There may be a grey area, certainly, where it's hard to tell if something understands or not, but for today's AI, we can certainly say they don't understand (unless you come up with some narrow definition of "understand")
There does seem to be quite a sizable conservative element that is more or less convinced that all the stupidity is due to a decades-old communist plot to destroy the American psyche... or something, I'm not entirely sure what
Absolutely, you are correct. And there is still a sizeable group who think republican rednecks are what's keeping us back as a country (and they vote for Trump! The savages!)
But the meme is out there now, and it will resonate forever in the libtard echo chamber; stupid 'muricans think solar panels will suck up all the sun........
This is a good idea why Liberals think Conservatives are morons, and Conservatives think Liberals are morons. Because they get fed bad information and believe it, without digging deeper to understand the other position (and really both sides are morons).
Your chart shows that infrastructure spending has *decreased* significantly since the late 50s/early 60s.
Federal: 40-50% decrease (Worse, if measured from the high in the late 70s.)
State/Local: ~20% decrease
It's decreased as a percentage of GDP, which you would expect as GDP has risen. Overall it has increased.
The original theory of what happened was that it fell because it was resonant with the vortex shedding of the bridge. The type of resonance you describe (where the wind resistance changes periodically) wasn't what caused the bridge to collapse.
The wind was applying a periodic force to the bridge due to the varying profile that it presented to the wind
The periodic force of the wind was not relevant to the reason the bridge fell (although there was a periodic effect that came from vortex shedding, it didn't cause the bridge to fall).
Couldn't it be argued that the force of the wind imparted on the bridge happened at a specific frequency since it only happened when the bridge's movement was in a certain position, and that this force is determined by the natural frequency of the bridge as the swinging was dependent on the innertial characteristics?
If that happened, it would have been resonance (so good job, you're the first person who's replied to me who actually seems to understand resonance). But it had nothing to do with frequency of the force, and was instead just a really strong wind.
I'd be happy if people would generally agree we've got a problem and then try to work out what to do about it.
Well maybe there's your issue. It's not clear, after all, that we even have a problem. I've had no problem convincing people when I say, "We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will generally increase the temperature. We don't know by how much, or if it will be a problem."
His goal is to prevent people from becoming radicalized by preventing them from visiting websites that radicalize people.
He gives an example of a normal, but lonely, teenager, who found 'friendship' among ISIS advocates, who slowly turned him over to the dark side. Eventually they convinced him to do something illegal, and he was caught, and jailed for 11 years. The article claims that if we had banned him from visiting those web sites, it would have saved him from doing illegal things, and saved him from jail. He wouldn't have met those false friends.
Of course, the supreme court has found this to be unconstitutional, but the article advocates that the supreme court change their opinion. GLWT.
The professor here mentioned is the son of Judge Richard Posner, who is famous for throwing out the Motorola vs Apple patent cases, and also for claiming copyright is too excessive.
The frequency of the bridge is the period from one sway to the next. If it were resonance, then the wind would be gusting at the same period as the sways in the bridge. That is not what happened, which is why it wasn't resonance.
It was oscillating, and you can't get oscillations without resonant behavior.
No, that's not true at all lolol. Objects have natural resonance. You can often see this in a bathroom stall, singing notes up the scale, and one note will be amplified much more than the others. You can often hear it playing an organ, as you play notes down the scale, different items in the room will shake loudly in resonance.
In the case of the bridge, it would be each "gust" of wind hit at just the moment when the bridge was ready to swing in the direction of the bridge (except when I say "gust," I mean vortex shedding, which you can also see when you drop a piece of paper and it falls back and forth. Each time the vortex was ready to push the bridge in a different direction, gravity was ready to push it in that same direction. That would be what is meant by resonance).
In this case, that wasn't the problem: the problem was just a very powerful wind. It had nothing to do with frequency. Seriously, there are an astounding number of people here who don't understand the topic (you included).
As for your example of the violin string, that's an interesting question, I don't know the answer, I'll have to look into that.
Until we understand what it means to understand, how can we possibly know if we have taught these systems to understand?
If I am talking to you, I can generally tell if you understood what I said or not, even if the meaning can't be clearly defined. Presumably an AI will respond similarly, and I'll be able to tell if it understood or not.
If we get AI that smart, then we will have advanced a long way.
From the bridge's perspective, this was most certainly resonance! The air pressure field at the bridge's surface exerted force on the structure with a fundamental frequency very close to the bridge's resonant frequency.
No, because if the wind had blown faster, the bridge would have fallen faster. It had nothing to do with the frequency.
Slashdot Mirror
That makes sense.
There may be a grey area, certainly, where it's hard to tell if something understands or not, but for today's AI, we can certainly say they don't understand (unless you come up with some narrow definition of "understand")
E.g., can you explain to me why you believe the world is round?
Mainly because when I saw globes growing up, they were round, I guess
Awesome man, you have my respects.
Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has stripped Mr. Trump of an honorary degree it awarded him in 2010
You kind of have to question why they awarded it in the first place.
There does seem to be quite a sizable conservative element that is more or less convinced that all the stupidity is due to a decades-old communist plot to destroy the American psyche... or something, I'm not entirely sure what
Absolutely, you are correct. And there is still a sizeable group who think republican rednecks are what's keeping us back as a country (and they vote for Trump! The savages!)
Given the typical reporting in newspapers, there's a 90% probability that the original article in the Roanoke News Herald was wrong.
To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected
The headlines were based around it. It was an opportunity for us to laugh at the stupid "others," people who are not like us.
But the meme is out there now, and it will resonate forever in the libtard echo chamber; stupid 'muricans think solar panels will suck up all the sun........
This is a good idea why Liberals think Conservatives are morons, and Conservatives think Liberals are morons. Because they get fed bad information and believe it, without digging deeper to understand the other position (and really both sides are morons).
Your chart shows that infrastructure spending has *decreased* significantly since the late 50s/early 60s. Federal: 40-50% decrease (Worse, if measured from the high in the late 70s.) State/Local: ~20% decrease
It's decreased as a percentage of GDP, which you would expect as GDP has risen. Overall it has increased.
The original theory of what happened was that it fell because it was resonant with the vortex shedding of the bridge. The type of resonance you describe (where the wind resistance changes periodically) wasn't what caused the bridge to collapse.
Systemd is a project that needs more attention. We never get to hear about it.
The wind was applying a periodic force to the bridge due to the varying profile that it presented to the wind
The periodic force of the wind was not relevant to the reason the bridge fell (although there was a periodic effect that came from vortex shedding, it didn't cause the bridge to fall).
I don't know who is making that argument, but it had nothing to do with this bridge.
That would have been really cool to see, but I think the bridge would have collapsed at that point.
I talked to a lawyer about him not long ago. The lawyer seemed to consider him respected, but annoyingly overrated.
Couldn't it be argued that the force of the wind imparted on the bridge happened at a specific frequency since it only happened when the bridge's movement was in a certain position, and that this force is determined by the natural frequency of the bridge as the swinging was dependent on the innertial characteristics?
If that happened, it would have been resonance (so good job, you're the first person who's replied to me who actually seems to understand resonance). But it had nothing to do with frequency of the force, and was instead just a really strong wind.
I'd be happy if people would generally agree we've got a problem and then try to work out what to do about it.
Well maybe there's your issue. It's not clear, after all, that we even have a problem. I've had no problem convincing people when I say, "We know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will generally increase the temperature. We don't know by how much, or if it will be a problem."
His goal is to prevent people from becoming radicalized by preventing them from visiting websites that radicalize people.
He gives an example of a normal, but lonely, teenager, who found 'friendship' among ISIS advocates, who slowly turned him over to the dark side. Eventually they convinced him to do something illegal, and he was caught, and jailed for 11 years. The article claims that if we had banned him from visiting those web sites, it would have saved him from doing illegal things, and saved him from jail. He wouldn't have met those false friends.
Of course, the supreme court has found this to be unconstitutional, but the article advocates that the supreme court change their opinion. GLWT.
The professor here mentioned is the son of Judge Richard Posner, who is famous for throwing out the Motorola vs Apple patent cases, and also for claiming copyright is too excessive.
The frequency of the bridge is the period from one sway to the next. If it were resonance, then the wind would be gusting at the same period as the sways in the bridge. That is not what happened, which is why it wasn't resonance.
It was oscillating, and you can't get oscillations without resonant behavior.
No, that's not true at all lolol. Objects have natural resonance. You can often see this in a bathroom stall, singing notes up the scale, and one note will be amplified much more than the others. You can often hear it playing an organ, as you play notes down the scale, different items in the room will shake loudly in resonance.
In the case of the bridge, it would be each "gust" of wind hit at just the moment when the bridge was ready to swing in the direction of the bridge (except when I say "gust," I mean vortex shedding, which you can also see when you drop a piece of paper and it falls back and forth. Each time the vortex was ready to push the bridge in a different direction, gravity was ready to push it in that same direction. That would be what is meant by resonance).
In this case, that wasn't the problem: the problem was just a very powerful wind. It had nothing to do with frequency. Seriously, there are an astounding number of people here who don't understand the topic (you included).
As for your example of the violin string, that's an interesting question, I don't know the answer, I'll have to look into that.
Until we understand what it means to understand, how can we possibly know if we have taught these systems to understand?
If I am talking to you, I can generally tell if you understood what I said or not, even if the meaning can't be clearly defined. Presumably an AI will respond similarly, and I'll be able to tell if it understood or not.
If we get AI that smart, then we will have advanced a long way.
From the bridge's perspective, this was most certainly resonance! The air pressure field at the bridge's surface exerted force on the structure with a fundamental frequency very close to the bridge's resonant frequency.
No, because if the wind had blown faster, the bridge would have fallen faster. It had nothing to do with the frequency.
The resonance of the bridge wasn't involved at all. For resonance, the wind would have to match the resonant frequency of the bridge.
I'm actually fascinated to find how many people don't actually know what a resonant frequency is.