent" is also false.
There is a preponderance of evidence apparently proving that she is guilty so yes, she does need to explain how this evidence does not imply that she is guilty. The most serious evidence is that her grades were improved using her laptop. It is possible that her laptop was hacked but then why would a random hacker improve her grades?
Finally, the letter indicating that the hospital records of her rounds do not match the one she provided also raises some serious doubts about her alibis. It seems likely that there is more to her account than meets the eye, either that or there is some tech-savvy individual who seriously has it in for her which would suggest that she probably knows them.
If you can't handle the truth of someone near death's fate stay out of hospitals.
Likewise, if you cannot be bothered to take the time to tell your dying patient the truth in person then don't be a doctor. The problem here is not that the patient can't handle the truth it's that the doctor either didn't care enough to tell his patient in person or was, himself, unable to handle a serious conversation like this.
IN PRISON WITHOUT A TRIAL.
You seem to have lost the point here. We were talking about using consumer electronics to spy. However, since you do bring it up while it does do this on the same scale as China the US's record is pretty abysmal.
"This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."
suggests that he is completely unaware of what was happening in the 1960's and 70's which is even more surprising given that he was the NASA spokesperson.
MGM Considers Replacing Workers With Robots In Its Las Vegas Strip Properties
So Futurama was right: the future will contain robot strip clubs.
So, if you want to be paranoid, you have to ban everything made in China.
Why China? China is only suspected of using consumer electronics to spy whereas we actually know for certain that the US government has been using consumer electronics to spy on people.
when they get told that "scientific consensus" is a euphemism for argumentum ad popolum.
It isn't. It is a euphemism for "argumentum ab auctoritate" i.e. appeal to authority. The point is not that lots of people believe it but that experts in the relevant field (who are presumed to know the truth) believe it.
The air density, and thus the drag, is far higher on the ground than at 30,000 feet.
You are certainly right that the lack of infrastructure for Hyperloop is a major disadvantage but Hyperloop runs in a vacuum so the above is not a valid criticism.
Trains are not much better than current aircraft [energy.gov] at energy efficiency
These are statistics from US trains. If you look at the data for European Trains the data show 65 MJ/km vs. 209.1 l/100 km for US trains which already tells you something about the age of US trains. Converting this into energy 1 l diesel is 38.29 MJ so this gives 80 MJ/km. So EU trains use 81% of the energy of US trains. Using the statistics you linked airlines use 91% of the energy of US trains. Hence, modern trains, such as those in the EU, are definitely more efficient per passenger kilometre than airlines and can run on renewable sources of electricity which aeroplanes currently cannot. US trains are old-fashioned diesels so it is not surprising that they are much less efficient.
I agree it will be very interesting to see what happens. In my case, I have to admit that I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with Netflix. Their original content is definitely high quality but a lot of it is not at all suitable for family viewing and seems to often be the same sort of dark, gritty drama. When they lose the Marvel/Disney content then this will mean even less family-friendly shows and it will be interesting to see whether this results in them losing a portion of their audience - I know that if this loss affects Canada we are likely to think carefully about whether it is worth keeping our subscription after the recent price hike.
It's even more rubbish than that. Netflix actively supports family viewing. Both my kids and wife have profiles in our account and up to two of us can watch simultaneously. It's part of the Netflix package we have. If we needed more simultaneous views then there are packages for that as well. This is not piracy at all - it using the service we purchased from Netflix in a manner completely consistent with the terms of that service and which is supported by Netflix. Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.
Just be thankful that's all he did. With all the neutron and gamma radiation from the fusion reaction, the side effects could have been a lot more serious.
Still, a 12 year old doing it is pretty impressive.
How impressive it is really depends a lot on how much help he got from his parents. They clearly provided very significant financial support...
Why?
Well, for a start, who the heck roasts a joint on a hob instead of in the oven?