The real migration will start post-2040. Volume will drive down flight prices from tens of millions of dollars a person to $500,000. People will start companies on Mars. They’ll take their families.
Wow, what a prediction, with precision down to the decade and a dollar value.
Can someone explain to me why people in the US all seem to drink pool water?
In Florida at least when I opened the tap it was like I was about to jump in a swimming pool.
It depends on the location. Chlorine is one way to clean water, and some municipalities put a lot of chlorine in their water, others not much (or none at all).
The US is a huge area, and the water varies dramatically. In areas near Bakersfield, the water tastes and smells like rotten eggs. You're never sure if you're cleaner after taking a shower.
Resonance: a force at a particular frequency that causes increased motion.
This: a powerful force caused increased motion.
In this case it was just a powerful wind. The frequency didn't matter. If the wind had been faster, the bridge would have fallen sooner, whereas if it were resonance, a higher frequency would have reduced the chances of breakage.
So the question is where the lead is coming from -- is it a natural source?
Mainly from lead solder in the water pipes. When the water leaves the purification plant, it is below federal standards. The river water has higher chloride levels, which are corrosive to the solder.
According to this article, when the water leaves the treatment plant, it is lead-free (within an acceptable margin of error). The problem comes from old (ie, still being built in the 1980s) pipes that used lead solder to connect the copper. The older pipes are around the city and inside homes, and will take 15 years to replace.
The water from the river has higher levels of chloride, and chloride is corrosive to iron, which caused the lead to leach off into the water.
No, trifling is when the risk to life and limb from driving in LA traffic exceeds the risk to life and limb from terror threats;
If you're the principal, and someone at your school is killed by terrorists, it is no longer trifling. It doesn't matter what the odds of it were beforehand, or the odds of them happening again.
You seem to have trouble seeing things from the viewpoint of the people who are in the situation.
You're the superintendent, and it was discovered that your received a somewhat credible threat, after something actually happened--no matter how trifling in the grand scheme.
Indeed, trifling is when it happens to other people, not when it happens to you.
My impression from reading Harvard Business Review is that it's a magazine not worth reading, but that "climbing" appearance-minded managers put on their desks to make themselves look impressive.
This article has not changed my opinion. It looks like it was written by undergrads.
Yeah, capitalism is a method for allocating funds: from people who have them, to people who can do something with them. It works because those people who mis-allocate funds quickly lose the power to do so. Communism is different, in saying that the state can do a better job allocating resources than people who lucked into money.
The OpenAI guys don't need to borrow money from capitalists to get the money, they already have it, which is what you said. That frees them up from being forced to make a profit any time soon.
Also, the article doesn't make a very coherent argument that this is bad.
Maybe you aren't being as simple as you think you are. Maybe you are implying in your explanation that we must do something. Or maybe you are implying that the computer models are correct. Or maybe you are implying that scientists are always correct, and we must listen to them. There could be any number of reasons your explanation is failing.
Anyway, if you want to call her 'first', I don't really care lol. We can spend decades arguing about the precise definition of 'first' and it still won't matter.
What matters is who she was, and what she did, and I think the article does a good job assessing that.
It would have been better if it didn't happen. Why lie and say you've done something when in reality you haven't? That's a typical politician thing to do, admittedly.
Whether that's the first "programmer" or "programming manual writer" is a relatively minor distinction.
I think that's a fairly large distinction lol. Anyway, she was translating an article written by someone else (although she added a large section of notes to it).
You said it's completely useless in the root post without saying why
I said the climate agreement is completely useless. I could have been more clear and said, "this particular climate agreement is completely useless." It especially annoys me because all the politicians are going to return home and pretend that they've done something. Nothing particular about this set of politicians, most politicians would do similar things.
so what is your better idea?
Rather than agreeing to nothing and pretending it was something, I would try to find something that could be done. Practically speaking, the only way to stop emitting greenhouse gases is to improve technology (another alternative is to drastically reduce energy usage, but realistically people aren't going to sacrifice that much). My personal preferred idea is to increase funding for fusion research, but there are other good ideas, like increasing funding for safe fission, and funding for improved battery technology (ie: make electric cars common. This might be a more practical start because there's too much hysteria over nuclear).
If I were one of the leaders, and I couldn't convince the others to sign on to that, I would not try to make a fake agreement. I would clearly state that we tried to do something productive, but other leaders couldn't agree to it. Generally I think the problem is that the agreement they wanted to make (everyone cut emmissions!) is too vague. There's no clear plan on how it should be reached, and politicians start imagining they will have to hurt their economies to reach it. If they had said, "everyone spend an extra $5million on fusion research!" it would have been much simpler goal to reach through diplomacy.
$5million is not a huge commitment, but will make a difference in the research if enough people contribute, and it can be increased over time.
Without denying your major points, I still think Wolfram managed to get to the core of who Ada was: an intelligent, motivated intellectual who managed to get herself to the fore of the field of mathematics. She was starting to have insights that you would expect to see from an advanced student, and if she had lived, she probably would have made real contributions to the field.
Also, I thought the OP was interesting because it delved into the Mechanical Notation Babbage used, and discussed how it enabled him to design his machines...
Slashdot Mirror
The real migration will start post-2040. Volume will drive down flight prices from tens of millions of dollars a person to $500,000. People will start companies on Mars. They’ll take their families.
Wow, what a prediction, with precision down to the decade and a dollar value.
You may (accurately) mock them, but hey, this story has given Newsweek more page views than they've gotten all year!
Can someone explain to me why people in the US all seem to drink pool water? In Florida at least when I opened the tap it was like I was about to jump in a swimming pool.
It depends on the location. Chlorine is one way to clean water, and some municipalities put a lot of chlorine in their water, others not much (or none at all).
The US is a huge area, and the water varies dramatically. In areas near Bakersfield, the water tastes and smells like rotten eggs. You're never sure if you're cleaner after taking a shower.
There's a difference:
Resonance: a force at a particular frequency that causes increased motion.
This: a powerful force caused increased motion.
In this case it was just a powerful wind. The frequency didn't matter. If the wind had been faster, the bridge would have fallen sooner, whereas if it were resonance, a higher frequency would have reduced the chances of breakage.
Looks like infrastructure spending has been kind of ok.
Not to mention pipes that go through the concrete foundation.......
Check it out, not just lead solder, but also actual lead water pipes. It's amazing they don't all have brain damage.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney's from that area (I kid, I kid).
Yes. I don't know how long ago people stopped using lead solder in water pipes, but apparently they were using lead water pipes as well, so they really should have known better.
Stories like this though, tempt me to get a toxicity test done on my water.
So the question is where the lead is coming from -- is it a natural source?
Mainly from lead solder in the water pipes. When the water leaves the purification plant, it is below federal standards. The river water has higher chloride levels, which are corrosive to the solder.
According to this article, when the water leaves the treatment plant, it is lead-free (within an acceptable margin of error). The problem comes from old (ie, still being built in the 1980s) pipes that used lead solder to connect the copper. The older pipes are around the city and inside homes, and will take 15 years to replace.
The water from the river has higher levels of chloride, and chloride is corrosive to iron, which caused the lead to leach off into the water.
No, trifling is when the risk to life and limb from driving in LA traffic exceeds the risk to life and limb from terror threats;
If you're the principal, and someone at your school is killed by terrorists, it is no longer trifling. It doesn't matter what the odds of it were beforehand, or the odds of them happening again.
You seem to have trouble seeing things from the viewpoint of the people who are in the situation.
You're the superintendent, and it was discovered that your received a somewhat credible threat, after something actually happened--no matter how trifling in the grand scheme.
Indeed, trifling is when it happens to other people, not when it happens to you.
My impression from reading Harvard Business Review is that it's a magazine not worth reading, but that "climbing" appearance-minded managers put on their desks to make themselves look impressive.
This article has not changed my opinion. It looks like it was written by undergrads.
Yeah, capitalism is a method for allocating funds: from people who have them, to people who can do something with them. It works because those people who mis-allocate funds quickly lose the power to do so. Communism is different, in saying that the state can do a better job allocating resources than people who lucked into money.
The OpenAI guys don't need to borrow money from capitalists to get the money, they already have it, which is what you said. That frees them up from being forced to make a profit any time soon.
Also, the article doesn't make a very coherent argument that this is bad.
Maybe you aren't being as simple as you think you are. Maybe you are implying in your explanation that we must do something. Or maybe you are implying that the computer models are correct. Or maybe you are implying that scientists are always correct, and we must listen to them. There could be any number of reasons your explanation is failing.
I don't know, it's still kind of funny. I laughed.
You know what? It doesn't seem to do any good.
What would you consider to be "good?" Maybe your understanding of the topic is lacking, and that's why you have trouble explaining it?
That's diplomacy in action, and it is really the only way things like this can get done. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
It's lousy diplomacy. I discussed how things could have gone better here.
Anyway, if you want to call her 'first', I don't really care lol. We can spend decades arguing about the precise definition of 'first' and it still won't matter.
What matters is who she was, and what she did, and I think the article does a good job assessing that.
I like the way you think!
It would have been better if it didn't happen. Why lie and say you've done something when in reality you haven't? That's a typical politician thing to do, admittedly.
I discussed how I thought it should have happened over here.
Whether that's the first "programmer" or "programming manual writer" is a relatively minor distinction.
I think that's a fairly large distinction lol. Anyway, she was translating an article written by someone else (although she added a large section of notes to it).
You said it's completely useless in the root post without saying why
I said the climate agreement is completely useless. I could have been more clear and said, "this particular climate agreement is completely useless." It especially annoys me because all the politicians are going to return home and pretend that they've done something. Nothing particular about this set of politicians, most politicians would do similar things.
so what is your better idea?
Rather than agreeing to nothing and pretending it was something, I would try to find something that could be done. Practically speaking, the only way to stop emitting greenhouse gases is to improve technology (another alternative is to drastically reduce energy usage, but realistically people aren't going to sacrifice that much). My personal preferred idea is to increase funding for fusion research, but there are other good ideas, like increasing funding for safe fission, and funding for improved battery technology (ie: make electric cars common. This might be a more practical start because there's too much hysteria over nuclear).
If I were one of the leaders, and I couldn't convince the others to sign on to that, I would not try to make a fake agreement. I would clearly state that we tried to do something productive, but other leaders couldn't agree to it. Generally I think the problem is that the agreement they wanted to make (everyone cut emmissions!) is too vague. There's no clear plan on how it should be reached, and politicians start imagining they will have to hurt their economies to reach it. If they had said, "everyone spend an extra $5million on fusion research!" it would have been much simpler goal to reach through diplomacy.
$5million is not a huge commitment, but will make a difference in the research if enough people contribute, and it can be increased over time.
Without denying your major points, I still think Wolfram managed to get to the core of who Ada was: an intelligent, motivated intellectual who managed to get herself to the fore of the field of mathematics. She was starting to have insights that you would expect to see from an advanced student, and if she had lived, she probably would have made real contributions to the field.
Also, I thought the OP was interesting because it delved into the Mechanical Notation Babbage used, and discussed how it enabled him to design his machines...
Yup thx