A nerd is the same thing it always was: being at the cutting edge of technological innovation, development, and research.
That is a definition, but don't really agree with it. Academics are usually the ones at the real cutting edge. Nerds often deal with technology, but the word itself implies some type of anti-social behavior.
Now repeat after me: "Marketing materials from food companies and governments is not science." "Catchy one liners are not science."
Not quite.... The FDA has the power to regulate misleading or false marketing materials by food companies, but often gives its seal of approval to totally dubious claims. The sugar industry and food lobby have funded tons of "science" that is more often than not conveniently aligned with their business interests. I agree, marketing is not good science, but like it or not, when the FDA allows a dubious marketing claim and academic researchers accept industry money to provide evidence for these claims, it is often accepted as science.
Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful.
They have done nothing of the sort and most have been quite consistent in their conclusions.
Where to begin? For decades: the food pyramid was dominated by carbs; saturated fats were deemed harmful and replaced with sugar; animal fats were replaced with trans fats, so much more.
Anything else improving 3x in ten years would be pretty much miraculous. Imagine if cars now got that much improvement in fuel efficiency. We're so spoiled it's not even funny.
This is a good point, but the entire computing industry has been predicated on exponential growth. It'll take centuries to get real AI with linear growth of the underlying hardware.
I'll be that guy...
Technically Moore's Law (I assume that is what you are referencing) says the number of transistors per square inch of wafer will double every 18 month, not that performance will double.
Ha, yes I saw that coming. I know what Moore's law says, which is why I didn't directly reference it. That said, the industry's success has been rooted in it's historical exponential performance gains. As a practical matter, no one cares how many transistors are on a trip, but what that chip can do.
The lightness and subtle discomfort of being on an empty stomach gets me reved up. My mornings skipping bfast are usually productive, then not so good after lunch. To each their own.
Always the same story. Correlation does not equal causation,...
True, but in nutritional studies, correlation/causation is just one of the many problems. They are often based on inaccurate surveys, are in uncontrolled environments, and use unrepresentative populations.
There's a good Malcom Gladwell podcast all about nutritional study experimentation. So many of these studies are horrible. There are exceptions though. Facilities where everything can be controlled can often make for decent nutritional studies (e.g., prisons, mental health facilities). These are few and far between for the obvious reasons.
And here's a study just last year saying breakfast doesn't matter. This is typical. Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful. Hard to trust anything now. Gotta just trust your gut.
That's a pun, but it's often true. Pay close attention to how your body reacts to what you put into it. It's the best feedback mechanism we have.
I was thinking the same thing. This is like blaming the mail man for bringing you junk mail or the phone provider for connecting a telemarketer to your phone.
Not quite... it's closer to seeing false information on cable TV.
The article notes speedups ranging from about 3X to 40X depending on the test... while that initially sounds like a lot, but that's only after 10 years of development. If performance doubled every 18 months, the speedup should be 680X.
A [] dedicated lane constant 5mph trolley that is pre-timed for lights will kick the shit out of these useless artifacts. Someone please kill off buses. They suck and don't work.
The problems with trollys (and trains in general) is that they are under-utilized. Having dedicated lanes devoted to a certain type of vehicle is a waste of space.
I see the same issue with trains from city-to-city. You have tracks stretching hundreds of miles which, for the most part, have no on one them. Meantime, the highway is packed with cars. Each individual on the car may take up more per-capita space for their vehicle, but the trains aren't packed closely enough to compete in a total transportation-space-per-capita comparison.
If capacitors work better then batteries in this case then use them. Perhaps a combination of capacitors and batteries would work.
Batteries have better energy density... they can store more energy. Capacitors can be charged and uncharged extremely quickly (like for breaking). You need both.
Another reason why buses may be a better use case for electric vehicles is that they can generally carry more overhead electronics equipment. That means they can carry a larger super-capacitor, which in turn can capture more energy from the regenerative breaks (most vehicles only capture about 15% of that energy).
like.. singularity. it's been a theme in scifi since the forties.
I'd bet that flying cars are the most common futuristic scifi tech across all scifi movies, second only to artificial intelligence. Definitely more common than time-machines, warp-drives, world-peace, or light sabers.
It has it's own set of problems, but Elon's Boring Company has the same goal: 3-D transportation, but underground rather than in the air. It doesn't face any of the problems you raise, but the downside is that currently tunnels are too expensive.
At least this time the studios are admitting the movies that bombed sucked. How about make new and original movies that people want to see. There's plenty of people that want to create fresh new content. Instead of block busters, make smaller better movies and mix things up a bit.
Almost all blockbusters now are awful recycled garbage. They have such massive budgets for cool effects, and it's clear they have talented people working on them. Why can't they spend just a bit more on plot, dialogue, and character development. I love good CG and special effects, but I'm not going to pay $15 and sit still for two hours just to watch special effects and nothing more.
Elon has done some amazing technical work, but now, he is more of a leader than an engineer. He gets a lot of flack for over-hyping things, but the things he over-hypes are good. I don't agree with everything he does (e.g., Autopilot), but I'd get behind him if it pushes more people to challenge what's possible, to fund bold experiments, and to get involved in solving these problems.
Slashdot Mirror
A nerd is the same thing it always was: being at the cutting edge of technological innovation, development, and research.
That is a definition, but don't really agree with it. Academics are usually the ones at the real cutting edge. Nerds often deal with technology, but the word itself implies some type of anti-social behavior.
You can begin by reading my comment. Scientists have NEVER suggested replacing saturated fats with sugar.
Yes they did. Back in the 60s, fat was evil. They didn't explicitly say to replace it with sugar, but the industry filled the void for them.
Now repeat after me: "Marketing materials from food companies and governments is not science." "Catchy one liners are not science."
Not quite.... The FDA has the power to regulate misleading or false marketing materials by food companies, but often gives its seal of approval to totally dubious claims. The sugar industry and food lobby have funded tons of "science" that is more often than not conveniently aligned with their business interests. I agree, marketing is not good science, but like it or not, when the FDA allows a dubious marketing claim and academic researchers accept industry money to provide evidence for these claims, it is often accepted as science.
Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful.
They have done nothing of the sort and most have been quite consistent in their conclusions.
Where to begin? For decades: the food pyramid was dominated by carbs; saturated fats were deemed harmful and replaced with sugar; animal fats were replaced with trans fats, so much more.
It was one thing to unify, but turning everything to paper was a step backwards.
Material Design works well on mobile, and it was clearly created as mobile first. Does not do so well on desktop and larger screens.
Why is a fluff piece about appearances on a site "for nerds?"
Not sure what a nerd is anymore. Tech is now mainstream. It's not enough to understand the tech anymore, you have to understand how it's used.
“I don’t want my 15-year-old cousin to discover I’m a porn star because my account gets recommended to them on Facebook,” Darling told me by phone.
Regenerative braking captures far more than 15% the energy from braking ...
That's not what I've read:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/...
http://proev.com/LLPgs/LLei000...
Anything else improving 3x in ten years would be pretty much miraculous. Imagine if cars now got that much improvement in fuel efficiency. We're so spoiled it's not even funny.
This is a good point, but the entire computing industry has been predicated on exponential growth. It'll take centuries to get real AI with linear growth of the underlying hardware.
It's been dead for some time.
We're still too close to it to tell when Moore's law really ended. My guess is that historians will later peg somewhere within 2010-2015.
I'll be that guy... Technically Moore's Law (I assume that is what you are referencing) says the number of transistors per square inch of wafer will double every 18 month, not that performance will double.
Ha, yes I saw that coming. I know what Moore's law says, which is why I didn't directly reference it. That said, the industry's success has been rooted in it's historical exponential performance gains. As a practical matter, no one cares how many transistors are on a trip, but what that chip can do.
The lightness and subtle discomfort of being on an empty stomach gets me reved up. My mornings skipping bfast are usually productive, then not so good after lunch. To each their own.
Always the same story. Correlation does not equal causation, ...
True, but in nutritional studies, correlation/causation is just one of the many problems. They are often based on inaccurate surveys, are in uncontrolled environments, and use unrepresentative populations.
There's a good Malcom Gladwell podcast all about nutritional study experimentation. So many of these studies are horrible. There are exceptions though. Facilities where everything can be controlled can often make for decent nutritional studies (e.g., prisons, mental health facilities). These are few and far between for the obvious reasons.
And here's a study just last year saying breakfast doesn't matter. This is typical. Decades of nutritional studies have often turned out useless and in many cases harmful. Hard to trust anything now. Gotta just trust your gut.
That's a pun, but it's often true. Pay close attention to how your body reacts to what you put into it. It's the best feedback mechanism we have.
Slashdot has been entirely taken over. This thread is proof enough.
I was thinking the same thing. This is like blaming the mail man for bringing you junk mail or the phone provider for connecting a telemarketer to your phone.
Not quite... it's closer to seeing false information on cable TV.
The article notes speedups ranging from about 3X to 40X depending on the test... while that initially sounds like a lot, but that's only after 10 years of development. If performance doubled every 18 months, the speedup should be 680X.
A [] dedicated lane constant 5mph trolley that is pre-timed for lights will kick the shit out of these useless artifacts. Someone please kill off buses. They suck and don't work.
The problems with trollys (and trains in general) is that they are under-utilized. Having dedicated lanes devoted to a certain type of vehicle is a waste of space.
I see the same issue with trains from city-to-city. You have tracks stretching hundreds of miles which, for the most part, have no on one them. Meantime, the highway is packed with cars. Each individual on the car may take up more per-capita space for their vehicle, but the trains aren't packed closely enough to compete in a total transportation-space-per-capita comparison.
If capacitors work better then batteries in this case then use them. Perhaps a combination of capacitors and batteries would work.
Batteries have better energy density... they can store more energy. Capacitors can be charged and uncharged extremely quickly (like for breaking). You need both.
Another reason why buses may be a better use case for electric vehicles is that they can generally carry more overhead electronics equipment. That means they can carry a larger super-capacitor, which in turn can capture more energy from the regenerative breaks (most vehicles only capture about 15% of that energy).
like.. singularity. it's been a theme in scifi since the forties.
I'd bet that flying cars are the most common futuristic scifi tech across all scifi movies, second only to artificial intelligence. Definitely more common than time-machines, warp-drives, world-peace, or light sabers.
It has it's own set of problems, but Elon's Boring Company has the same goal: 3-D transportation, but underground rather than in the air. It doesn't face any of the problems you raise, but the downside is that currently tunnels are too expensive.
But damn, I love Elon and SpaceX.
At least this time the studios are admitting the movies that bombed sucked. How about make new and original movies that people want to see. There's plenty of people that want to create fresh new content. Instead of block busters, make smaller better movies and mix things up a bit.
Almost all blockbusters now are awful recycled garbage. They have such massive budgets for cool effects, and it's clear they have talented people working on them. Why can't they spend just a bit more on plot, dialogue, and character development. I love good CG and special effects, but I'm not going to pay $15 and sit still for two hours just to watch special effects and nothing more.
Elon has done some amazing technical work, but now, he is more of a leader than an engineer. He gets a lot of flack for over-hyping things, but the things he over-hypes are good. I don't agree with everything he does (e.g., Autopilot), but I'd get behind him if it pushes more people to challenge what's possible, to fund bold experiments, and to get involved in solving these problems.