Yes... I suspect the "reskilling" revolution will be actually looking ahead. There's no point in retraining people to do work that is just going to be in the next wave (or the one after that) of jobs that are automated.
The revolution will be telling people to go do something they like doing and not worry about whether some corp will pay you to sit in an office for eight to ten hours a day.
Exactly. A bomb's area of destruction is limited by the inverse square law, so you get sharply diminishing returns as you make them bigger. The way to get real destruction is to have lots of much smaller bombs and scatter them over the area you want to destroy. It also has the benefit of making missile defence nearly impossible, and works way better on the type of hardened targets you actually want to destroy: the other guy's missile silos.
Missile submarines enabled surprise attacks with very little warning easier, but also made it nearly impossible to prevent a retaliatory strike. I guess you could make a drone missile sub, and that would eliminate problems with actually getting humans to fire the things, but a) you'd have to communicate with it to give the launch order, b) you'd have to trust that it wouldn't break or go missing and not fire when you needed it to, and c) I don't think anybody is that crazy yet.
The strategy of scattering lots of little ones using ballistic missiles also has the benefit of negating any missile defense system up to and including a working version of Reagan's Star Wars.
The other problem with this is that although the idea of nuking cities is good for scaring people, what you really want to do is nuke the other guy's nukes. The US keeps all theirs buried in silos in the interior or deployed in submarines scattered around the world. Sneaking up to the coast underwater and launching shorter range ballistic missiles is a big advantage because it decreases warning time, but that's one of the roles of existing ballistic missile subs.
If you wanted to commit national suicide it would be much easier just to sail a nuke into New York harbour on a regular boat and wait for the counter strike.
Somewhat surprisingly, it actually matters a lot. You don't really want a nuke going off in your harbour, but you'd much rather that than one going off a couple thousand feet above your downtown. The underwater nuke is wasting a lot of energy out to sea, even more blowing through nearby rubble and ground to blast stuff below the horizon, and even more extra-crispifying the port and getting screwed by the inverse squared law.
The Soviets built the Tsar Bomba, then everyone put away their multi-megaton bombs and concentrated on efficient weapons: missiles that spread multiple small warheads over an area to maximize destruction.
The US went to war all over the globe to stop the spread of global communism
Well, that's what they said anyway. Looking at a map and some history, there are a few inconsistencies. Despite the US story of fighting to hold expansionistic communism at it's post-WWII extent, it's Russia and China, neither of which is really properly communist, that seem to have become encircled by US military bases.
There was some thought by US scientists that the first nuke test might start the atmosphere on fire.
The tsar bomba was designed with a max yield of 100 megatonnes if the jacket material was uranium. But that would cause a huge amount of fallout so they tested it with an inert casing, which made it one of the cleanest nukes ever detonated, proportionally.
Everyone stopped making giant nukes because they're pointless. It's better in pretty much every way to scatter lots of little ones than detonate one big one. Which is what makes this story so unlikely to be true.
His post is a statement of the legal responsibility of a pilot. It may surprise you, but there are professions, even hobbies, where you have actual responsibilities and virtually all of the practitioners take them very seriously.
If you land on the wrong runway because you didn't update your chart, the aviation authority in your location will not be pleased.
Yes, quite a few aircraft don't have GPS. Flight-rated instruments are very expensive. Also, the electronic widgets fail, usually when you'd really like to have them.
Planes (and boats) are also required to have paper "maps", with the possible exception of some commercial airliners that have managed to get electronic charts certified (not sure if they still need at least one paper backup set).
I'm a qualified celestial navigator. That's with a sextant. I hope it always remains an interesting hobby, but I do know people who have saved their own lives by knowing how to navigate without electricity.
Anyone who has done chartwork under pressure just shivered at that suggestion. A good navigator gives the pilot/helmsman headings in magnetic so the person who's supposed to be busy steering doesn't have to worry about doing extra math. Especially in a hurry in their head.
You can probably fly pretty much anywhere in Norway and to the capitals of her neighbours in that amount of time. I live in Canada, which is huge, but most of the traffic is on ~1 hour short haul routes.
Personally, I'd wait until I had a few years experience with electric aircraft in a variety of environments and weather conditions before I decreed liquid fuel to be passe.
Race is likely a surrogate for other factors, as the OP pointed out. Yes, putting it in your model may make your model more accurate, but it's demonstrably not a great surrogate (it doesn't perfectly represent the actual causative factors). So you might improve your model, but you'll improve it MORE by using the proper variables.
It's even more dangerous when you apply group level surrogates to individuals. It's quite possible that part of the reason the random internetters are outperforming the computer model is that they're using surrogates like race in a more intelligent way. Or simply that their background knowledge is more up to date: I expect that the relationship of race to crime has changed quite a bit since the 80s.
Unfortunately no, it's a recollection of something I read once. I took a look, but didn't find anything online.
It's possible I'm actually remembering syphilis, which could have existed in the old world before, but seems to have become highly virulent just after Columbus got back (https://www.infectiveperspective.com/blog/-infectious-diseases-in-america-before-european-contact).
The correct adjustment is setting the price appropriately for the supply and demand. Yes, it's kind of circular, but so is most of finance.
That's what I mean: people are selfish, wasteful bastards, and if left alone the market will correctly reflect that. We've tried that a few times and didn't much like it, so we have governments to intercede.
In what universe is it a reasonable expectation that the amount of energy required to produce a fuel will be less then them amount of energy it produced when burns? Answer none.
This one. It's called thermodynamics. You always put more energy into making a fuel than you get out of using it. Fuel is a battery.
In this case you're comparing biodiesel with fossil diesel. Making fossil diesel is very inefficient, but that happened a long time ago so you're not bothering to count the energy expenditure.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... I suspect the "reskilling" revolution will be actually looking ahead. There's no point in retraining people to do work that is just going to be in the next wave (or the one after that) of jobs that are automated.
The revolution will be telling people to go do something they like doing and not worry about whether some corp will pay you to sit in an office for eight to ten hours a day.
Tell that to Challenger.
It's unfortunate that "professional" has become a synonym for not hurting anybody's feelings, particularly when "anybody" is a corporation.
Exactly. A bomb's area of destruction is limited by the inverse square law, so you get sharply diminishing returns as you make them bigger. The way to get real destruction is to have lots of much smaller bombs and scatter them over the area you want to destroy. It also has the benefit of making missile defence nearly impossible, and works way better on the type of hardened targets you actually want to destroy: the other guy's missile silos.
Missile submarines enabled surprise attacks with very little warning easier, but also made it nearly impossible to prevent a retaliatory strike. I guess you could make a drone missile sub, and that would eliminate problems with actually getting humans to fire the things, but a) you'd have to communicate with it to give the launch order, b) you'd have to trust that it wouldn't break or go missing and not fire when you needed it to, and c) I don't think anybody is that crazy yet.
The strategy of scattering lots of little ones using ballistic missiles also has the benefit of negating any missile defense system up to and including a working version of Reagan's Star Wars.
The other problem with this is that although the idea of nuking cities is good for scaring people, what you really want to do is nuke the other guy's nukes. The US keeps all theirs buried in silos in the interior or deployed in submarines scattered around the world. Sneaking up to the coast underwater and launching shorter range ballistic missiles is a big advantage because it decreases warning time, but that's one of the roles of existing ballistic missile subs.
If you wanted to commit national suicide it would be much easier just to sail a nuke into New York harbour on a regular boat and wait for the counter strike.
Somewhat surprisingly, it actually matters a lot. You don't really want a nuke going off in your harbour, but you'd much rather that than one going off a couple thousand feet above your downtown. The underwater nuke is wasting a lot of energy out to sea, even more blowing through nearby rubble and ground to blast stuff below the horizon, and even more extra-crispifying the port and getting screwed by the inverse squared law.
The Soviets built the Tsar Bomba, then everyone put away their multi-megaton bombs and concentrated on efficient weapons: missiles that spread multiple small warheads over an area to maximize destruction.
Well, that's what they said anyway. Looking at a map and some history, there are a few inconsistencies. Despite the US story of fighting to hold expansionistic communism at it's post-WWII extent, it's Russia and China, neither of which is really properly communist, that seem to have become encircled by US military bases.
Seems to have worked better than the post WWI Germany approach.
Or maybe 0. There's some uncertainty in the last digit.
The Chewbacca defense!
You're conflating a few different things.
There was some thought by US scientists that the first nuke test might start the atmosphere on fire.
The tsar bomba was designed with a max yield of 100 megatonnes if the jacket material was uranium. But that would cause a huge amount of fallout so they tested it with an inert casing, which made it one of the cleanest nukes ever detonated, proportionally.
Everyone stopped making giant nukes because they're pointless. It's better in pretty much every way to scatter lots of little ones than detonate one big one. Which is what makes this story so unlikely to be true.
Or a pilot.
His post is a statement of the legal responsibility of a pilot. It may surprise you, but there are professions, even hobbies, where you have actual responsibilities and virtually all of the practitioners take them very seriously.
If you land on the wrong runway because you didn't update your chart, the aviation authority in your location will not be pleased.
Yes, quite a few aircraft don't have GPS. Flight-rated instruments are very expensive. Also, the electronic widgets fail, usually when you'd really like to have them.
Planes (and boats) are also required to have paper "maps", with the possible exception of some commercial airliners that have managed to get electronic charts certified (not sure if they still need at least one paper backup set).
I'm a qualified celestial navigator. That's with a sextant. I hope it always remains an interesting hobby, but I do know people who have saved their own lives by knowing how to navigate without electricity.
Odd that you should talk about Canadian standards and then say this:
"it's not like a geographically marked runway will be off by enough to confuse with another if you're using magnetic headings by mistake."
The magnetic deviation in much of Canada is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 degrees.
Anyone who has done chartwork under pressure just shivered at that suggestion. A good navigator gives the pilot/helmsman headings in magnetic so the person who's supposed to be busy steering doesn't have to worry about doing extra math. Especially in a hurry in their head.
You can probably fly pretty much anywhere in Norway and to the capitals of her neighbours in that amount of time. I live in Canada, which is huge, but most of the traffic is on ~1 hour short haul routes.
2040 is still a ways off.
Sure it does. If you ask nicely, I'm sure someone would provide you a link. Or you could google it. I think it was even discussed on Slashdot.
He also described the results. The GGP's response was "that's impossible."
Not sure how that's relevant, but I agree!
Yes. And that process does better than what's actually being used.
Scary.
It would be interesting to see how actual experts perform.
"There is no way to know when a person actually decides things"
You called bullshit on someone citing actual research with an unsupported, absolute statement.
Race is likely a surrogate for other factors, as the OP pointed out. Yes, putting it in your model may make your model more accurate, but it's demonstrably not a great surrogate (it doesn't perfectly represent the actual causative factors). So you might improve your model, but you'll improve it MORE by using the proper variables.
It's even more dangerous when you apply group level surrogates to individuals. It's quite possible that part of the reason the random internetters are outperforming the computer model is that they're using surrogates like race in a more intelligent way. Or simply that their background knowledge is more up to date: I expect that the relationship of race to crime has changed quite a bit since the 80s.
Not in the US. In the US black men commit murder at a greater rate than other demographics, but their total is still less than the white male total.
Well, if you take it to the logical conclusion, the heat death of the universe is rather alarming.
Unfortunately no, it's a recollection of something I read once. I took a look, but didn't find anything online.
It's possible I'm actually remembering syphilis, which could have existed in the old world before, but seems to have become highly virulent just after Columbus got back (https://www.infectiveperspective.com/blog/-infectious-diseases-in-america-before-european-contact).
The correct adjustment is setting the price appropriately for the supply and demand. Yes, it's kind of circular, but so is most of finance.
That's what I mean: people are selfish, wasteful bastards, and if left alone the market will correctly reflect that. We've tried that a few times and didn't much like it, so we have governments to intercede.
It will. The free market always adjusts appropriately. Problem is, we often don't like the correct adjustment so we try and fiddle it a bit.
This one. It's called thermodynamics. You always put more energy into making a fuel than you get out of using it. Fuel is a battery.
In this case you're comparing biodiesel with fossil diesel. Making fossil diesel is very inefficient, but that happened a long time ago so you're not bothering to count the energy expenditure.