You're one of them bro. I mean you do what SJW do so you're an SJW. Calling yourself evil, well, that's refreshing honest, so I'll give you that!
Social justice is making conversations impossible. That's about the most anti-human thing I can think of. That's the point, isn't it? Their ideal is that nobody talks back. Everybody bends the knee, and dissenters are sent to the gulag to face reeducation or death.
So everyone who disagreed with you is like a gulag guard murdering and torturing people. Right-o. No suppressing of conversation with wild emotional SJW argments. No sireee.
You could equally well say that it flourishes in times of prosperity because when people no longer have to worry about where food and shelter is coming from, they can turn their attention to making the world a better place.
He's not a fucking victim. He tried to peddle his idiotic harmful views repeatedly and was told to stop at every stage. If you and like a jerk and no one wants to talk to you any more it's your fault and you're not a victim.
Anytime I thought the whole not taking responsibility for your actions was a SJW thing, so I guess this makes you a massive SJW.
It doesn't "beg the question." It raises the question.
Your tiling at windmills. Language evlves and changes over time, so begs the question is now right irregardless on the old meaning. I could care less about it and you probably should too.
Calling people who differ from you "the worst" is how you got Trump in the first place.
Yes we should be nice to people who knowingly voted in a corrupt criminal. Because if we mention that their feelings get hurt and they do damaging things out of spite. No yo're not going to get people being nice to you just because your feelings are hurt and you threaten to vote for an even more damaging president.
Wait a mo, I thought the "be nice to everyone for everything" was a srt of lefty-SJW-special-snowflake-prize-for-participation kind of thing. Are you an SJW? GET OUT OF HERE EVIL SJW!!!!!11111one
No but he kept showing it to more and more and more groups until he got the reaction he wanted. I recall watching an interview he gave on youtube (it was long and had a sympathetic interviewer, no I don't recall the URL this was probably over a year ago) with Damore describing the process.
One thing that stood out to me was he took his work to the "skeptics group". It received a rather chilly reception there for reasons I think were correct. Basically they didn't like his reasoning, but they didn't give him a very detaild point-by-point rebttal or "debate" him. He took that as bias and kept on showing it around until it got a reaction. Which it did eventually as we all know.
Much of that criticism accused him of writing things not contained in his memo anywhere.
His memo was bad. I read it. The thing is if your work is clearly based on invalid prespposisions or picks a line of reasoning which reaches certain conclusions. You don't get a free pass on that simply because you didn't explicitly state those. In my person opinion (which acording to the groupthink here is wrong so I'll get silenced i.e. downmodded for it) the memo was not only excessively simplistic but relied on heavily cherry picked data.
It also didn't bring anything new which hasn't been hashed out very a thousand times before by substantially better writers with a better grasp of the literature. He waded into a known contentious topic both loudly (he KEPT on pushing his memo because he wanted a positive response) and very ill prepared. That's like taking a whack at a wasp nest with a baseball bat with no protective gear and standing around to watch the results.
So he got stung all over. Which was, to put it mildly, a bit predictable.
Not everyone has their price. Although that has more to do with what other options a person has access to. I make good money in a career I enjoy, so even an extra $100k in salary wouldn't get me to do a job I hate or that I'm morally opposed to. But if I was making minimum wage, I would likely take a job I was morally opposed to for a $100k raise. Once you're high enough on Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs, it takes for less sacrifice to do what you consider to be the right thing.
I'd agree with this. Something about the marginal value of money mumble mumble.
While there are aways some people who will do anything for money, it makes it an awful lot easier to do anything if not doing so involves not eating or making rent. I think that's a good argument for raising the standard of living for the poorest.
Do you know about using chopper-stabilized amplifiers
Yes. They have incredibly low input offset voltage and amazing DC characteristics. Both of which aren't useful for ECG signals. ECG has no DC bias itself but also the electrolytic cell formed with your skin an electrodes gives a large DC bias to the signal which needs to be removed.
So, chopper amps aren't the right tool for the job.
or Autocorrelation? These techniques both work pretty well to retrieve signals that are actually BELOW the noise-floor. In fact, that's how Cellphones are even able to WORK at all!
Sounds like you're talking about the spread spectrum code division multiple access schemes where you cross correlate with the chipping code. It can get stuff many db below the noise floor. Unfortunately, my heart isn't multiplied by a high frequency chipping code, so that kind of thing is not likely to work.
You might be able to get heart rate from well below the noise floor by cross correlating with likely ECG signals at various beating rates and heavily bandpass filtering, but that would be rate only, not any kind of ECG trace.
Additionally three's a few other things that helped. One is that it's useful to know that pretty every member of the audience is glad they're not up at the front. The other is to sit through a few hours of bad talks. Then try t remember anything about them after two days. Thing is no one remembers bad talks. Mistakes get just magically erased.
They made the local headlines for firing a physics teacher who refused to not give a zero to students who, after repeated deadline extensions, cajoling etc. still refused to do and hand in assignments.
That's fair. It he couldn't figre out to give the student a -1, then he deserved to go.
Just one data point to the contrary, I hated speech class in high school though I don't remember if I took it junior or senior year. I definitely didn't want to be up in front of the class talking about anything. Now I enjoy speaking at conferences, provided that the topic is in my area of interest and expertise.
I would say that I started enjoying public speaking sometime after college.
This matches my experience. I'm glad for those times in school I was pushed, because I wouldn't have reached this stage without it.
Honestly, if you've got to your Junior year in high school and still hate public speaking then you're going to hate it for life.
I hold myself up as a counter example.
I hated public speaking in secondary school (Junior year is same as lower 6th in teh UK I think), and I certainly wasn't fond of it by that age. These days, I both like it and am decent at it. The education I got in school did take it from bloody awful to merely bad. The intervening few decades sanded off a good bit of the remaining badness.
If a big enough carrot is dangled (or a stick) you might get over it, but rather than spending time hoping for a carrot that might never come the kid's time is probably better spent being left the fuck alone to study.
There was neither a big carrot or stick. Everyone was expected to stand up and do it. Maybe the stick was the social pressure? Looking back that was one of the more valuable things in school, more so than the majority of the studying there.
Turns out people often benefit from being pushed out of their confort zones.
And having sat through far too many awful buisness presentations, I think we could do with much much more pblic speaking training.
It scared the crap out of me, but I came out of my shell with encouragement from some kindly teachers.
It's rare that I agree with you, but I do on this one.
I to was scared half to death by standing up in front of the class. Thinking back that was one of the aspects where my teachers didn't suck. But basically I had to do them, no choice. Then I had to do a few more. I left school with a mere strong dislike of public speaking, but no longer terrified of it.
I had to do more at university. Then, eventually it became a non-negotiable part of my career path. Fortunatly by that stage I was merely nervous rather than terrified. Then my career progressed and I had to speak in front of a variety of audiences, small and large repeatedly.
The prospect of speaking no longer terrifies me. Not only that but I'm actually pretty decent at it this days. Perhaps the adage that if you try something enough you'll stop sucking is true. I sometimes enjoy it now, depending on th eexpected audience. I still get a surge of adrenaline, but those times when you can capture the hwole audience leaves me on a real high.
We need to raise people to overcome their disadvantages, not revel in them.
There's a curious thing in the zeitgeist at the moment. Generally there's been a great improvement in awareness of various things like mental conditions etc. I think this is a god thing, on the whole. However, an awful lot of people have kind of glommed on to it and in some cases it almost seems to be seen as a virtue to be able to claim some obscure condition as your own.
We can be compassionate and help them do so, but they need this ability to be brave and we need them to have it.
Yep. I 100% agree. The compassion part is important. If people had been arseholes to me out of the gate it would have never got me here. Also, some people inevitably will have medical conditions which prevent this, and we should be mindful of that.
Almost everyone hates public speaking off the bat. But most people can learn to not hate it and be decent at it. And most peple need to be pushed out of their confort zone in order to improve. Being able to talk to an audience is a very useful skill in and out of the workplace.
tl;dr signal acquisition (especially of very small signals) requires both a "positive" and a "ground".
That's what was confusing me! I figured they had two electrodes and were using some sort of ECG field measurement. I have managed to get a signal out of the noise floor from as far down the arm as a bicep with tlectrodes 35mm apart, but it wasn't very good.
So firstly 64 bit. What? But only x86 that was massively register starved in 32 bit mode.
As for the ECG you're right , but it only works when you touch the watch with your other hand. I'd assumed naively that any ECG watch was a watch that monitored ECG just on your wrist, not a watch with a rather standard single channel ECG bolted on. My mistake though. But I don't think you'll find it very useful.
Huh I see. So I just checked, it's only certified ECG when you touch a metal bit in it with your other hand. Yeah that's technically feasible for a single channel ECG. Not really sure how useful that is. It's certainly not a continuous monitoring device that's for sure.
64 bit on a watch? Does this thing access more than 2 GiB of addressable memory?
And ECG. There's no way in hell this thing is remotely certified (it's bloody hard to get a good reading from the wrist under ideal conditions never mind on a watch without wet silver chloride electrodes). That makes is not just useless but actively deceptive. Fitbit couldn't even manage heart rate (via pulse ox like tech which is way easier that far distal) without a class action lawsuit.
These are people in their late teens and early 20s... not really known for having a sense of perspective.
What amazes me is how much the old farts here love to shit on other people. These people have poured passion into something they love and have made at any rate initially a good living out of it.
But they get stress and burnout, which is exactly what all the cube-slaves complain about the relentless death marches and offshoring. But now somehow it's milennials fault for feeling stress.
But as you can see by my "offtopic" mod, it's become a fucking religion to some people.
Some people, perhaps? However, you're replying in a somewhat affirative manner to a known denialist (read some of his other posts). Not only that you're supporting the point often used to discredit climate change which is to muddy the waters by mixing in bad journalism with goos science and painting them as all bad.
Given the context, it's not surprising that people are treating you as denier.
And that's the thing, it is off topic. The topic is whether or not the globe is warming. And it is. Even if there was some srt of reasoned debate to be had here about it, it wouldn't include muddying the water by bringing the opinions of idiots on the internet because that is irrelevant to the science.
Any hint of dissension is responded to with a vehement effort to *silence* any dissension.
You have a right to speak. You don't have the right to force others to listen. Your "dissention" loked to the outside like denying something that's a scientific fact. Most people have better things to do than "debate" a denialist on it.
The point that you weren't denying it was completely lost because you looked and acted that way albeit temporarily.
When I was a kid in the 1970's it was global cooling
No it fucking wasn't. You're an utter fool if you think that's the case and not just ignorant but wilfully ignorant.
Then it was ozone.
Yes that was a real thing and it actually happened. It got better becase of a massive coordinated international effort to curb CFCs. How you think that's an argument against reducing carbon emissions I really can't guess at.
until we/understand/ more
We do nuderstand. We understand the globe is warming and as a result the climate is changing. We know why. We also know that you're a denialist idiot.
Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of inane views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of inanity.
Slashdot Mirror
SJWs are pretty evil, though, I'm with you there
You're one of them bro. I mean you do what SJW do so you're an SJW. Calling yourself evil, well, that's refreshing honest, so I'll give you that!
Social justice is making conversations impossible. That's about the most anti-human thing I can think of. That's the point, isn't it? Their ideal is that nobody talks back. Everybody bends the knee, and dissenters are sent to the gulag to face reeducation or death.
So everyone who disagreed with you is like a gulag guard murdering and torturing people. Right-o. No suppressing of conversation with wild emotional SJW argments. No sireee.
That's not insightful at all.
You could equally well say that it flourishes in times of prosperity because when people no longer have to worry about where food and shelter is coming from, they can turn their attention to making the world a better place.
He's not a fucking victim. He tried to peddle his idiotic harmful views repeatedly and was told to stop at every stage. If you and like a jerk and no one wants to talk to you any more it's your fault and you're not a victim.
Anytime I thought the whole not taking responsibility for your actions was a SJW thing, so I guess this makes you a massive SJW.
It doesn't "beg the question." It raises the question.
Your tiling at windmills. Language evlves and changes over time, so begs the question is now right irregardless on the old meaning. I could care less about it and you probably should too.
"And Google showed anti-Republican bias then, as well." -- Abraham Lincoln
He never said that. Come on man, it's like you know nothing about the founding of yor country:
"Never believe quotes you read on the internet" -- George Washington in draft notes on the constitution.
Calling people who differ from you "the worst" is how you got Trump in the first place.
Yes we should be nice to people who knowingly voted in a corrupt criminal. Because if we mention that their feelings get hurt and they do damaging things out of spite. No yo're not going to get people being nice to you just because your feelings are hurt and you threaten to vote for an even more damaging president.
Wait a mo, I thought the "be nice to everyone for everything" was a srt of lefty-SJW-special-snowflake-prize-for-participation kind of thing. Are you an SJW? GET OUT OF HERE EVIL SJW!!!!!11111one
He never went public
No but he kept showing it to more and more and more groups until he got the reaction he wanted. I recall watching an interview he gave on youtube (it was long and had a sympathetic interviewer, no I don't recall the URL this was probably over a year ago) with Damore describing the process.
One thing that stood out to me was he took his work to the "skeptics group". It received a rather chilly reception there for reasons I think were correct. Basically they didn't like his reasoning, but they didn't give him a very detaild point-by-point rebttal or "debate" him. He took that as bias and kept on showing it around until it got a reaction. Which it did eventually as we all know.
Much of that criticism accused him of writing things not contained in his memo anywhere.
His memo was bad. I read it. The thing is if your work is clearly based on invalid prespposisions or picks a line of reasoning which reaches certain conclusions. You don't get a free pass on that simply because you didn't explicitly state those. In my person opinion (which acording to the groupthink here is wrong so I'll get silenced i.e. downmodded for it) the memo was not only excessively simplistic but relied on heavily cherry picked data.
It also didn't bring anything new which hasn't been hashed out very a thousand times before by substantially better writers with a better grasp of the literature. He waded into a known contentious topic both loudly (he KEPT on pushing his memo because he wanted a positive response) and very ill prepared. That's like taking a whack at a wasp nest with a baseball bat with no protective gear and standing around to watch the results.
So he got stung all over. Which was, to put it mildly, a bit predictable.
Not everyone has their price. Although that has more to do with what other options a person has access to. I make good money in a career I enjoy, so even an extra $100k in salary wouldn't get me to do a job I hate or that I'm morally opposed to. But if I was making minimum wage, I would likely take a job I was morally opposed to for a $100k raise. Once you're high enough on Maslow's hierarchy of basic needs, it takes for less sacrifice to do what you consider to be the right thing.
I'd agree with this. Something about the marginal value of money mumble mumble.
While there are aways some people who will do anything for money, it makes it an awful lot easier to do anything if not doing so involves not eating or making rent. I think that's a good argument for raising the standard of living for the poorest.
Your "clash of the SJW titans" seemes to be something that you've invented entirely yourself. For example:
On the one hand, China clearly does not derive from Europeans, so they must be good.
This seems to be a "viewpoint" held exclusively by people like you*.
And Google has to be good for being on the "right" side of so many issues and "nudging" people in the progressive direction,
Except eh sort of people you're whining about seem to complain an awful lot about google.
Enough to make one's head hurt.
Well, with so many made up stories rattling around in there that are making you angry, no wonder your head is hurting.
[*] you know muppets who use phrases like "SJW" and "virtue signalling".
Do you know about using chopper-stabilized amplifiers
Yes. They have incredibly low input offset voltage and amazing DC characteristics. Both of which aren't useful for ECG signals. ECG has no DC bias itself but also the electrolytic cell formed with your skin an electrodes gives a large DC bias to the signal which needs to be removed.
So, chopper amps aren't the right tool for the job.
or Autocorrelation? These techniques both work pretty well to retrieve signals that are actually BELOW the noise-floor. In fact, that's how Cellphones are even able to WORK at all!
Sounds like you're talking about the spread spectrum code division multiple access schemes where you cross correlate with the chipping code. It can get stuff many db below the noise floor. Unfortunately, my heart isn't multiplied by a high frequency chipping code, so that kind of thing is not likely to work.
You might be able to get heart rate from well below the noise floor by cross correlating with likely ECG signals at various beating rates and heavily bandpass filtering, but that would be rate only, not any kind of ECG trace.
Additionally three's a few other things that helped. One is that it's useful to know that pretty every member of the audience is glad they're not up at the front. The other is to sit through a few hours of bad talks. Then try t remember anything about them after two days. Thing is no one remembers bad talks. Mistakes get just magically erased.
They made the local headlines for firing a physics teacher who refused to not give a zero to students who, after repeated deadline extensions, cajoling etc. still refused to do and hand in assignments.
That's fair. It he couldn't figre out to give the student a -1, then he deserved to go.
Just one data point to the contrary, I hated speech class in high school though I don't remember if I took it junior or senior year. I definitely didn't want to be up in front of the class talking about anything. Now I enjoy speaking at conferences, provided that the topic is in my area of interest and expertise.
I would say that I started enjoying public speaking sometime after college.
This matches my experience. I'm glad for those times in school I was pushed, because I wouldn't have reached this stage without it.
Honestly, if you've got to your Junior year in high school and still hate public speaking then you're going to hate it for life.
I hold myself up as a counter example.
I hated public speaking in secondary school (Junior year is same as lower 6th in teh UK I think), and I certainly wasn't fond of it by that age. These days, I both like it and am decent at it. The education I got in school did take it from bloody awful to merely bad. The intervening few decades sanded off a good bit of the remaining badness.
If a big enough carrot is dangled (or a stick) you might get over it, but rather than spending time hoping for a carrot that might never come the kid's time is probably better spent being left the fuck alone to study.
There was neither a big carrot or stick. Everyone was expected to stand up and do it. Maybe the stick was the social pressure? Looking back that was one of the more valuable things in school, more so than the majority of the studying there.
Turns out people often benefit from being pushed out of their confort zones.
And having sat through far too many awful buisness presentations, I think we could do with much much more pblic speaking training.
It scared the crap out of me, but I came out of my shell with encouragement from some kindly teachers.
It's rare that I agree with you, but I do on this one.
I to was scared half to death by standing up in front of the class. Thinking back that was one of the aspects where my teachers didn't suck. But basically I had to do them, no choice. Then I had to do a few more. I left school with a mere strong dislike of public speaking, but no longer terrified of it.
I had to do more at university. Then, eventually it became a non-negotiable part of my career path. Fortunatly by that stage I was merely nervous rather than terrified. Then my career progressed and I had to speak in front of a variety of audiences, small and large repeatedly.
The prospect of speaking no longer terrifies me. Not only that but I'm actually pretty decent at it this days. Perhaps the adage that if you try something enough you'll stop sucking is true. I sometimes enjoy it now, depending on th eexpected audience. I still get a surge of adrenaline, but those times when you can capture the hwole audience leaves me on a real high.
We need to raise people to overcome their disadvantages, not revel in them.
There's a curious thing in the zeitgeist at the moment. Generally there's been a great improvement in awareness of various things like mental conditions etc. I think this is a god thing, on the whole. However, an awful lot of people have kind of glommed on to it and in some cases it almost seems to be seen as a virtue to be able to claim some obscure condition as your own.
We can be compassionate and help them do so, but they need this ability to be brave and we need them to have it.
Yep. I 100% agree. The compassion part is important. If people had been arseholes to me out of the gate it would have never got me here. Also, some people inevitably will have medical conditions which prevent this, and we should be mindful of that.
Almost everyone hates public speaking off the bat. But most people can learn to not hate it and be decent at it. And most peple need to be pushed out of their confort zone in order to improve. Being able to talk to an audience is a very useful skill in and out of the workplace.
tl;dr signal acquisition (especially of very small signals) requires both a "positive" and a "ground".
That's what was confusing me! I figured they had two electrodes and were using some sort of ECG field measurement. I have managed to get a signal out of the noise floor from as far down the arm as a bicep with tlectrodes 35mm apart, but it wasn't very good.
So firstly 64 bit. What? But only x86 that was massively register starved in 32 bit mode.
As for the ECG you're right , but it only works when you touch the watch with your other hand. I'd assumed naively that any ECG watch was a watch that monitored ECG just on your wrist, not a watch with a rather standard single channel ECG bolted on. My mistake though. But I don't think you'll find it very useful.
Huh I see. So I just checked, it's only certified ECG when you touch a metal bit in it with your other hand. Yeah that's technically feasible for a single channel ECG. Not really sure how useful that is. It's certainly not a continuous monitoring device that's for sure.
Firstly what.
64 bit on a watch? Does this thing access more than 2 GiB of addressable memory?
And ECG. There's no way in hell this thing is remotely certified (it's bloody hard to get a good reading from the wrist under ideal conditions never mind on a watch without wet silver chloride electrodes). That makes is not just useless but actively deceptive. Fitbit couldn't even manage heart rate (via pulse ox like tech which is way easier that far distal) without a class action lawsuit.
kids like you
That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me today :')
These are people in their late teens and early 20s... not really known for having a sense of perspective.
What amazes me is how much the old farts here love to shit on other people. These people have poured passion into something they love and have made at any rate initially a good living out of it.
But they get stress and burnout, which is exactly what all the cube-slaves complain about the relentless death marches and offshoring. But now somehow it's milennials fault for feeling stress.
But as you can see by my "offtopic" mod, it's become a fucking religion to some people.
Some people, perhaps? However, you're replying in a somewhat affirative manner to a known denialist (read some of his other posts). Not only that you're supporting the point often used to discredit climate change which is to muddy the waters by mixing in bad journalism with goos science and painting them as all bad.
Given the context, it's not surprising that people are treating you as denier.
And that's the thing, it is off topic. The topic is whether or not the globe is warming. And it is. Even if there was some srt of reasoned debate to be had here about it, it wouldn't include muddying the water by bringing the opinions of idiots on the internet because that is irrelevant to the science.
Any hint of dissension is responded to with a vehement effort to *silence* any dissension.
You have a right to speak. You don't have the right to force others to listen. Your "dissention" loked to the outside like denying something that's a scientific fact. Most people have better things to do than "debate" a denialist on it.
The point that you weren't denying it was completely lost because you looked and acted that way albeit temporarily.
When I was a kid in the 1970's it was global cooling
No it fucking wasn't. You're an utter fool if you think that's the case and not just ignorant but wilfully ignorant.
Then it was ozone.
Yes that was a real thing and it actually happened. It got better becase of a massive coordinated international effort to curb CFCs. How you think that's an argument against reducing carbon emissions I really can't guess at.
until we /understand/ more
We do nuderstand. We understand the globe is warming and as a result the climate is changing. We know why. We also know that you're a denialist idiot.
Your argument seems to be "someone on the internet said something stupid ergo global warming isn't happening".
We need a new variant of Poe's law:
Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of inane views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of inanity.