Follow the money. Governments don't provide proper incentives to compensate us for it.
You change the laws so that childcare, health care for kids, lunches, and college are all free, all without any paperwork and we will have a baby boom the likes you never saw.
Appears you followed the money all the way back to the government's printing press, and not a step further.
Also: I so want to get my rocks off tonight, but my god, the paperwork.
Paperwork is proportional to crowding, which is a manifestation of scarcity, which is bounded (to a first order) by resource constraints, of which time is ultimately the most precious, especially when paperwork looms.
Allocation friction functions as a currency in its own right.
A libertarian is someone who fantasizes that there's a fiscal coordinate transform where the imaginary component (socialism) goes away, for everyone, everywhere, at the same time (and not just for a few isolated individuals of effective measure zero; in this world, the elite denizens of Galt's Gulch are the ultimate human scarcity, but I posit that if the earth opened up and swallowed the Gulch wholesale, they'd barely be missed—India alone could supply enough hardcore STEM talent to replace the Gulch ten times over within ten years, which is why we conceived the paperwork-intensive H-1B program to stem the flood).
Long before there was paperwork, there was years of indentured ass-kissing servitude at the local country club getting your youngest daughter successfully married off. Even the dowry system in India didn't completely shift the transaction to an entirely real-valued market economy.
But at least you've finally explained why the notorious lady-killer Henry Kissinger once said "power is an aphrodisiac". What he actually meant is that no that he was so damned self-important that other people completed all of his paperwork, he was a horny bastard from sunup to sundown, not to mention his long vampire shift on Friday and Saturday nights.
That's the worst kind of stupid (perhaps intended mainly to garner effect, in which case it's hardly any different from the original case of Siri's adolescent accomplice). Really, it's complete BS that the police detained this child in the hope of "knocking some sense into him".
The police respond because they can't not respond, no matter how they assess the risk, because if a school shooting did follow from this, no matter how long the chain of events, and they had done nothing over the first comical wisp of smoke, they'd be roasted alive.
The preadolescent brain is not a reliable thing. It's changing in massive ways, and not very well equipped to even notice those changes in any systematic way.
I had a friend around the same age who once flew an aluminum foil kite into a pole-top power transformer. Kevin had big dreams, and he was always up to something, but he was just one of those kids with less than normal common sense. I liked him a lot.
After the kite explosion—yes, an actual explosion—boy did he ever get plunked down on the couch for a quadraphonic fusillade (both parents, both hydro workers). He was white around the edges for an entire school week. That was the appropriate response: a tiny taste of every adult in Dodge giving him the what for in WWE roof-raising double tag team.
Juvee would have scared (scarred) Kevin into never emerging from his basement ever again. It would not have knocked the least iota of "common sense" into his weirdly developed adolescent brain.
'''Debashish Bhattacharya''', an evolutionary genomicist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and UD plant biochemist Andreas Weber took a closer look at a possible case of bacteria-to-eukaryote gene transfer that [William Martin, a biologist that concluded that there is no significant ongoing transfer of prokaryotic genes into eukaryotes, has challenged in 2015].
Was this a test sentence deliberately crafted to release the blue smoke from Google Translate?
If I came across this sentence in an article on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be dropping {{subst:test1}} onto the user's talk page, I'd be dropping a phone number to a mental health hotline.
What could actually go wrong that hasn't yet is that all these named horror shows could actually lead to the collapse of civilization, instead of eternal, long-winded speculation.
It's almost like we have some kind of guardian-angel dark matter that keeps the world turning despite our worst efforts.
Shame if someday something happened to our guardian-angel dark matter.
I wonder how much more miserable technology would be making our lives without the precedent of things like the GPL.
And I wonder how much better Stallman's efforts would have turned out if he hadn't insisted on his ludicrously stringent and idiosyncratic redefinition of the word "freedom", as if there could only be one kind, and it was his way or the highway.
Even with Stallman, the CPU and BIOS and much of the rest of the hardware remains a malware mosh pit (just how many state actors do you have on your machine?)
He wasn't ever going to win his battle to establish the one true ecosystem of copyleft all the way down, but still he found it necessary to characterize the BSD licence as "non-free".
An ndash helps to distinguish a collaboration of two scientists from a single researcher with a double-barrelled surname.
This is a difference in the meaning, although a small one.
I fix this all the time on Wikipedia, but mostly when I have other reasons to edit the article, as well, such as some metric-challenged American writing 32KB instead of 32 kB.
Now perhaps you're geeky enough to think I should have written 32 kiB, instead. Wrong!
kilobyte has the abbreviation kB, whereas kibibyte has the formal abbreviation KiB.
Well, you have to know these things when you're a king you know.
Based on the above, I'm guessing that before the introduction of the kibibyte, few Americans were involved in metric standardization, though there could be other reasons for the inconsistent consistency, though I can't seem to think of any.
What possible guarantees could Mozilla obtain that once they begin to maintain a large patchset to rectify oodles of terrible policy decisions in the Chromium base, that the code base underneath them doesn't shake so much that all they end up doing is maintaining this giant patch set?
Frodo: I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart.
18m00 "show me all the data you want, C++ is still undesirable" 28m00 Jonathan Haidt and motivated reasoning 43m50 ethics of persuasion 46m50 backfire effect 55m26 concrete suggestions
Concrete suggestions begins with the simple question: "how would you define a data type?" and then delivers a lesson on articulating what you (probably) already know.
Then there's a case study on developing a type safe array memcpy in pure C (you can almost get there, but not quite).
Along the way there's a pointed case study in humility porn on implicit decay in function argument context, which I think is intended to raise "good grief" eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.
And hopefully it is actually learning CS principals of logical math and algorithms, rather than just learning how to compile Java/C#/Python/whichever the most popular language is.
Woe to the CS program that forgets that CS is also a craft.
Enlightened code monkeys also bring a lot to the table.
Commanding officer: Build this!
Sargeant: How to not get yourself killed when the giant edifice collapses around you in smoke and ruin.
I find that a little bit of theory goes a long way. There's an awful lot of keyboarding practiced in the trenches where command of deep theory is not your primary calling card.
No, I think you nailed it: Trump's Twitter feed is imbued with an unmistakable, charismatic cud-like mass grass-roots mastication on a truly mastodonian scale.
Tremendously territorial animal. Terribly near-sighted. Engage cautiously. Walk tall, and carry a huge shovel.
Choice 2: Make it affordable, say $100. Sell it to everyone as a prophylactic. Heck, get governments behind you as for vaccines. Revenue = ~$500B.
$100/year over what, your entire adult life, but just in wealthy America? Or were you thinking you're going to push out USD $100/person one-time inoculation to 90% of Asia and most of Africa, too?
How do you make the antidote weak enough to require annual booster shots, and fragile enough to scare people into never skipping a dose, without also making it altogether ineffective, or at least a crap shoot?
There goes another $10 billion into your research pipeline's greedy maw.
That was super useful. Almost makes you think it could be placed in the story summary... but, nah, that might lead to useful discussion.
Yes, Google is listening with one ear, but the overall tone (so far as I scanned) ran the gamut from hostile to cynical to mind boggled.
Interestingly, it remained civilized as these things go, and there were few posts in the hallowed mushroom-cloud apocalypse tradition of the fight/fulminate/flight triangle of charred human remains, whose mortal moral fuses went outright Code Magnesium. While it's orbiting around that general quadrant, it's not yet an ad-blocker black hole of no return.
Nice that Google still dips their big toe into evil before jumping straight in, nigh irrevocably.
And yet, somewhere deep down, you know they want to.
Welcome to the free market, where real choice exists only in chaotic beginnings, and every mature product space collapses to two (or maybe three) barely distinct shades of moral chartreuse.
I grew up in a non-gospel church with "We Shall Overcome" as regular staple.
As an adult, I now understood that those who sang it best were the committed capitalists, overcoming the strictures of competition in an open market of ideas, where the customers make important choices about right and wrong, rather than just plucking a lifestyle allegiance out of their belly buttons.
We can't make you do anything, but we can make you wish you had.
— Army saying
All too often the "business friendly" regulatory stance is "we will punish your sins with a slap on the wrist, but we'll never make you wish you hadn't".
Depending on how much Mastercard pocketed from this initiative while the getting was good, this could actually have tipped into "we almost wish we hadn't" territory.
Most corporate fines usually wind up in the neighbourhood of Tony Soprano's vig: mere cost of doing business, everybody wins.
I do not hate Google. My anger is born of disappointment, very deep disappointment.
I'm not a psychologist, but I doubt that it's healthy to be perpetually abused by a person and go back again and again and again.
Admitting disappointment is way higher up the anger management ladder than merely kicking the table and stomping off. Why are you seeking to pathologize this so aggressively?
Here, let me FTFY:
It's a giant, faceless international conglomerate—one of many from which you must choose, should wish to have any table at all.
Of course, you could build your own table out of wet sand in your private sandbox with your own hot little apt-get hands. And perhaps you'd even find another lonely, churlish child within a city box to share it with—and the posts (primarily fixated on the dislike of corporate conglomerations) and likes of those dislikes would flow copiously in both directions.
No man is an island, but you can storm off a thousand times.
I'm guessing that your own therapy isn't going to be cheap, either.
As humans we tend to get stuck in our ways, you can tell how many great changes are not truly over until that generation is dead and buried.
This, too, is largely a myth that should be carefully examined.
Suppose string theory hadn't been a crock for working physicists (as opposed to chalk artists). What would Richard Feynman have done next?
First of all, mathematics is notoriously a young man's game (as far ahead of her times as Ada Lovelace managed to be, she was no Srinivasa Ramanujan).
I've been trying to model this in terms of distributed represention. Perhaps at a younger age, your brain has the signal to noise ratio required to maintain a larger concurrent vector representation of your analytic quagmire, and all its fizzled leads, dead ends, and hardships. Gradient is important in artificial neural networks. Perhaps the extended mental vector of youth can "see" gradient that a curtailed mental vector can not (modulo the underlying formalisms you suckled from the womb). One part of this is to have full command of the formal idioms required to capture your inspiration in hard currency. Feynman still had those in spades to the end of his days.
But what to use them for? The novel approach—the wobbling plate in its fully hyper-dimensional glory—was no longer arriving courtesy of the long view of youth.
I don't think an aging Feynman would have had any special trouble navigating the formalisms of string theory—had it actually made testable predictions in this lifetime. But I don't think an aging Feynman could have done creative work there. By no means would this have anything to do with Feynman being a stick in the mud, unable to accept a radically changed physical paradigm. But the problem is that his creative circuits would have still been welded to the displaced currency of his mathematical prime (ages 19 and 23). Furthermore, QED would not have suddenly lighted up a giant red FAIL klaxon for the hearing impaired. One can still do a lot with QED, even without it being the last word.
So now let's bring in an economist for the standard lecture on comparative advantage and marginal opportunity.
Mastering QED is not without peril for the second rate. Much remains to police in the maintenance of this impressive intellectual edifice (even after the shine is taken off by a superior deep theory).
In software, we somehow grudgingly accept that maintenance happens. But then we're too stupid to imagine that any form of maintenance ever existed in any other profession before our own. NIH syndrome, they name is hubris.
Most theories that ever made any scientist famous delivered a lot of value to society in their time and place. Just because the next hot theory comes along, that doesn't mean the previous paradigm has finished pushing its last ever maintenance branch.
The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed.
Man, those scientists, too intellectually leaden to abandon the failed model of maintaining multiple releases concurrently.
You see, unlike software, ideas in the physical sciences have no inherent metabolism: the better idea would flash across space and time without so much apparatus as a carrier particle, were it not for the hidebound gargoyles of past eminence.
There are, of course, many fine examples of churlish egotism.
But while Faraday was enthusiastic about his work, he was made to feel set apart due to his lower background as a blacksmith's son. While touring the continent with Davy soon after being hired, Davy was not treated as an equal in the group. Davy's wife made Faraday travel outside the main coach and eat with the servants. He thought about quitting science as he went through this two-year tour of misery and mistreatment, but thanks to h
In other words, more like finding a 20 in your pants pocket than surprising like a Hail Mary Pass completion on the final play of a football game where a 20 point underdog beats the presumptive champs.
Nice metaphors, though I was surprised you didn't complete the passing play already in motion: that an AC on slashdot was heard to speak the real reason.
Well, in the case of Copernicus he was so "surprised" at the resistance to his results that he arranged to have the published after he was safely dead.
Formal publication is not the only viable straw poll.
Nothing stiffens your posthumous resolve like a bracing cold shoulder from the progressive, insider sect in response to your tentative feelers.
I scanned the thread as it exists so far, and there seems to be a correlation between SW movies in the Disney era: episodes that discerning viewers like lose money, while episodes that discerning viewers dislike make money.
80% of the available viewership wants a popcorn movie set in space. But you don't want too much immediate grumbling from the discerning crowd, as that might snowball into a social media buzzkill. So what the writers did was Sheldonize it: embed enough fetish lore to keep Sheldon & company immersed in their game night man-toys rather than tweeting toxic takedowns.
In this scene, she is drawn to this place, almost like... Cinderella. And she goes to this box, which, when she opens, she discovers something that of course, has no meaning to her—she's never seen this before and doesn't know what it is, but it has meaning to the audience.
Touching the lightsaber triggers what we called the "Forceback." There were many iterations of this. In one, from the Cloud City corridor, she looked down and saw Vader fighting Luke, which we ended up cutting.
We wanted it to be a more personal story, something that she couldn't comprehend, that was overwhelming to her, frightening to her, that was taking her through all of these elemental experiences, of fire, of rain, snow, wind. But also that she was being confronted with truths about the Force, about the past. The Knights of Ren here, the past for herself—she realizes that the cries she heard were actually her own cries as a young girl being taken away from her family. And then she hears a voice, "Rey," and that's Obi-Wan Kenobi.
This is the ultimate sensory-overload pastiche of everything they needed to accomplish: heaps of Sheldon-appropriate fish food (but it all goes by so quickly the popcorn crowd barely notices), a nod to the Superheros in Spandex "orphan" trope, and there's nothing to tense up the snowflake crowd like perplexed isolation (what they are really thinking: OMG all of this and no Twitter to unbundle her soul).
This is why Rey isn't actually a Mary Sue: yes, she manifests preternatural skills like a genetic amalgam of Wesley Crusher, Jason Bourne and the seven barely distinguishable shades of Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes, Fe+2 Man, Fe+3 Man, etc) but she hasn't got social media, nor a single person to favorite, even if she had social media, which she hasn't—OMG. This is more larded with tension to the social media snowflake than a Jules Verne retelling of the Achilles myth from the perspective of a giant squid, whose fatal weakness is replicated on the underside of every giant suction cup. It doesn't matter than Rey has ten giant, undiscovered arms that can each uproot massive trees; what matters is that she's got no-one to tell.
The forceback sequence also tests wu positive: the viewer can discern any mixture of telepathy, telekinesis, the original force, the postmodern force with midichlorians, the postmodern force without midichlorians, fate, predestination, Freudian self-revelation, and even a small hint of dramatic foreshadowing (here a small contingent of the audience perks up "oh, so they do actually know that literature exists" and this potentially glues them into their seats for another 15 minutes). It's a giant glueball of as-you-like-it, each to their own.
I new the entire trilogy was doomed the moment this sequence crossed the screen (as a result, I only seen fragments of the subsequent movies, such as one finds on YouTube).
No surprise to me to discover that Luke jettisons his Freudian-freighted lightsaber to establish his postmodern break as his first hominid act (he's barely more than one of the primordial monkey-men
Uh, what excuses the parents from initially refusing to buy any Facebook apps for their children until Facebook comes to their senses about their unworkable revenue security model?
Man, I can't wait for the day when there's a consumer JARVIS who goes *cough* *cough* "you know, there's presently no way to purchase an app from Facebook that doesn't allow your children to make in-game purchases on your credit card."
Parent: "What, they don't even have a password or something."
JARVIS: "Well, they do, but on past history, I'd have to remember if for you."
Parent: "And you're designed by... ?"
JARVIS: "Amazon Industries, one of the Amazon baby Bells. Why do you ask?"
We demonstrate that the transcriptional response to fasting operates through molecular mechanisms that are distinct from time-restricted feeding regimens.
Note that while the genetic pathways may be distinct, this is not the same as saying that establishing a TRE practice (easy, if you start with a broad 12-hour restriction window) won't later help you adapt to an actual fasting practice.
Nor does this state that the genetic response to TRE is less beneficial than the genetic response to actual fasting. It merely demonstrates that these are distinct metabolic regimes, with potentially different costs and benefits.
Mostly I see this as a glass half full: if your metabolism is tilting toward metabolic syndrome on a standard American diet, there are now two distinct exits in the when rather than what camp, either of which might provide some relief.
The "what" camp had a long run, and was mostly found wanting.
Perversely, some people still belief in the greedy algorithm of weight reduction: winning the battle between calories in, calories out by any means available. The unstated presumption is that once you win this battle, the greedy algorithm turns to confront the next great personal challenge: dealing with perpetually feeling cold, listless, and unmotivated. Which is then easily solved by restoring the previous anabolic diet.
(Greedy algorithms are notorious for going around in circles, if you're not lucky, or the problem set is not analytic.)
TRE and fasting have the potential to improve your blood chemistry, without rendering you permanently cold, listless, and unmotivated.
Jason Fung explains the now well-established model of caloric-restriction pick one:
[ ] weight rebound
[ ] long-term metabolic slowdown in his book The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss — 2015
Not my favourite book of all time, but a credible, recent round-up from a Canadian nephrologist with expertise on intermittent fasting.
It's the force of gravity toward the gravitational center of a large, solid body on the sum total of your person, conventionally including your hair, your giant curtains of skin (should you be unfortunate enough to have one), your circulatory system, your bladder, your colon, your lungs (and fluid accumulations), your sinuses (and fluid accumulations), etc.
It's absolutely possible to lose 10 lbs in one week, without surgery to remove a balky limb or a giant skin flap, contracting hemorrhagic fever, or even just a flair-up of your severe hyperthyroidism.
What's not possible is to reduce the fat component of your body composition by ten pounds in one week through regular metabolism, excepting the oddities above, and their next of kin.
Slashdot Mirror
Appears you followed the money all the way back to the government's printing press, and not a step further.
Also: I so want to get my rocks off tonight, but my god, the paperwork.
Paperwork is proportional to crowding, which is a manifestation of scarcity, which is bounded (to a first order) by resource constraints, of which time is ultimately the most precious, especially when paperwork looms.
Allocation friction functions as a currency in its own right.
A libertarian is someone who fantasizes that there's a fiscal coordinate transform where the imaginary component (socialism) goes away, for everyone, everywhere, at the same time (and not just for a few isolated individuals of effective measure zero; in this world, the elite denizens of Galt's Gulch are the ultimate human scarcity, but I posit that if the earth opened up and swallowed the Gulch wholesale, they'd barely be missed—India alone could supply enough hardcore STEM talent to replace the Gulch ten times over within ten years, which is why we conceived the paperwork-intensive H-1B program to stem the flood).
Long before there was paperwork, there was years of indentured ass-kissing servitude at the local country club getting your youngest daughter successfully married off. Even the dowry system in India didn't completely shift the transaction to an entirely real-valued market economy.
But at least you've finally explained why the notorious lady-killer Henry Kissinger once said "power is an aphrodisiac". What he actually meant is that no that he was so damned self-important that other people completed all of his paperwork, he was a horny bastard from sunup to sundown, not to mention his long vampire shift on Friday and Saturday nights.
When data is not an option, loud optics about "messaging" are a flatfoot's best friend.
Messaging in law enforcement is the body language of professional sports.
That's the worst kind of stupid (perhaps intended mainly to garner effect, in which case it's hardly any different from the original case of Siri's adolescent accomplice). Really, it's complete BS that the police detained this child in the hope of "knocking some sense into him".
The police respond because they can't not respond, no matter how they assess the risk, because if a school shooting did follow from this, no matter how long the chain of events, and they had done nothing over the first comical wisp of smoke, they'd be roasted alive.
The preadolescent brain is not a reliable thing. It's changing in massive ways, and not very well equipped to even notice those changes in any systematic way.
I had a friend around the same age who once flew an aluminum foil kite into a pole-top power transformer. Kevin had big dreams, and he was always up to something, but he was just one of those kids with less than normal common sense. I liked him a lot.
After the kite explosion—yes, an actual explosion—boy did he ever get plunked down on the couch for a quadraphonic fusillade (both parents, both hydro workers). He was white around the edges for an entire school week. That was the appropriate response: a tiny taste of every adult in Dodge giving him the what for in WWE roof-raising double tag team.
Juvee would have scared (scarred) Kevin into never emerging from his basement ever again. It would not have knocked the least iota of "common sense" into his weirdly developed adolescent brain.
Was this a test sentence deliberately crafted to release the blue smoke from Google Translate?
If I came across this sentence in an article on Wikipedia, I wouldn't be dropping {{subst:test1}} onto the user's talk page, I'd be dropping a phone number to a mental health hotline.
What could actually go wrong that hasn't yet is that all these named horror shows could actually lead to the collapse of civilization, instead of eternal, long-winded speculation.
It's almost like we have some kind of guardian-angel dark matter that keeps the world turning despite our worst efforts.
Shame if someday something happened to our guardian-angel dark matter.
And I wonder how much better Stallman's efforts would have turned out if he hadn't insisted on his ludicrously stringent and idiosyncratic redefinition of the word "freedom", as if there could only be one kind, and it was his way or the highway.
Even with Stallman, the CPU and BIOS and much of the rest of the hardware remains a malware mosh pit (just how many state actors do you have on your machine?)
He wasn't ever going to win his battle to establish the one true ecosystem of copyleft all the way down, but still he found it necessary to characterize the BSD licence as "non-free".
An ndash helps to distinguish a collaboration of two scientists from a single researcher with a double-barrelled surname.
This is a difference in the meaning, although a small one.
I fix this all the time on Wikipedia, but mostly when I have other reasons to edit the article, as well, such as some metric-challenged American writing 32KB instead of 32 kB.
Now perhaps you're geeky enough to think I should have written 32 kiB, instead. Wrong!
kilobyte has the abbreviation kB, whereas kibibyte has the formal abbreviation KiB.
Based on the above, I'm guessing that before the introduction of the kibibyte, few Americans were involved in metric standardization, though there could be other reasons for the inconsistent consistency, though I can't seem to think of any.
What possible guarantees could Mozilla obtain that once they begin to maintain a large patchset to rectify oodles of terrible policy decisions in the Chromium base, that the code base underneath them doesn't shake so much that all they end up doing is maintaining this giant patch set?
I first came across the backfire effect as such roughly two years ago from the following presentation:
Dan Saks on talking to C programmers about C++ — September 2016
Key point: If you're arguing, you're losing.
Some of my old bookmarks:
18m00 "show me all the data you want, C++ is still undesirable"
28m00 Jonathan Haidt and motivated reasoning
43m50 ethics of persuasion
46m50 backfire effect
55m26 concrete suggestions
Concrete suggestions begins with the simple question: "how would you define a data type?" and then delivers a lesson on articulating what you (probably) already know.
Then there's a case study on developing a type safe array memcpy in pure C (you can almost get there, but not quite).
Along the way there's a pointed case study in humility porn on implicit decay in function argument context, which I think is intended to raise "good grief" eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.
What is array decaying?
Exceptions to array decaying into a pointer?
This presentation feels as old as dirt and twice as slow, but the value is solid.
Woe to the CS program that forgets that CS is also a craft.
Enlightened code monkeys also bring a lot to the table.
Commanding officer: Build this!
Sargeant: How to not get yourself killed when the giant edifice collapses around you in smoke and ruin.
I find that a little bit of theory goes a long way. There's an awful lot of keyboarding practiced in the trenches where command of deep theory is not your primary calling card.
No, I think you nailed it: Trump's Twitter feed is imbued with an unmistakable, charismatic cud-like mass grass-roots mastication on a truly mastodonian scale.
Tremendously territorial animal. Terribly near-sighted. Engage cautiously. Walk tall, and carry a huge shovel.
$100/year over what, your entire adult life, but just in wealthy America? Or were you thinking you're going to push out USD $100/person one-time inoculation to 90% of Asia and most of Africa, too?
How do you make the antidote weak enough to require annual booster shots, and fragile enough to scare people into never skipping a dose, without also making it altogether ineffective, or at least a crap shoot?
There goes another $10 billion into your research pipeline's greedy maw.
That was super useful. Almost makes you think it could be placed in the story summary ... but, nah, that might lead to useful discussion.
Yes, Google is listening with one ear, but the overall tone (so far as I scanned) ran the gamut from hostile to cynical to mind boggled.
Interestingly, it remained civilized as these things go, and there were few posts in the hallowed mushroom-cloud apocalypse tradition of the fight/fulminate/flight triangle of charred human remains, whose mortal moral fuses went outright Code Magnesium. While it's orbiting around that general quadrant, it's not yet an ad-blocker black hole of no return.
Nice that Google still dips their big toe into evil before jumping straight in, nigh irrevocably.
And yet, somewhere deep down, you know they want to.
Welcome to the free market, where real choice exists only in chaotic beginnings, and every mature product space collapses to two (or maybe three) barely distinct shades of moral chartreuse.
I grew up in a non-gospel church with "We Shall Overcome" as regular staple.
As an adult, I now understood that those who sang it best were the committed capitalists, overcoming the strictures of competition in an open market of ideas, where the customers make important choices about right and wrong, rather than just plucking a lifestyle allegiance out of their belly buttons.
All too often the "business friendly" regulatory stance is "we will punish your sins with a slap on the wrist, but we'll never make you wish you hadn't".
Depending on how much Mastercard pocketed from this initiative while the getting was good, this could actually have tipped into "we almost wish we hadn't" territory.
Most corporate fines usually wind up in the neighbourhood of Tony Soprano's vig: mere cost of doing business, everybody wins.
I do not hate Google. My anger is born of disappointment, very deep disappointment.
Admitting disappointment is way higher up the anger management ladder than merely kicking the table and stomping off. Why are you seeking to pathologize this so aggressively?
Here, let me FTFY:
Of course, you could build your own table out of wet sand in your private sandbox with your own hot little apt-get hands. And perhaps you'd even find another lonely, churlish child within a city box to share it with—and the posts (primarily fixated on the dislike of corporate conglomerations) and likes of those dislikes would flow copiously in both directions.
No man is an island, but you can storm off a thousand times.
I'm guessing that your own therapy isn't going to be cheap, either.
This, too, is largely a myth that should be carefully examined.
Suppose string theory hadn't been a crock for working physicists (as opposed to chalk artists). What would Richard Feynman have done next?
First of all, mathematics is notoriously a young man's game (as far ahead of her times as Ada Lovelace managed to be, she was no Srinivasa Ramanujan).
I've been trying to model this in terms of distributed represention. Perhaps at a younger age, your brain has the signal to noise ratio required to maintain a larger concurrent vector representation of your analytic quagmire, and all its fizzled leads, dead ends, and hardships. Gradient is important in artificial neural networks. Perhaps the extended mental vector of youth can "see" gradient that a curtailed mental vector can not (modulo the underlying formalisms you suckled from the womb). One part of this is to have full command of the formal idioms required to capture your inspiration in hard currency. Feynman still had those in spades to the end of his days.
But what to use them for? The novel approach—the wobbling plate in its fully hyper-dimensional glory—was no longer arriving courtesy of the long view of youth.
I don't think an aging Feynman would have had any special trouble navigating the formalisms of string theory—had it actually made testable predictions in this lifetime. But I don't think an aging Feynman could have done creative work there. By no means would this have anything to do with Feynman being a stick in the mud, unable to accept a radically changed physical paradigm. But the problem is that his creative circuits would have still been welded to the displaced currency of his mathematical prime (ages 19 and 23). Furthermore, QED would not have suddenly lighted up a giant red FAIL klaxon for the hearing impaired. One can still do a lot with QED, even without it being the last word.
So now let's bring in an economist for the standard lecture on comparative advantage and marginal opportunity.
Mastering QED is not without peril for the second rate. Much remains to police in the maintenance of this impressive intellectual edifice (even after the shine is taken off by a superior deep theory).
In software, we somehow grudgingly accept that maintenance happens. But then we're too stupid to imagine that any form of maintenance ever existed in any other profession before our own. NIH syndrome, they name is hubris.
Most theories that ever made any scientist famous delivered a lot of value to society in their time and place. Just because the next hot theory comes along, that doesn't mean the previous paradigm has finished pushing its last ever maintenance branch.
Man, those scientists, too intellectually leaden to abandon the failed model of maintaining multiple releases concurrently.
You see, unlike software, ideas in the physical sciences have no inherent metabolism: the better idea would flash across space and time without so much apparatus as a carrier particle, were it not for the hidebound gargoyles of past eminence.
There are, of course, many fine examples of churlish egotism.
Heroes of Science: Michael Faraday — 27 July 2016
Nice metaphors, though I was surprised you didn't complete the passing play already in motion: that an AC on slashdot was heard to speak the real reason.
Formal publication is not the only viable straw poll.
Nothing stiffens your posthumous resolve like a bracing cold shoulder from the progressive, insider sect in response to your tentative feelers.
If climate were going the other way, we'd be reading about how Senegal was caught red handed with insufficient snow removal equipment.
Many people dead from icy sidewalks in July.
And you still wouldn't blame global cooling: those darn Senegalese can't get a damn thing right.
I scanned the thread as it exists so far, and there seems to be a correlation between SW movies in the Disney era: episodes that discerning viewers like lose money, while episodes that discerning viewers dislike make money.
80% of the available viewership wants a popcorn movie set in space. But you don't want too much immediate grumbling from the discerning crowd, as that might snowball into a social media buzzkill. So what the writers did was Sheldonize it: embed enough fetish lore to keep Sheldon & company immersed in their game night man-toys rather than tweeting toxic takedowns.
J.J. Abrams Reveals the Meaning of Rey's Flashback in "The Force Awakens" — 20 October 2016
This is the ultimate sensory-overload pastiche of everything they needed to accomplish: heaps of Sheldon-appropriate fish food (but it all goes by so quickly the popcorn crowd barely notices), a nod to the Superheros in Spandex "orphan" trope, and there's nothing to tense up the snowflake crowd like perplexed isolation (what they are really thinking: OMG all of this and no Twitter to unbundle her soul).
This is why Rey isn't actually a Mary Sue: yes, she manifests preternatural skills like a genetic amalgam of Wesley Crusher, Jason Bourne and the seven barely distinguishable shades of Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes, Fe+2 Man, Fe+3 Man, etc) but she hasn't got social media, nor a single person to favorite, even if she had social media, which she hasn't—OMG. This is more larded with tension to the social media snowflake than a Jules Verne retelling of the Achilles myth from the perspective of a giant squid, whose fatal weakness is replicated on the underside of every giant suction cup. It doesn't matter than Rey has ten giant, undiscovered arms that can each uproot massive trees; what matters is that she's got no-one to tell.
The forceback sequence also tests wu positive: the viewer can discern any mixture of telepathy, telekinesis, the original force, the postmodern force with midichlorians, the postmodern force without midichlorians, fate, predestination, Freudian self-revelation, and even a small hint of dramatic foreshadowing (here a small contingent of the audience perks up "oh, so they do actually know that literature exists" and this potentially glues them into their seats for another 15 minutes). It's a giant glueball of as-you-like-it, each to their own.
I new the entire trilogy was doomed the moment this sequence crossed the screen (as a result, I only seen fragments of the subsequent movies, such as one finds on YouTube).
No surprise to me to discover that Luke jettisons his Freudian-freighted lightsaber to establish his postmodern break as his first hominid act (he's barely more than one of the primordial monkey-men
Uh, what excuses the parents from initially refusing to buy any Facebook apps for their children until Facebook comes to their senses about their unworkable revenue security model?
Man, I can't wait for the day when there's a consumer JARVIS who goes *cough* *cough* "you know, there's presently no way to purchase an app from Facebook that doesn't allow your children to make in-game purchases on your credit card."
Parent: "What, they don't even have a password or something."
JARVIS: "Well, they do, but on past history, I'd have to remember if for you."
Parent: "And you're designed by ... ?"
JARVIS: "Amazon Industries, one of the Amazon baby Bells. Why do you ask?"
I guess it's not surprising that millennials never leave home. They can't even find their own shift key.
After dna, a, t, c, and g, Og somehow managed E. coli (more than once, even, though not in italic).
The real payload:
Note that while the genetic pathways may be distinct, this is not the same as saying that establishing a TRE practice (easy, if you start with a broad 12-hour restriction window) won't later help you adapt to an actual fasting practice.
Nor does this state that the genetic response to TRE is less beneficial than the genetic response to actual fasting. It merely demonstrates that these are distinct metabolic regimes, with potentially different costs and benefits.
Mostly I see this as a glass half full: if your metabolism is tilting toward metabolic syndrome on a standard American diet, there are now two distinct exits in the when rather than what camp, either of which might provide some relief.
The "what" camp had a long run, and was mostly found wanting.
Perversely, some people still belief in the greedy algorithm of weight reduction: winning the battle between calories in, calories out by any means available. The unstated presumption is that once you win this battle, the greedy algorithm turns to confront the next great personal challenge: dealing with perpetually feeling cold, listless, and unmotivated. Which is then easily solved by restoring the previous anabolic diet.
(Greedy algorithms are notorious for going around in circles, if you're not lucky, or the problem set is not analytic.)
TRE and fasting have the potential to improve your blood chemistry, without rendering you permanently cold, listless, and unmotivated.
Jason Fung explains the now well-established model of caloric-restriction pick one:
[ ] weight rebound
[ ] long-term metabolic slowdown
in his book The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss — 2015
Not my favourite book of all time, but a credible, recent round-up from a Canadian nephrologist with expertise on intermittent fasting.
You don't understand weight.
It's the force of gravity toward the gravitational center of a large, solid body on the sum total of your person, conventionally including your hair, your giant curtains of skin (should you be unfortunate enough to have one), your circulatory system, your bladder, your colon, your lungs (and fluid accumulations), your sinuses (and fluid accumulations), etc.
It's absolutely possible to lose 10 lbs in one week, without surgery to remove a balky limb or a giant skin flap, contracting hemorrhagic fever, or even just a flair-up of your severe hyperthyroidism.
What's not possible is to reduce the fat component of your body composition by ten pounds in one week through regular metabolism, excepting the oddities above, and their next of kin.