But who's fault is that? How many of these degree's are for markets that is already saturated?
Yeah it's CLEARLY the fault of the young people with zero life expereince to draw on to make such decisions and not at all the fault of the adults who have set up the system up.
MAKE THE KIDS SUFFER FOR THEIR IGNORANCE. I'm sure the little turds deserve it for being lactose intolerant or something.
The civil service doesn't because it's large and people are stupid.
Basically it has about 500,000 employees.
Imagine they spent a whole 1p per employee per day on coffee. The dail fail and other inane publications go all "herp derp teh evil inefficient gubmint spends 1 MILLION POUNDS ON COFFEE FOR LAZY CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES!".
I mean a MILLION POUNDS is a lot of money, right?!
This happens at every big company, and Microsoft also has super-deep pockets so they can afford to have some dead wood.
It's also large so it can't afford to not have some dead wood.
Organisation at scale is a difficult problem, and I don't think there are any organisations the size of MS which don't have significant amounts of dead wood. There are always people coasting, or doing fuck-all in a departmant which keeps getting reorganised or twiddling their thumbs on a product which is on a death march or about to get cancelled etc.
Increasingly draconian DRM and punitive punishment does little to either decrease piracy or create more customers.
Precisely! Literally the only person DRM has the power to hurt is the paying customer. The preson who gets it from the Pirate Bay (or whatever the current equivalent is) gets a nice clean product by comparison. No adverts. No crappy "streaming" which keeps flipping back to 320p for no good reason, no format shifting limitations etc etc.
The null hypothesis is that observed climate changes are natural.
Or the null hypothesis is that CO2 doesn't affect the climate.
Remember - astrology has predictive models.
It does not have models that predict better than random. Physics does.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
If the climate didn't match the prediction, that would falsify the model. The fact that it hasn't been falsified by that doesn't make it not falsifiable.
That's the core of science that you don't seem to get. You make a prediction. If your prediction turns out to be correct, your model has not been falsified. If the prediction turns out incorrec then your model was flawed.
Climate science made predictions. They did not falisfy the model.
It will make more predictions. When the time rolls around to test them you will be able to see if the model was falisfied.
Although this is a good first step, the "trolling" clause really bothers me - really great art is stuff that provokes, just as trolling does - its something that makes people perhaps think In a different way than they did before...
trolling seem to have, detached from the meaning, of generally winding (and so on up to flinging shit threats of violence crapflooding and doxxing
Oh that's why they want to basically enforce monogamous relationships and make access to contraception hard. Wait, which left are you talking about again?
Humiliation of male sexuality
Sounds like you want to enforce your idea of what I should be like on me.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
Try again troll. In already listed two.
Your post sounds like you took a philosophy class in freshman year of university and figured you actually knew stuff. And WTF are you banging on about astrology for: that has zero predictive power and no concept of error bars.
The hypotheses are: our knowledge of physics is correct and our measurement of the system is enough to provide predictive modeling. The null hypothesis is that we can't predict what the earth's temperature well do.
And finally since you attended freshman internet arguing classes you should very well know that it is impossible to exclude all other possible hypotheses.
Agreed. Since Copernicus' view was later proven correct we should assume all views will later be proved as correct.
Well, that's the first time I've seen someone genuinely honest about denialism.
Usually the argument of "someone who was right was once thought wrong. I'm though wrong, ergo I'm right" is made implicitly. At least you're being direct.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
Found the fuckwit. Wow there are a lot on this thread.
The first IPCC report had predictions of the future based on climate models. We are well into the future now and the predictions fell within the error bars. Failure to do so would have falsified the result.
Second, we can measure the absorbance spectrum of CO2. If we found the measurement was wrong that would be a way of falsifying it.
There are far too many plonkers who think that "falsifiable" really means "falsified".
Yeah he's just going to be releasing his used toilet paper and calling it a day, nobody is going to be shocked he just pulled it out of his ass. Flag as Inappropriate
Personally I just wipe. Is shoving the paper actually up there something we expect from those in high office?
So, let's not prove the negative, lets prove it is man made.
Technically you can't prove anything in science but that aside, there's a very large body of evidence supporting the hypothesis.
I don't think that's possible.
That's because you're a total fucking moron. Viz:
We've had as much success with our climate models as we have of finally eradicating cancer.
The measured temperature is well within the bounds of the first IPCC report. The fact you don't know that reality matched the models at this point yet feel the need to vomit your ignorance all over the threads means you are intentionally ignorant.
We had freebie face replacement apps bundled with our webcams like 20 years ago, wtf.
WTF indeed and I'm calling a huge pile of bullshit. The seminal Viola-Jones face detection algorithm isn't even 20 years old. That was about the first time that realtime face detection got good enough to be viable. A full 20 years ago, the best intel CPU was barely cresting 400MHz.
No the hell way did we have realtime face detection and tracking of anything approaching usable quality 20 years ago. The computer vision tech wasn't remotely there and even given the best techniques of today the CPU tech was marginal at best.
Between its numerous welfare programs, the US already effectively has a "UBI":
No it doesn't, not even slightly.
What you quoted is literally the opposite of UBI and is in fact one of the things that UBI is hypothesised to fix. Under current systems if you start earning money you lose benefits (because they're not universal) so you end up worse off than if you didn't work.
The idea with UBI is you get it whether or not you work so working will always leave you better off.
The crazy uncle of open source talking about compromise? I never saw that coming.
Then you haven't been paying fucking attention. Or more like you have but only to batshit crazy forum posts as opposed to what RMS has actually said. He's actually pretty practical.
The lever is handheld and it communicates my intentions wirelessly to other road users. If I ever get pulled over for not using it, I will have a good argument to defend myself.
I hear judges are very sympathetic to people representing themselves who try to get clever. Please let us know how it goes!
Philosophically, Iâ(TM)m more closely aligned with the Mozilla folks than with people like Eich - but Mozilla demonstrated that bullying and intolerance exist on both sides of the political spectrum
Oh yeah taking a stand against someone who is trying to use the force of law to oppress people is "bullying and intolerance" and therefore just as bad.
Cutting it down to that. The top producers are people at the top of their game. That's really bloody hard work and the result of really hard work is often burnout. As someone who suffered severe burnout I can really sympathise.
It's got little to do with youtube though and more to do with people who are driven to work.
This... YouTube creators are not YouTube's customers, they are the product. The customers are the advertisers, and thus the only ones YouTube cares about.
No, this is a stupid and annoying simplification.
The advertisers are only customers in as much as there are people to advertise to. You can't sell to advertisers if there are no people watching the adverts. Youtube needs to keep the people watching happy which means keeping the people who make stuff to watch happy because without people watching, the advertisers aer not interested.
Slashdot Mirror
But who's fault is that? How many of these degree's are for markets that is already saturated?
Yeah it's CLEARLY the fault of the young people with zero life expereince to draw on to make such decisions and not at all the fault of the adults who have set up the system up.
MAKE THE KIDS SUFFER FOR THEIR IGNORANCE. I'm sure the little turds deserve it for being lactose intolerant or something.
The civil service doesn't because it's large and people are stupid.
Basically it has about 500,000 employees.
Imagine they spent a whole 1p per employee per day on coffee. The dail fail and other inane publications go all "herp derp teh evil inefficient gubmint spends 1 MILLION POUNDS ON COFFEE FOR LAZY CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES!".
I mean a MILLION POUNDS is a lot of money, right?!
This happens at every big company, and Microsoft also has super-deep pockets so they can afford to have some dead wood.
It's also large so it can't afford to not have some dead wood.
Organisation at scale is a difficult problem, and I don't think there are any organisations the size of MS which don't have significant amounts of dead wood. There are always people coasting, or doing fuck-all in a departmant which keeps getting reorganised or twiddling their thumbs on a product which is on a death march or about to get cancelled etc.
Increasingly draconian DRM and punitive punishment does little to either decrease piracy or create more customers.
Precisely! Literally the only person DRM has the power to hurt is the paying customer. The preson who gets it from the Pirate Bay (or whatever the current equivalent is) gets a nice clean product by comparison. No adverts. No crappy "streaming" which keeps flipping back to 320p for no good reason, no format shifting limitations etc etc.
Piracy isn't just free, it gives a beter product.
Well, they seem to be just changing the laws under them over and over again...becoming more onerous each time.
Yep, companies keep doing increasingly dickish things os the EU regulations get tighter.
This is like the EU is trying to step up and dictate what a private company's business model is.
Yep the EU is dictating that being massive asshats is not a valid business model. I'm cool with that.
The null hypothesis is that observed climate changes are natural.
Or the null hypothesis is that CO2 doesn't affect the climate.
Remember - astrology has predictive models.
It does not have models that predict better than random. Physics does.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
If the climate didn't match the prediction, that would falsify the model. The fact that it hasn't been falsified by that doesn't make it not falsifiable.
That's the core of science that you don't seem to get. You make a prediction. If your prediction turns out to be correct, your model has not been falsified. If the prediction turns out incorrec then your model was flawed.
Climate science made predictions. They did not falisfy the model.
It will make more predictions. When the time rolls around to test them you will be able to see if the model was falisfied.
Although this is a good first step, the "trolling" clause really bothers me - really great art is stuff that provokes, just as trolling does - its something that makes people perhaps think In a different way than they did before...
trolling seem to have, detached from the meaning, of generally winding (and so on up to flinging shit threats of violence crapflooding and doxxing
The left also wants to ban sexuality
Oh that's why they want to basically enforce monogamous relationships and make access to contraception hard. Wait, which left are you talking about again?
Humiliation of male sexuality
Sounds like you want to enforce your idea of what I should be like on me.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
Try again troll. In already listed two.
Your post sounds like you took a philosophy class in freshman year of university and figured you actually knew stuff. And WTF are you banging on about astrology for: that has zero predictive power and no concept of error bars.
The hypotheses are: our knowledge of physics is correct and our measurement of the system is enough to provide predictive modeling. The null hypothesis is that we can't predict what the earth's temperature well do.
And finally since you attended freshman internet arguing classes you should very well know that it is impossible to exclude all other possible hypotheses.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
Learning from history: it's an assertion not an argument.
How many times does the Cuyahoga River have to catch fire before we accept that socialising the costs of businesses is a stupid idea?
Agreed. Since Copernicus' view was later proven correct we should assume all views will later be proved as correct.
Well, that's the first time I've seen someone genuinely honest about denialism.
Usually the argument of "someone who was right was once thought wrong. I'm though wrong, ergo I'm right" is made implicitly. At least you're being direct.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
Found the fuckwit. Wow there are a lot on this thread.
The first IPCC report had predictions of the future based on climate models. We are well into the future now and the predictions fell within the error bars. Failure to do so would have falsified the result.
Second, we can measure the absorbance spectrum of CO2. If we found the measurement was wrong that would be a way of falsifying it.
There are far too many plonkers who think that "falsifiable" really means "falsified".
It doesn't.
Deal with it.
Welp found the contrarian.
They laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. You ain't Einstein.
Yeah he's just going to be releasing his used toilet paper and calling it a day, nobody is going to be shocked he just pulled it out of his ass.
Flag as Inappropriate
Personally I just wipe. Is shoving the paper actually up there something we expect from those in high office?
So, let's not prove the negative, lets prove it is man made.
Technically you can't prove anything in science but that aside, there's a very large body of evidence supporting the hypothesis.
I don't think that's possible.
That's because you're a total fucking moron. Viz:
We've had as much success with our climate models as we have of finally eradicating cancer.
The measured temperature is well within the bounds of the first IPCC report. The fact you don't know that reality matched the models at this point yet feel the need to vomit your ignorance all over the threads means you are intentionally ignorant.
There is no excuse.
I said it before and I will say it again: I want my nuclear powered car! I must have my nuclear car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's only the overweening government regulation that means we don't have these now.
All this kind of nonsense will do is destroy the ability to do business.
Ah the old "Europe does not exist" argument. They are responsible in Europe and they are profitable enough to continue to do business there.
We had freebie face replacement apps bundled with our webcams like 20 years ago, wtf.
WTF indeed and I'm calling a huge pile of bullshit. The seminal Viola-Jones face detection algorithm isn't even 20 years old. That was about the first time that realtime face detection got good enough to be viable. A full 20 years ago, the best intel CPU was barely cresting 400MHz.
No the hell way did we have realtime face detection and tracking of anything approaching usable quality 20 years ago. The computer vision tech wasn't remotely there and even given the best techniques of today the CPU tech was marginal at best.
Between its numerous welfare programs, the US already effectively has a "UBI":
No it doesn't, not even slightly.
What you quoted is literally the opposite of UBI and is in fact one of the things that UBI is hypothesised to fix. Under current systems if you start earning money you lose benefits (because they're not universal) so you end up worse off than if you didn't work.
The idea with UBI is you get it whether or not you work so working will always leave you better off.
You can't just screech
According to you everyone who doesn't worship the same god as you is screeching.
The crazy uncle of open source talking about compromise? I never saw that coming.
Then you haven't been paying fucking attention. Or more like you have but only to batshit crazy forum posts as opposed to what RMS has actually said. He's actually pretty practical.
The lever is handheld and it communicates my intentions wirelessly to other road users. If I ever get pulled over for not using it, I will have a good argument to defend myself.
I hear judges are very sympathetic to people representing themselves who try to get clever. Please let us know how it goes!
Philosophically, Iâ(TM)m more closely aligned with the Mozilla folks than with people like Eich - but Mozilla demonstrated that bullying and intolerance exist on both sides of the political spectrum
Oh yeah taking a stand against someone who is trying to use the force of law to oppress people is "bullying and intolerance" and therefore just as bad.
Fuck off with your moral relativism.
Anyone working
Cutting it down to that. The top producers are people at the top of their game. That's really bloody hard work and the result of really hard work is often burnout. As someone who suffered severe burnout I can really sympathise.
It's got little to do with youtube though and more to do with people who are driven to work.
This... YouTube creators are not YouTube's customers, they are the product. The customers are the advertisers, and thus the only ones YouTube cares about.
No, this is a stupid and annoying simplification.
The advertisers are only customers in as much as there are people to advertise to. You can't sell to advertisers if there are no people watching the adverts. Youtube needs to keep the people watching happy which means keeping the people who make stuff to watch happy because without people watching, the advertisers aer not interested.