Your opinion is that muon showers are reaching the Earth due to time dilation therefore proving that time dilation is real.
It's not his opinion, it is established scientific fact. A muon at rest decays with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds. Travelling at the speed of light this means that, without any time dilation, the muon would travel 3e8*2.2e-6 = 660m. However, muons are typically generated at around 15 km about the surface and we also see a lot coming it at angles meaning that they have travelled even further than this.
Looking at muons produced directly overhead, which have the shortest distance to travel, without time dilation this is well over 22 lifetimes and so the probability of survival of 1.35e-10. This will be even lower for muons produced at non-vertical angles and so have to travel further. We observe a rate of 1 muon per second per cubic centimetre at the Earths surface so to produce this rate without time dilation we would need such a high intensity of cosmic rays (comparable to early accelerator beam intensities) hitting the atmosphere that plane travel and mountain climbing would be death sentences from the massive radiation at altitude.
The lack of acute radiation sickness in pilots and mountain climbers therefore conclusively rules out that the muon lifetime does not change with relative speed. From our point of view the muon's lifetime is dilated by relativity. From the muon's point of view, the thickness of the atmosphere is Lorentz contracted making it appear far thinner to the muon.
You are missing the point. I could literally not care less whether the exploit was added at the factory by the manufacturer or deployed afterwards using detailed knowledge of the device gleaned from the manufacturer or by hiring their engineers. I also don't care whether it was entirely legal under the laws of whatever foreign country did it - if Huawei's equipment is compromised I am sure that is 100% legal in China. What I care about is that my equipment has been compromised and whatever information passes through it can be seen by a foreign government.
While there is nothing I work on that I would be worried about a foreign government seeing (most of it is destined for public, open-access scientific journals) it is incredibly disingenuous for the US government to tell others to not use a Chinese company's equipment because it _might_ be compromised when we know that a US company's equipment can almost certainly be compromised. If I am going to end up with compromised equipment I might as well buy the cheapest/best performing stuff.
Even if the numbers support your claims (which I personally doubt) there are considerably more costs and problems that would need solving. For example, you need to move over a huge workforce from fossil fuel industries to renewable and this retraining is not going to be free and is going to cause social problems all over the place as workers relocate and need new houses, roads etc to support them. Then you have to figure out how you are going to produce plastics and all the other non-fuel uses we have for fossil fuels which currently piggy-back off the large fuel-based infrastructure.
All of these problems are solvable but they are by no means easy. While it is often tempting to think that there are easy solutions to society's problems that is rarely the case and trying to implement simplistic solutions to complex problems never works well: sadly today you only have to look at the UK or US to see excellent examples of that.
I get that this is an important find but I have trouble believing the hype that this means that we are about to have a 2m rise in sea level - at the very least there seem to be some additional assumptions being made before that conclusion is reached. Indeed, if climate models can be so significantly affected by one unexpected find under one glacier then doesn't this suggest that the models have significant uncertainties? This is the real problem I have with the climate change discussion. One side of the media is trying to portray it as the end of the world while the other camp is trying to present it as nothing to worry about at all.
The reality is clearly somewhere but as a scientist, but not a climate scientist, I find it almost impossible to filter out the true signal from the wild exaggerations on either side so I can figure out exactly how much we should be worrying. This concerns me because if someone ever does come up with a real "apocalyptic" indicator (or a "it's not so bad" indicator) I doubt many will believe it.
perhaps it shouldn’t be so hellbent on insulting and alienating them?
...or spying on us. I have no idea whether the things the US is warning everyone about is true but it does have a bit of a credibility gap warning others about not using equipment from China when we know the US government has been doing exactly this with equipment form US companies. At this point it is hard to tell whether the US is worried about China gaining capabilities or just the US losing them.
While this definitely is dangerous, like diabetic patients it is drummed into you that if you get ANY kind of infection, you go straight to hospital to have it dealt with.
If he was stupid enough to be the only person with access to the cold storage he was certainly stupid enough to not go to a hospital with an infection.
It's worth pointing out that English is the second most spoken language in the world and arguably the most widely spoken language since the only one with more speakers is Mandarin Chinese which is predominantly only spoken in one country that has a less-than-open market. It is also the language of three of the G7 countries.
These are probably more relevant facts than the total number of native speakers if you are making money by selling a product. This is undoubtedly why French, German, Italian and Japanese, which are the languages of the other G7 members, also feature prominantly. Given that the current state of voice recognition is that it doesn't work very well for supported languages it is hardly surprising that it has not been rolled out beyond those languages with the largest and most accessible economies.
Nobody, person or AI, can do it. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that someone does make an AI capable of accurately predicting future styles. They then use this in 2020 to release a design which is from 2030. The mere act of doing this will then make others copy this new style so the effect is that the 2030 designs will be introduced in the early 2020's. Hence by 2030 things will be different to what was predicted back in 2020 because by releasing the 2030 designs earlier you have changed how styles will evolve.
In addition to this, there are non-evolutionary changes that cannot be predicted because there is no pattern to extrapolate. For example, it is very unlikely that anyone extrapolating designs of mobile phones prior to 2007 would have accurately predicted what a phone today would have looked like because in 2007 the iPhone came out and everyone's designs changed.
And of course you know this because you are the one true community-whisperer/high-priest ?
No, I know this because historically if we don't have strong regulation people will act highly dishonestly and scam others out of their money. This is why we have e.g. rules against insider trading; laws against pump and dump schemes; employment laws etc. Too little regulation leads to scams and exploitation, too much and you prevent and stifle innovation and entrepreneurship both extremes are bad but finding the right balance is hard.
No, we cure ignorance through education. Education cannot cure stupidity but, by learning from others what to do in certain situations, you can be immunized against its effects in those situations.
you apparently can't immunize against stupidity and willful ignorance
We immunize against stupidity through education. Like any immunization, it's not 100% effective but it provides herd immunity since educated friends and family also help you avoid stupid mistakes. Willful ignorance is the real problem.
A more fitting action would be to send her to the affected county to care for the infected where she can see firsthand how bad measles really is. I'd offer her the vaccine before she goes too - it's amazing how many people actually believe in science when their survival is on the line regardless of what they may say publicly.
Ultimately that might undo some of the damage she has caused, far more so than simply putting her in jail.
Business and government NEED each other. Not too much and not too little but they quite literally cannot exist without each other.
That's not true government can exist withtout businesses but businesses cannot exist without government.
The Soviet Union had a government but had no businesses. While it was certainly a terrible government it does go to show that government can exist without business. Similarly if you go far enough back in history you can find other governments without businesses e.g. first nation tribes in North America. The reverse is certainly not true though since the laws which allow businesses to exist require a government to create them.
Socialism is an evil and immoral philosophy that advocates treating human beings as chattel
No, it is not. Look up the definition: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.". Just like any political ideology it only becomes immoral if it is taken to extremes but that is just as true of capitalism as well.
Like most things in life generally what works best is a balance. The community needs to provide some regulation on production, distribution and exchange to provide protection for its weakest members but, at the same time, not too much regulation otherwise it stifles and prevents the innovation and entrepreneurship that we all rely on to make our lives better. I'm not a fan of socialism because its proponents tend to take it, in my opinion, far too far towards the regulation/control side of things. However, it is by no means an "evil and immoral philosophy" nor does it advocate "treating human beings as chattel". You are thinking about communism which is not at all the same thing.
Why would anyone in debt or who misbehaves on public transport sign up for this app? I suspect all it will show is lots of wealthy, well-behaving people because they will be the only ones who use it.
If you really have people who have split loyalties then you have to fix that issue first. If you try to avoid it by centralizing all authority in one person then what happens when that one person has split loyalties and puts political ideology etc. over duty to their country? They'll have nobody else with conflicting views to temper their power. Information technology amplifies what a single person can do - if you have a problem with what people are doing you need to fix that first before you amplify their capabilities!
For that to be true you would need to show that the width of the distributions are different and that the selection criteria select based on where you are on the curve. The OP did not claim that there was a difference in width or indeed anything at all about the distribution other than the fact that the mean was lower BEFORE the selection criteria of "working at Oracle" was applied. If you want to add additional information such as the width of the distribution of technological aility/interest then yes, that additional information might support your point. However, can we measure this accurately enough that we can actually trust that width?
That's IS the point! Women working at Oracle are self-selected for being interested in technology! Hence, the studies looking at technological interest in women as a whole DO NOT APPLY!
Sorry but the picture you paint is a nightmare waiting to happen. Making an army entirely beholden to one person's will without anyone anywhere being able to delay, question or even subvert their orders if they give illegal ones is a disaster waiting to happen. It may only be required in exceptionally rare circumstances but a human knows that, under those circumstances, they can almost certainly get away with disobedience (or may just be willing to suffer the severe consequences of disobedience regardless) whereas a computer may not.
Knowing that a general may well refuse to follow an illegal order and may publicise the order s/he was given also helps prevent politicians from giving those orders in the first place. Having everything under the absolute control of one person is a well-known recipe for disaster. By all means have AI providing advice but unless we have people, with all the flaws and problems you mention above, in command, we will have a disaster far worse than the problems you are trying to fix.
Study after study has shown that women are biologically less inclined in technology and obviously they would be less productive in a high-tech company
Sorry but that does not logically follow at all. Just because it is rarer for women to be interested in technology it does not mean that those individual women who are interested are any less skilled it just means that there are fewer of them. Your point could explain why Oracle hires more men than women but not why it pays them less.
As I stated: "the concept of bankruptcy was a little different back then, there being no banks, but they certainly traded and were definitely put out of business by climate change.". Next time you might like to read to the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Your opinion is that muon showers are reaching the Earth due to time dilation therefore proving that time dilation is real.
It's not his opinion, it is established scientific fact. A muon at rest decays with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds. Travelling at the speed of light this means that, without any time dilation, the muon would travel 3e8*2.2e-6 = 660m. However, muons are typically generated at around 15 km about the surface and we also see a lot coming it at angles meaning that they have travelled even further than this.
Looking at muons produced directly overhead, which have the shortest distance to travel, without time dilation this is well over 22 lifetimes and so the probability of survival of 1.35e-10. This will be even lower for muons produced at non-vertical angles and so have to travel further. We observe a rate of 1 muon per second per cubic centimetre at the Earths surface so to produce this rate without time dilation we would need such a high intensity of cosmic rays (comparable to early accelerator beam intensities) hitting the atmosphere that plane travel and mountain climbing would be death sentences from the massive radiation at altitude.
The lack of acute radiation sickness in pilots and mountain climbers therefore conclusively rules out that the muon lifetime does not change with relative speed. From our point of view the muon's lifetime is dilated by relativity. From the muon's point of view, the thickness of the atmosphere is Lorentz contracted making it appear far thinner to the muon.
You are missing the point. I could literally not care less whether the exploit was added at the factory by the manufacturer or deployed afterwards using detailed knowledge of the device gleaned from the manufacturer or by hiring their engineers. I also don't care whether it was entirely legal under the laws of whatever foreign country did it - if Huawei's equipment is compromised I am sure that is 100% legal in China. What I care about is that my equipment has been compromised and whatever information passes through it can be seen by a foreign government.
While there is nothing I work on that I would be worried about a foreign government seeing (most of it is destined for public, open-access scientific journals) it is incredibly disingenuous for the US government to tell others to not use a Chinese company's equipment because it _might_ be compromised when we know that a US company's equipment can almost certainly be compromised. If I am going to end up with compromised equipment I might as well buy the cheapest/best performing stuff.
Even if the numbers support your claims (which I personally doubt) there are considerably more costs and problems that would need solving. For example, you need to move over a huge workforce from fossil fuel industries to renewable and this retraining is not going to be free and is going to cause social problems all over the place as workers relocate and need new houses, roads etc to support them. Then you have to figure out how you are going to produce plastics and all the other non-fuel uses we have for fossil fuels which currently piggy-back off the large fuel-based infrastructure.
All of these problems are solvable but they are by no means easy. While it is often tempting to think that there are easy solutions to society's problems that is rarely the case and trying to implement simplistic solutions to complex problems never works well: sadly today you only have to look at the UK or US to see excellent examples of that.
I get that this is an important find but I have trouble believing the hype that this means that we are about to have a 2m rise in sea level - at the very least there seem to be some additional assumptions being made before that conclusion is reached. Indeed, if climate models can be so significantly affected by one unexpected find under one glacier then doesn't this suggest that the models have significant uncertainties? This is the real problem I have with the climate change discussion. One side of the media is trying to portray it as the end of the world while the other camp is trying to present it as nothing to worry about at all.
The reality is clearly somewhere but as a scientist, but not a climate scientist, I find it almost impossible to filter out the true signal from the wild exaggerations on either side so I can figure out exactly how much we should be worrying. This concerns me because if someone ever does come up with a real "apocalyptic" indicator (or a "it's not so bad" indicator) I doubt many will believe it.
perhaps it shouldn’t be so hellbent on insulting and alienating them?
While this definitely is dangerous, like diabetic patients it is drummed into you that if you get ANY kind of infection, you go straight to hospital to have it dealt with.
If he was stupid enough to be the only person with access to the cold storage he was certainly stupid enough to not go to a hospital with an infection.
Google's speech recognition is excellent. It supports multiple languages at the same time
It has trouble understanding my English and I am English. French and German is just as bad but there it could be my non-native accent.
It's worth pointing out that English is the second most spoken language in the world and arguably the most widely spoken language since the only one with more speakers is Mandarin Chinese which is predominantly only spoken in one country that has a less-than-open market. It is also the language of three of the G7 countries.
These are probably more relevant facts than the total number of native speakers if you are making money by selling a product. This is undoubtedly why French, German, Italian and Japanese, which are the languages of the other G7 members, also feature prominantly. Given that the current state of voice recognition is that it doesn't work very well for supported languages it is hardly surprising that it has not been rolled out beyond those languages with the largest and most accessible economies.
Nobody, person or AI, can do it. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that someone does make an AI capable of accurately predicting future styles. They then use this in 2020 to release a design which is from 2030. The mere act of doing this will then make others copy this new style so the effect is that the 2030 designs will be introduced in the early 2020's. Hence by 2030 things will be different to what was predicted back in 2020 because by releasing the 2030 designs earlier you have changed how styles will evolve.
In addition to this, there are non-evolutionary changes that cannot be predicted because there is no pattern to extrapolate. For example, it is very unlikely that anyone extrapolating designs of mobile phones prior to 2007 would have accurately predicted what a phone today would have looked like because in 2007 the iPhone came out and everyone's designs changed.
And of course you know this because you are the one true community-whisperer/high-priest ?
No, I know this because historically if we don't have strong regulation people will act highly dishonestly and scam others out of their money. This is why we have e.g. rules against insider trading; laws against pump and dump schemes; employment laws etc. Too little regulation leads to scams and exploitation, too much and you prevent and stifle innovation and entrepreneurship both extremes are bad but finding the right balance is hard.
No, we cure ignorance through education. Education cannot cure stupidity but, by learning from others what to do in certain situations, you can be immunized against its effects in those situations.
you apparently can't immunize against stupidity and willful ignorance
We immunize against stupidity through education. Like any immunization, it's not 100% effective but it provides herd immunity since educated friends and family also help you avoid stupid mistakes. Willful ignorance is the real problem.
A more fitting action would be to send her to the affected county to care for the infected where she can see firsthand how bad measles really is. I'd offer her the vaccine before she goes too - it's amazing how many people actually believe in science when their survival is on the line regardless of what they may say publicly.
Ultimately that might undo some of the damage she has caused, far more so than simply putting her in jail.
Business and government NEED each other. Not too much and not too little but they quite literally cannot exist without each other.
That's not true government can exist withtout businesses but businesses cannot exist without government.
The Soviet Union had a government but had no businesses. While it was certainly a terrible government it does go to show that government can exist without business. Similarly if you go far enough back in history you can find other governments without businesses e.g. first nation tribes in North America. The reverse is certainly not true though since the laws which allow businesses to exist require a government to create them.
Socialism is an evil and immoral philosophy that advocates treating human beings as chattel
No, it is not. Look up the definition: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.". Just like any political ideology it only becomes immoral if it is taken to extremes but that is just as true of capitalism as well.
Like most things in life generally what works best is a balance. The community needs to provide some regulation on production, distribution and exchange to provide protection for its weakest members but, at the same time, not too much regulation otherwise it stifles and prevents the innovation and entrepreneurship that we all rely on to make our lives better. I'm not a fan of socialism because its proponents tend to take it, in my opinion, far too far towards the regulation/control side of things. However, it is by no means an "evil and immoral philosophy" nor does it advocate "treating human beings as chattel". You are thinking about communism which is not at all the same thing.
Why would anyone in debt or who misbehaves on public transport sign up for this app? I suspect all it will show is lots of wealthy, well-behaving people because they will be the only ones who use it.
Apple can still beat them - apparently, it still has a hole for the microphone and another for hard resets. Come on Apple, you can beat that!
If you really have people who have split loyalties then you have to fix that issue first. If you try to avoid it by centralizing all authority in one person then what happens when that one person has split loyalties and puts political ideology etc. over duty to their country? They'll have nobody else with conflicting views to temper their power. Information technology amplifies what a single person can do - if you have a problem with what people are doing you need to fix that first before you amplify their capabilities!
Unethical? I'm not so sure......Was he wreckless? Sure.
I am: being reckless with human lives is unethical.
For that to be true you would need to show that the width of the distributions are different and that the selection criteria select based on where you are on the curve. The OP did not claim that there was a difference in width or indeed anything at all about the distribution other than the fact that the mean was lower BEFORE the selection criteria of "working at Oracle" was applied. If you want to add additional information such as the width of the distribution of technological aility/interest then yes, that additional information might support your point. However, can we measure this accurately enough that we can actually trust that width?
That's IS the point! Women working at Oracle are self-selected for being interested in technology! Hence, the studies looking at technological interest in women as a whole DO NOT APPLY!
Sorry but the picture you paint is a nightmare waiting to happen. Making an army entirely beholden to one person's will without anyone anywhere being able to delay, question or even subvert their orders if they give illegal ones is a disaster waiting to happen. It may only be required in exceptionally rare circumstances but a human knows that, under those circumstances, they can almost certainly get away with disobedience (or may just be willing to suffer the severe consequences of disobedience regardless) whereas a computer may not.
Knowing that a general may well refuse to follow an illegal order and may publicise the order s/he was given also helps prevent politicians from giving those orders in the first place. Having everything under the absolute control of one person is a well-known recipe for disaster. By all means have AI providing advice but unless we have people, with all the flaws and problems you mention above, in command, we will have a disaster far worse than the problems you are trying to fix.
...sunrise and sunset reflecting off a distant object ...because actually, that's what it is.
Study after study has shown that women are biologically less inclined in technology and obviously they would be less productive in a high-tech company
Sorry but that does not logically follow at all. Just because it is rarer for women to be interested in technology it does not mean that those individual women who are interested are any less skilled it just means that there are fewer of them. Your point could explain why Oracle hires more men than women but not why it pays them less.
As I stated: "the concept of bankruptcy was a little different back then, there being no banks, but they certainly traded and were definitely put out of business by climate change.". Next time you might like to read to the end.