It's a matter of degree. A hurricane flattening a village without loss of life is a disaster, so is every star in the galaxy going supernova at the same time. You might notice that one of these disasters is a bit worse than the other.
Disasters that don't kill anyone are really far down on the list.
In a way I do agree with you. It's not mysterious why the PCV didn't explode; it didn't explode because it failed in some other, unknown way. Under the circumstances that was a very good thing in comparison to the alternative, but it takes a rather determined optimism to construe it as an endorsement of the reactor's design. It was more like a stroke of good luck.
Or that one or more components were designed to fail first. Or that the part of the PCV which was overpressurized (the "dry well") eventually vented to the part that wasn't (the "wet well"). I'm still hearing way too much assumption about what normal operation during a core melt is supposed to be. I know that if I were designing this thing, I'd have most plumbing passing through the shell of the PCV fail first (especially anything for venting the interior of the PCV).
So the latest FUD is that a pressure vessel could have gone boom except for a mysterious pressure drops which AmiMoJo can't explain? I'm just not feeling the fear over here.
Had the reactor containment vessel failed, the worst case was the loss of Eastern Japan. Hopefully one day we can find out what saved the country.
It's not that mysterious. For example, according to this report, the pressure release of Reactor 2 is unexplained, but they weren't close to blowing out the pressure vessel:
The containment pressure rise at first was much slower than should be expected if all the decay heat is delivered to the suppression pool, which is an indication of a leak in the containment boundary. The wetwell venting line configuration had been completed by 11:00 a.m. on March 13, but the containment pressure had not reached the rupture disk setpoint, so no venting occurred. After core damage, the containment pressure increased more rapidly, probably because of hydrogen production. At 6:00 a.m. on March 15, an impulsive sound that was initially attributed to a hydrogen explosion was confirmed near the suppression chamber of the containment. Later reviews suggested that sound was not due to hydrogen burn. In any case the containment pressure did sharply decrease. It is not clear whether the designed vent path was ever in service; however, longer term, the containment pressure has remained low, around the level of atmospheric pressure.
In particular, it's worth noting that there is a rupture disk here precisely to prevent the reactor pressure vessel from experiencing a catastrophic rupture and that the vessel was leaking enough that it might not have even reached a high enough pressure to break the rupture disk.
Good players often take more risks as the game goes on specifically because the probabilities narrow.
Mid to late game starts requiring calculated losses and risks, and if you play probabilities then you lose to that. Will you push in your 80% AA pre flop? What if three people call behind?
That's the thing about poker. You're not playing to win a single game because that's not reasonable or possible. Luck factors will overwhelm any single outcome.
You're playing to win *more games than you lose*.
In other words, precisely the grounds where probabilistic strategies (such as your "calculated losses and risks"), particularly, the optimal one will succeed the most.
If you play probability alone you will get to mid game watching the dead money go to better players. The they will out stack your probabilities through sheer abuse of their stack.
I have to admit that this is an interesting aspect which doesn't hold for most Nash games. But on the other hand, it's not something that's particular hard to program either. And once the easy money is out of the game, I don't see much more room for advantage from that.
We can not even regulate the harm done by commercial fishing which is much easier to observe and regulate. We certainly can not control oil spills nor contaminants from runoff from our rivers and rainfall. So now I am supposed to believe that we can effectively regulate deep ocean mining which pretty much equals dredging the deep ocean bottoms. We can't even deliver lead- free drinking water to Flint. And now there is concern over lead pipes all over our nation. But worse yet the public is not aware of how much asbestos water pipes supply home drinking water as well as water used and sold as bottled water. So I say Bull Pucky to the entire notion of ocean mining.
I suppose we could just not regulate deep sea mining. I'm sure that will go better.
Then the program would get suckered repeatedly, just like novice players are...
Except that it would not. You aren't speaking of any poker program, but rather of an optimal algorithm, which is a very different beast. There is no suboptimal strategy that will on average win against it (unless you already start with advantage, such as a larger pot). When predictability is a problem, then it isn't predictable enough to beat.
If it was easy to figure out
Needless to say, the optimal strategy is not easy to figure out. It might not even be expressible with the information contained in the known universe (though IMHO I think that's unlikely), but it does exist.
Being strong in chips lets you bully weaker opponents, something that would be hard to program in a realistic manner.
Why would you think that? That sounds to me like something that is rather easy to program. First, it's at best a few parameters for a program to recognize the condition. Second, it results in a rather predictable behavior change of "bullying".
If you play those perfect probabilities alone you'll loose because after a while no one will bet you against them.
No, it doesn't work that way. "No one will bet you" is suboptimal play and will increase the number of wins by the computer. Now, maybe it'll be less take per sucker, but that's because the computer is optimizing for wins not swindling money from poor players.
No, such things aren't obvious unless you know the history of Love Canal. It wouldn't have been difficult for the poster to google relevant examples. Such sloppiness is instead an indication of how little thought the poster put into their post.
However I think the poster's point may have been that it's been historically difficult to hold corporations responsible for the messes they leave behind, and when you can't do that it means the public has to pay to clean them up.
Let us recall here the fundamentally illegal aspect of Superfund, namely, punishing a party for legal activity (often as other posters have noted with the Love Canal case, exacerbated by another negligent party after the pollution occurred). If the public wants legal pollution cleaned up, then the public should pay for it.
Love Canal wasn't a mining site. And speaking of "responsible", Superfund is a demonstration that other parties can be colossally irresponsible as well.
If you actually understand the terms she's using, the paper sounds fine.
Argument from ignorance still is a fallacy.
Or at least well within the normal traditions of feminism in the social sciences.
Which is damning with faint praise.
What I don't hear here is why a specialized language for such things as "white male privilege" (to give an example you used from another post, which you claim deviates from normal English usage somehow) is necessary (I generously assume that you were serious when you made that claim).
It's one thing, if you're speaking of complex concepts which have no easy English language analogue, like "elementary particles" in physics. But we aren't. Ethnic and gender bias/favoritism has been with us forever, and our language has already evolved to cover those concepts.
This paper is about glacier-climate change research. And research into climate change frequently involves human elements because you're trying to figure out what can humans do to a) fix, b) mitigate, and/or c) respond to the problem. In those papers, half of what you're talking about is women doing women stuff. And a largely-male researcher base is likely to ignore some things that a female researcher-base would make the main headline of their paper.
Actually, read some of those papers. You find they frequently don't do cover any of your points you mention. There are several good reasons why. First, advocacy taints research by introducing a ready source of bias (for example, viewing glacial research in terms of "problems" to solve as you do in your point c,). Second, most such researchers are not any more qualified to discuss mitigation and such than any layman is. Third, such things are usually irrelevant to the research.
It's not a male or female thing. It's a science thing.
Even if their interests overlap, hurting Kochs hurts Kochs themselves the most, not poor people and small business (the original statement and GGP's response)
That's ludicrous and one doesn't need to go beyond the current topic to see why. Most of the Koch family businesses are not dependent on coal production or consumption. So a drop in coal power plants doesn't hurt them very much. Meanwhile we have a significant impairment of US electricity production which hurts a lot of poor. So something that hurts the Koch brothers has IMHO hurt the poor even more, contrary to your assertion.
Would poor people and small business be hurt a bit? Probably, but still not as much as Kochs would be hurt. That's what we keep telling the poor anyway, that the problems of the poor aren't nearly as bad as the rich have it, and the poor should shut up, let the rich walk over you, and maybe one day YOU will be rich and be the one walking over others!
Nothing the Kock bros do is for the Greater Good(tm), they are in it for themselves alone.
Even if that were true, their interests do overlap with poor people and small businesses.
If the Kock empire were to vaporize overnight, I would be shocked if a statistically measurable number of "the poor" or "small businesses" had any negative change in their lives.
Depends how it were vaporized. Nuclear weapons, for example, would leave a mark on those other groups too.
Which I think was the point all along. Recall the thread got exciting when some AC claimed that all electronics, including the brain box with note from doctor should go "in the bag".
There's people who're far better qualified to "excoriate" a steaming chunk of po-mo bullshit, than the capitalist toady right-wing libertarians who Reason employs.
But they're not doing that job. Reason is.
That's to say: there's chances for better critique, and Reason realizes none of it, instead going for the "look at these clowns!" angle (which we see SJWs, tea-partiers, Trump supporters, gun nuts, etc. Internet tribals apply every day).
What was supposed to be the better critique for another act of academic lunacy? Normally, I'd just ignore it, but it was publicly funded.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a matter of degree. A hurricane flattening a village without loss of life is a disaster, so is every star in the galaxy going supernova at the same time. You might notice that one of these disasters is a bit worse than the other.
Disasters that don't kill anyone are really far down on the list.
It will no doubt be a zero cost operation to do all that crap. The simpler solution is to not be there when the US figures out where you were.
Eh, weaponize LOLCATZ, assuming that hasn't already happened. Dawww....
But do they make enough to medicate the entire shadow government?
In a way I do agree with you. It's not mysterious why the PCV didn't explode; it didn't explode because it failed in some other, unknown way. Under the circumstances that was a very good thing in comparison to the alternative, but it takes a rather determined optimism to construe it as an endorsement of the reactor's design. It was more like a stroke of good luck.
Or that one or more components were designed to fail first. Or that the part of the PCV which was overpressurized (the "dry well") eventually vented to the part that wasn't (the "wet well"). I'm still hearing way too much assumption about what normal operation during a core melt is supposed to be. I know that if I were designing this thing, I'd have most plumbing passing through the shell of the PCV fail first (especially anything for venting the interior of the PCV).
Had the reactor containment vessel failed, the worst case was the loss of Eastern Japan. Hopefully one day we can find out what saved the country.
It's not that mysterious. For example, according to this report, the pressure release of Reactor 2 is unexplained, but they weren't close to blowing out the pressure vessel:
The containment pressure rise at first was much slower than should be expected if all the decay heat is delivered to the suppression pool, which is an indication of a leak in the containment boundary. The wetwell venting line configuration had been completed by 11:00 a.m. on March 13, but the containment pressure had not reached the rupture disk setpoint, so no venting occurred. After core damage, the containment pressure increased more rapidly, probably because of hydrogen production. At 6:00 a.m. on March 15, an impulsive sound that was initially attributed to a hydrogen explosion was confirmed near the suppression chamber of the containment. Later reviews suggested that sound was not due to hydrogen burn. In any case the containment pressure did sharply decrease. It is not clear whether the designed vent path was ever in service; however, longer term, the containment pressure has remained low, around the level of atmospheric pressure.
In particular, it's worth noting that there is a rupture disk here precisely to prevent the reactor pressure vessel from experiencing a catastrophic rupture and that the vessel was leaking enough that it might not have even reached a high enough pressure to break the rupture disk.
Is this the part where you acknowledge that you aren't familiar with the term meta-game?
Multiple hands of poker don't make a meta-game.
Yes, I did, because you didn't actual reject probabilistic strategies. You just called them other things.
Good players often take more risks as the game goes on specifically because the probabilities narrow. Mid to late game starts requiring calculated losses and risks, and if you play probabilities then you lose to that. Will you push in your 80% AA pre flop? What if three people call behind? That's the thing about poker. You're not playing to win a single game because that's not reasonable or possible. Luck factors will overwhelm any single outcome.
You're playing to win *more games than you lose*.
In other words, precisely the grounds where probabilistic strategies (such as your "calculated losses and risks"), particularly, the optimal one will succeed the most.
If you play probability alone you will get to mid game watching the dead money go to better players. The they will out stack your probabilities through sheer abuse of their stack.
I have to admit that this is an interesting aspect which doesn't hold for most Nash games. But on the other hand, it's not something that's particular hard to program either. And once the easy money is out of the game, I don't see much more room for advantage from that.
But then you've removed the bluff, and increased pot that comes with winning when you're bluffing, which is suboptimal play.
What makes you think it's suboptimal play? Bluffing is not something you only do against weak players.
We can not even regulate the harm done by commercial fishing which is much easier to observe and regulate. We certainly can not control oil spills nor contaminants from runoff from our rivers and rainfall. So now I am supposed to believe that we can effectively regulate deep ocean mining which pretty much equals dredging the deep ocean bottoms. We can't even deliver lead- free drinking water to Flint. And now there is concern over lead pipes all over our nation. But worse yet the public is not aware of how much asbestos water pipes supply home drinking water as well as water used and sold as bottled water. So I say Bull Pucky to the entire notion of ocean mining.
I suppose we could just not regulate deep sea mining. I'm sure that will go better.
Landslides and vast earthquakes will trigger clathrate release long before mining robots will.
Then the program would get suckered repeatedly, just like novice players are...
Except that it would not. You aren't speaking of any poker program, but rather of an optimal algorithm, which is a very different beast. There is no suboptimal strategy that will on average win against it (unless you already start with advantage, such as a larger pot). When predictability is a problem, then it isn't predictable enough to beat.
If it was easy to figure out
Needless to say, the optimal strategy is not easy to figure out. It might not even be expressible with the information contained in the known universe (though IMHO I think that's unlikely), but it does exist.
Being strong in chips lets you bully weaker opponents, something that would be hard to program in a realistic manner.
Why would you think that? That sounds to me like something that is rather easy to program. First, it's at best a few parameters for a program to recognize the condition. Second, it results in a rather predictable behavior change of "bullying".
If you play those perfect probabilities alone you'll loose because after a while no one will bet you against them.
No, it doesn't work that way. "No one will bet you" is suboptimal play and will increase the number of wins by the computer. Now, maybe it'll be less take per sucker, but that's because the computer is optimizing for wins not swindling money from poor players.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
No, such things aren't obvious unless you know the history of Love Canal. It wouldn't have been difficult for the poster to google relevant examples. Such sloppiness is instead an indication of how little thought the poster put into their post.
However I think the poster's point may have been that it's been historically difficult to hold corporations responsible for the messes they leave behind, and when you can't do that it means the public has to pay to clean them up.
Let us recall here the fundamentally illegal aspect of Superfund, namely, punishing a party for legal activity (often as other posters have noted with the Love Canal case, exacerbated by another negligent party after the pollution occurred). If the public wants legal pollution cleaned up, then the public should pay for it.
Love Canal wasn't a mining site. And speaking of "responsible", Superfund is a demonstration that other parties can be colossally irresponsible as well.
If you actually understand the terms she's using, the paper sounds fine.
Argument from ignorance still is a fallacy.
Or at least well within the normal traditions of feminism in the social sciences.
Which is damning with faint praise.
What I don't hear here is why a specialized language for such things as "white male privilege" (to give an example you used from another post, which you claim deviates from normal English usage somehow) is necessary (I generously assume that you were serious when you made that claim).
It's one thing, if you're speaking of complex concepts which have no easy English language analogue, like "elementary particles" in physics. But we aren't. Ethnic and gender bias/favoritism has been with us forever, and our language has already evolved to cover those concepts.
This paper is about glacier-climate change research. And research into climate change frequently involves human elements because you're trying to figure out what can humans do to a) fix, b) mitigate, and/or c) respond to the problem. In those papers, half of what you're talking about is women doing women stuff. And a largely-male researcher base is likely to ignore some things that a female researcher-base would make the main headline of their paper.
Actually, read some of those papers. You find they frequently don't do cover any of your points you mention. There are several good reasons why. First, advocacy taints research by introducing a ready source of bias (for example, viewing glacial research in terms of "problems" to solve as you do in your point c,). Second, most such researchers are not any more qualified to discuss mitigation and such than any layman is. Third, such things are usually irrelevant to the research.
It's not a male or female thing. It's a science thing.
Even if their interests overlap, hurting Kochs hurts Kochs themselves the most, not poor people and small business (the original statement and GGP's response)
That's ludicrous and one doesn't need to go beyond the current topic to see why. Most of the Koch family businesses are not dependent on coal production or consumption. So a drop in coal power plants doesn't hurt them very much. Meanwhile we have a significant impairment of US electricity production which hurts a lot of poor. So something that hurts the Koch brothers has IMHO hurt the poor even more, contrary to your assertion.
Would poor people and small business be hurt a bit? Probably, but still not as much as Kochs would be hurt. That's what we keep telling the poor anyway, that the problems of the poor aren't nearly as bad as the rich have it, and the poor should shut up, let the rich walk over you, and maybe one day YOU will be rich and be the one walking over others!
That's a pretty story.
Nothing the Kock bros do is for the Greater Good(tm), they are in it for themselves alone.
Even if that were true, their interests do overlap with poor people and small businesses.
If the Kock empire were to vaporize overnight, I would be shocked if a statistically measurable number of "the poor" or "small businesses" had any negative change in their lives.
Depends how it were vaporized. Nuclear weapons, for example, would leave a mark on those other groups too.
Which I think was the point all along. Recall the thread got exciting when some AC claimed that all electronics, including the brain box with note from doctor should go "in the bag".
There's people who're far better qualified to "excoriate" a steaming chunk of po-mo bullshit, than the capitalist toady right-wing libertarians who Reason employs.
But they're not doing that job. Reason is.
That's to say: there's chances for better critique, and Reason realizes none of it, instead going for the "look at these clowns!" angle (which we see SJWs, tea-partiers, Trump supporters, gun nuts, etc. Internet tribals apply every day).
What was supposed to be the better critique for another act of academic lunacy? Normally, I'd just ignore it, but it was publicly funded.
Why do people ask questions which can easily be answered by reading the post?
The Koch Brothers must really like raisins and free range kids then. Reason veers off on some of the most interesting tangents.