Quantum computers are, specifically, computers which use quantum state to probabilistically enter all output states at the same time and then collapse the waveform into all valid states. It's a very specific type of operation, same as how an optical processor would use light beams to transfer data internally.
It is physically impossible for the heat to transfer without heat sink compound. You "highly doubt" we need heat sink compound; you could also "highly doubt" we need lugnuts to hold wheels on cars.
I didn't comment about pressure; I commented about the use of a thermal conductor to attach a paste. You are, again, not thinking; apparently you're also not reading, or you have no reading comprehension. Either that or you're trying to cover your stupidity by ignoring the topic which was addressed in the message.
We have to find a cheaper way to get into space--"cheaper" meaning "less human labor". In the beginning of time, hunter-gatherers spent 20 hours per person per week just acquiring food; now, 2% of the US population is agricultural workers, half our products are non-food, half our food gets exported, and we spend 27 labor-hours per person per YEAR producing food. The rest of the time? We build space ships and smart phones.
People don't like labor theories of value because they associate them with socialism and Karl Marx, with old economics, with all kinds of broken theory; I've moved past theories of value into theories of wealth: why are we *capable* of doing what we do? I'm less interested in "how much should a pound of rice cost?" than "why are some people not able to afford a pound of rice?" or "why are we able to buy flying cars now, when before we had to struggle to buy just a pound of rice?"
So extreme simplifications.
It's bluntly obvious that you can only make what you can make. Tautology.
That is to say: if you have 40 hours of work per person available to you, and you have 100 laborers, and it takes you 4,000 hours per week to supply food... you're going to have a society of naked savages eating crappy food. Figure a way to make food in 1/10 the time and you have 3,600 hours per week to do something else. It takes 3,600 hours to make clothes? You have clothed savages eating crappy food. Wash, rinse, repeat.
That's technology: the development of new techniques to do things with less labor time.
From an economic perspective, each time you reduce the amount of labor to produce a good, you reduce its cost. Cost is the labor cost in total, including all input costs (coal? You have to mine coal, which means humans have to operate a coal mine, which is labor time), excluding all profits. Price is the market price. Negotiating a big steel deal? The whole production line gets packed with negotiation for enormous bulk purchases, and so your suppliers compete to secure 10-year contracts for a hundred million tonnes of steel or coal each year, and they slash their profit margins down to 1% and they still make billions of dollars more in profit than they would if you went to a competitor. That's why we only account for labor cost as costs: anything that threatens your ability to sell a product for $LABOR + $PROFIT pressures you to reduce $PROFIT; if you could reduce $LABOR you would do so. Cost is the minimum price.
That means you create a small amount of unemployment, drop product costs, lower prices, leave money in consumer hands (concentration of buying power: the unemployed's buying power moves to the still-employed), and then can create new products and thus employ new labor (creation of buying power: new products which can be sold to derive income from the unspent income in the consumer pocket), creating more buying power per person and thus more wealth.
Carry that out.
Space industry costs so much because there is a lot of human labor time involved. That human labor time carries a high labor price ($100/hr laborers instead of $4/hr), sure, but it's a *lot* of human labor time involved. You can't fix this just by paying all the space engineers minimum wage--assuming they work for that. You'd still have minimum wage engineers and construction workers and mechanics and managers investing enormous amounts of labor time into space industry, meaning the consumer of space industry products must pay all those wages, and so those products cost millions of dollars.
We can commercialize space when the consumers of the product are both capable of purchasing it and interested in purchasing it. That means we have to develop the technology to a point that achieving useful goals (to the consumer--business or individual) costs little enough that someone buys the products.
A bunch of obvious stuff, and not very organized here. I have a highly-organized, carefully-pruned view of
Looks like you're right; I'm one paradigm off. When I started, the programming books I used didn't talk about using subroutines as a major programming structure; using function calls was new when I got into C.
Understandable if your background is so limited
The books are a mess to read. They're not well-organized, they're not well-written, and they don't convey information. They have a lot of information, but it's organized like shit.
Imagine if you got in a car with 7 pedals. Depending on what combination of pedals you hit, the accelerator or brake may come on, and the gears may switch to a particular configuration. To accelerate in third, you need to hit pedal 3 and 5; to accelerate in first, you need to hit pedals 2 and 7; to brake, you hit pedals 4 and 7. Is your difficulty driving this beast a matter of your background being limited, or the interface being fucking retarded?
Human memory is associative, and heavily benefits from organization.
consider how far Tony Bevis would have get if he had not the shoulders of giants to stand on
He took the disorganized mess out there and produced a couple books covering concepts in ways people can more readily understand. That reduces the amount of time a person must invest to develop a particular skill. That's the same thing the original GoF and Code Complete books did, except they brought together more information and didn't do it as clearly.
We use heatsink compound because it's not that flat. Heatsink compound is fluid and fills the voids to make a perfect contact bond where an air gap insulator exists.
The article is like, "Hey! Look! Android! Containers! New execution environments! IDEs!"
Meanwhile I learned to code in Quick Basic 4.5 in a procedural model. I then started doing functional programming in C, and that whole "modular" thing where we break out programs into chunks. Object oriented programming was in relative infancy, and I learned that when it was just wrapping up related stuff into objects.
We now have more complex design patterns. The Gang of Four book and Code Complete are a mess to read; Tony Bevis did a better job writing a clear, concise explanation in C# and Java.
It's not the tools and the languages; it's the method of problem solving. Project Management today is not the same as Project Management in 1980 (I'm CAPM certified). Engineering isn't the same. We've created new construction techniques, not just new materials and tools. Programming hasn't just advanced in terms of languages and system platforms; we've created new methods for writing enormous programs without doing a shitton of refactoring.
I haven't assimilated the new methodologies yet. I can't plan in a grand scale using those tools; my brain knows how to use the old ones and can project at low resolution, then fill in all the gaps at high resolution. I need to burn these new abstract factories and decorators and other bullshit into my contextual thinking before I can just throw down immensely-complex, well-architected computer programs. I know the whole deal with being from the old school, and i know how hard it is to change; I also know what worked for the last set of problems doesn't fit this new set. That's sort of foundational knowledge for me: the correct approach depends on the problem, not on what your favorite tools are.
It would have to be flat to the degree of molecular bonding, such that the CPU surface would cold-weld to the heat sink upon contact if they were made of the same material, with no application of heat.
Risk is about probabilities and outcomes, not statistics. It's about saying, "Hmm, there's a 1 in 10,000 rate of contraction of HIV if I have sex with an HIV+ person, and about 0.2% of the world population has HIV; there's approximately 0 chance I'll contract HIV by unprotected sex. HIV would be life-destroying, so I should use a condom." The raw statistics say using condoms is a waste of time and money; we have birth control and abortion. The risk analysis says otherwise.
My logic is fine. Your understanding of risk analysis is poor.
Likely they're intentionally trying to deform the surface to fit, and to compress and thin the thermal paste.
You want a thin, fully-contacted surface to maximize thermal transfer. Intel likely made the substrate thinner to increase thermal transfer: 1 inch of highly-thermally-conductive silver is a better insulator than 1 micrometer of highly-thermally-conductive silver (hell, a mile of silver wire is a better electrical resistor than a layer of silver foil stuffed between two terminals). Silicone substrate isn't particularly thermally conductive, and thick silicone substrate is even less so.
Because the CPU surface isn't perfectly flat but *is* flexible, pressure will help conform it to the (also not perfectly flat) heat sink surface. This squeezes some of the thermal paste away, and compresses out voids to increase contact surface area. If you assume more is better, you'll naturally conclude that crushing the CPU into dust will give you better contact.
If Intel puts out a specification saying 50psi is rated contact pressure for correct heat sink function, you might decide to put 90psi on it. It works. You ship that, Intel releases a CPU that can handle 70psi instead of 140psi, they don't bother telling anyone because the CPU's spec is still 50psi, and shit starts breaking.
Amusingly, Intel could have glibly put every cooling system manufacture on a list of warranty-terminating equipment ages ago. They could have said, "Hey, we tested all these EXXXTREME COOLING jet fans and they dump 120psi onto our chips like the Hulk putting our balls in a vice. You strap that to the CPU and it fails, we're not responsible." It's fair for Intel to claim that unknown third-party equipment can destroy their hardware; can they quality control third-party equipment? They could, and they could stamp their name on it. That's how motherboards are made, and the board manufacturer is still liable if their board is mis-manufactured (now, if Intel passes the design and the design is flawed, Intel's certification makes Intel liable--Intel is negligent here; if the manufacturing is not within tolerance to produce properly-working equipment and it pumps out flawed boards, it's the manufacturer's fault).
Actually, from a risk standpoint, it's a good investment.
Every time you spend $12 at Taco Bell, that's a gross waste of money. The time expended to drive to Taco Bell just to eat bad food is higher than the time expended to prepare your own food. I live a 5 minute walk from a McDonalds, and I can prepare an Egg McMuffin at home in under 10 minutes using better food, for cheaper. Even if I drive, it's still 4-5 minutes there, 4-5 minutes back, and anywhere from 3-10 minutes in the drive thru, depending on the rush; if the McDonalds were further away, it'd be nearly an hour wasted; and even hitting McDonalds on the way to work is a 20 minute detour, whereas I can put together a sandwich in 6 minutes (the actual cook time is 5).
Cooking takes some up-front investment in time and materials, and then becomes very time-efficient once you've developed the skill. More time-efficient than a trip to the nearest Burger King. It also costs half as much at worst, down as low as 10% as much in some cases; operating a restaurant is expensive as fuck.
Playing the lottery, on the other hand, costs even less than that. You can play for as little as two dollars. If you lose, you lose two dollars; if you win, you win hundreds of millions. The actual invested amount is trivial, and the risk of loss is nearly 100%: you could lose nearly 100% of every $2 you put in. Even investing in cooking is worse: some of those pots cost $100, a good knife will run $30 plus an $80 sharpening stone or just $100 for an already-sharp knife (and eventually you want the stone), and you're going to put in a lot of time and stock perishable ingredients you'll never get around to using because your judgment is poor. If you don't develop a successful cooking routine, you'll never recover the time cost, and you'll invest hundreds of dollars in a few months at nearly 100% loss.
The probability for return in cooking is better. Call it even 30%--you're 70% likely to be too fucking lazy to really learn to cook--and the $500 invested is a risk of $350. If you went out and bought $500 of lottery tickets, your probability of winning wouldn't increase appreciably; your risk of loss would be nearly $500. Further, if you try to learn to cook later, you have a lot of reusable equipment, so the repeat risk is much lower.
If you buy just one ticket for every weekly drawing, that's $104/year. Probability of loss is $104/year, which is tiny. Repeatedly failing to learn to cook will eat up several tens of dollars of ingredients you never bothered preparing--bought a bunch of stuff, put it in the refrigerator, "will make lunch and dinner this week", instead went to mcdonalds, $40 of food went bad this week.
The pay-out for learning to cook is roughly a permanent cutback of 50% to 80% of your expenses and a return in time. The pay-out for the lottery, if it ever happens, is hundreds of millions of dollars.
Probability is one thing, but this is risk. The cost of this risk is *way* below most people's risk threshold: it's $104/year. It's $2/week. You have an opportunity to suddenly be a deca- or centa-millionaire; the four actions are exploit, enhance, share, and accept. In this case, "Accept" is actually "Accept that it won't happen", because the probability with zero action is 0%! "Share" is to go into a lottery pool with your friends, so if you win $300 million everyone gets $30 million. You enhance the opportunity every time you buy an additional lottery ticket, but it's not by much.
By far, your best single-return option is to buy exactly one random, active ticket every round. The difference between 0 and baseline is drastic; the difference between baseline and twice baseline is not. Your best overall strategy is to share: a lottery pool brings additional investment, sharing the cost of risk while also sharing the benefit. Anyone wins the lottery pool, the difference between baseline and pool is actually significant, and the difference between zero return and pool return is big. That sou
You want to work in both directions. Engineers use the reduced set; scientists use the expanded set. I'm aware of and use both because it gives me another way to be outside of every system: I can be a broad-scope thinker or a narrow-scope thinker at any given time, and even simultaneously (I can also hold both aspects of a Necker Cube in my head at once in the same geometric space--conjectured in the weakest form to be neurologically impossible for humans, but nobody has ever done serious research about that kind of cognition and the conjecture is roughly equivalent in nature to Alcubierre's conjecture about folding space by applying negative energy if such a thing exists).
Being inside a system makes you blind to the system's working. Experts don't make great advances in their field; they make great experiments in the field they study--and, frequently, in fields they don't study.
Teachers are technically incapable of improving education because of the noise in the line: they're exposed to the reinforcing results of taking action and observing outcomes, and so bias toward short-term responses instead of long-term results. That's usually good (it's how you generate expertise), but it only works for short-term results: you're getting feedback immediately, not feedback about the eventual long-term consequence. When you play piano, paint, perform mathematics, build furniture, or whatnot, the immediate result *is* the final result: typographical errors are forever errors, and that stuff you delete and retype affects your final typing speed, and so avoiding those errors improves your final typing speed and error rate.
We have statistics and the scientific method so we can try to understand long-term movements. This isn't great for humans. On the other hand, outside observers have less reinforcement from short-term observations: they're less invested in minor outcomes, and can observe the patterns and the system over time. They start simulating internally, predicting the outcomes without predicting their own responses--a teacher responds to a student becoming easy to manage or reciting correctly, but an observer respond to the long-term observation of learning rates in general--and make conjectures and predictions about changes. They then tweak, observe, and respond to the impacts of those long-term projections. It's less efficient than expertise development, but it accomplishes goals which require more long-term feedback.
Occam's razor and reductionism in general are like cognitive mip mapping: you can do less and get more broad data. I can simulate the whole damn universe in my head trivially; in the major sense, I can use my limited facilities on gross scale, because I know how big pieces of the system interact. I go back and fill in the details when I hit interesting states, then take samples of the minor effects. That's how I learned basically everything about economics before I started studying what others had written on economics--and started correcting their models. A lot of what everyone's come up with is *very* close, and itself behaves as a simplification or reduction of a larger, more complete theory which consistently produces more accurate results.
These are all tools. If you can be a part of any system at any time, you can be a part of no system, and thus exclude yourself from integration bias. I don't integrate that with any educational plans because I haven't been able to predict the degree to which this will make people... well, like me. At this point, I'm hardly a human being anymore, in the philosophical sense; I'm a conscious automaton. When people die, I simply discard them--any imperative I have invested in their well-being is immediately invalidated because a corpse is not a person. I *think*, however, that this is just a personality disorder; a person using the same facilities I use should, in theory, have their own will and desires and prerogatives, and slip readily into whatever feelings comfort them, and thus still function as a normal human being.
It's not so much my plan--it's a well-developed plan and I have problems with people doing ad-hoc, zero-information bullshit by pulling numbers out of the air and crying about ideals that don't line up with reality, but that's a different problem--as that the basic motivation is not the same.
I'm trying to create an efficient economic system that provides stability, increases employment, and eliminates homelessness and hunger. Wealth grows more quickly, taxes on the working class can decrease over time, the cost of products become cheaper because the cost of labor drops, the laborers have more buying power and can buy more products, and we can take bigger risks and move more rapidly into higher technology thanks to market stability and the lower cost of each risk investment.
Other people say, "Oh, we need to save the poor, end hunger, stop homelessness!"
You show them my plan, and they squint and say: "Wait a minute... this doesn't PUNISH THE RICH!"
They look at it and they say, "You just give money to people?... what if they're lazy? MY TAX DOLLARS SHOULDN'T FUND THE LAZY!"
They're not concerned with helping anyone, as much as they cry about injustices of the world and all the poor, starving children; they're concerned with inflicting pain on people they don't like.
I was lied to. The entire human species lied to me.
This is not a bill, but it's a description. The next 2 posts have graphs and charts analyzing impact; that huge fucking behemoth of text is informational, but not particularly approachable. Graphics really do make the topic easier to parse and understand. If you're curious, there you go.
It's quite simple: raising kids is a huge financial expense (if you do it right), and it's a giant investment in time and energy (again, if you do it right and aren't a negligent or absentee parent).
Rich people buy nannies, pay for private tutoring, hire maids, and simply buy off all that inconvenient shit with their mega-billions while enjoying whatever it is that makes people want kids in the first place. Do you think Bill Gates or Donald Trump really need to change diapers?
Bill Cosby had 5 children. Angelina has like 60. My grandparents on both sides had almost 20 each.
During growth periods in the US, we had baby booms--sharp upticks in population growth. My model of economic scarcity limiting population growth accurately predicts this, while yours says it's not a thing; but my model is inadequate because the limiting impacts are not direct enough. I don't understand what, specifically, happens to your life as the economy tightens. I don't get why people suddenly realize more kids would lower their standard of living by causing a major upset in the economy when kids *always* lower your standard of living.
Maybe the answer is they don't. Maybe population expands into scarcity, and the downward pressure causes recognition: we're always slightly overdrawn, pushing against the cork in the bottle, so we stop moving when it jams up and we flood forward when it pops out of the way. That's conjecture; I simply don't know.
Over and over, we've seen in country after country, that when the standard of living goes up, the birth rate drops. All this hysteria over overpopulation with reduction of aging is completely irrational.
The population of the Earth was 1.8 billion in 1920 and 1.9 billion in 1924; it was 2 billion in 1930, when running water was popularized. In 1940, it would be 2.1 billion... but the standard-of-living increase of running water, the wide access to refrigerators (first introduced in 1920s, rapidly expanding market in 1930, with freezers popular in 1940!), and the improvements in food production (Green Revolution starting around 1920) all contributed to a rise in population from 2.1 billion to 2.4 billion. The population growth rate after 1940 dropped back to.1 billion per 10 years.
I've noticed a lot of people consider "standard of living" as relative: more people are middle class, thus higher standard-of-living. They discount the total movement of wealth. Even economists don't have an explanation for this; I've been rewriting macroeconomics to discuss capability and total wealth instead of value, because modern economics is all designed to figure out the correct price of a product and the real income rather than the capabilities of an economy to support a particular type of civilization (i.e. standard of living--what technology, population growth, welfare, etc. is actually physically possible?). That's just the usual major paradigm upheaval: not a huge change, but a fundamental one, solving the same problem with the same tools in a different manner; it's not that 99% of modern economics is wrong, but rather that they're simply looking at it the wrong way.
We've come a long way from spending 20 hours per week to acquire food for every 1 person; now 2% of the population does that work--around 25 hours PER YEAR per each 1 person--and the rest of us build space ships and iPhones.
I haven't figured out all the economic factors, and only have the rough observation: populations do not expand into poverty. I don't know why. I know why poor people don't expand themselves into starvation, but I don't know why middle-class and rich people don't expand to 18-child families to fit their means at the expense of crushing the poor people.
The rough theory is easy enough: scarcity limits population growth. I don't use the classical economics definition of scarcity; I use a more complete model which produces the classical economics definition as a simplification.
Consider if you have limited fertile land, such that 10 hours of labor per week produces food for 1,000 people. Expand the population by 4,000 and you need 1 extra person working 40 hours per week to make food, and the other 3,999 go into other industries.
Now expand the population until you're out of fertile land.
Expand the population by 4,000 again, past the limit. You're now growing on less-fertile land. You need to irrigate. You need to fertilize. You get half as much yield, so you need to irrigate and fertilize and harvest twice as much land. Instead of 40 hours per week to produce food for these 4,000 people, you need to expend 120 hours per week (working twice the land with 1.5 times as much labor time invested per land unit). You have to assign 3 extra people working 40 hours per week each, leaving you 3,997 workers to enter other industries.
This means two things.
First, the specific cost of that additional lot of rice is three times as much as the prior lot. Instead of paying one guy for 40 hours, you pay three guys for 40 hours each, only to produce the same amount. That doesn't consider if the fertilizer producers or the water pumping infrastructure are run by workers with higher salaries than your agricultural workers.
Second, you're short 80 hours per week of work in other industries. Out of these 4,000 new people, someone is getting a slightly lower quality of life because we don't have the capacity to produce some trinket everyone takes for granted, because the 2 extra people we'd hire to expand capacity and produce goods for the expanded population are busy making food.
That means the ability to provide supply for some goods is reduced. The labor-hours to provide supply of some good increases as the demand increases, and so the cost of a good increases. The demand for some other good increases, but that good can't be produced--or maybe the people who would buy it are just struggling to afford food now, since food is expensive, so the demand for that other good decreases, and we're just a little less wealthy.
A gross simplification of one aspect of this is that demand exceeds supply, and prices go up. Demand exceeds supply *because* scaling up supply requires more labor (thus more cost) than the proportion by which we've scaled supply up, and so supplying is hard, and costs increase. It's not that we can't supply; it's that we can't supply cheaply at this scale of production.
Eventually, we will run out of capacity to produce cheap food. I don't care how much excess capacity we have right now; expand the population by twice that much and you will run out of capacity and have higher food prices and lower capacity to produce other goods due to reduced labor availability.
Expand population too much and your entire population becomes poor.
How that actually carries out in real life is, again, a mystery. I know the population will suffer if it expands; I don't know what stresses appear to tell population to stop growing.
I developed an economic policy, including transitions and risk management, that eliminates all homelessness and hunger in the United States. This strategy would have bankrupt the entire population in 1950 immediately (costs 120%+ of the total income of everyone), would have been prohibitively expensive in 2000, showed indications of viability in 2009, and became less expensive than current public aid system in 2013.
Some of my models show the top tax bracket raising from 39.6% to as high as 41%. Taxes on businesses drop by 4.5%. Taxes on every other individual income class drop more substantially, although those rates above $200k of income are effectively unchanged.
Do you know what people do when faced with a working, well-designed plan like that?
They complain it doesn't tax the rich enough, so they don't pay their fair share, so we shouldn't do it.
People don't care about every single human being on the planet--including themselves--living better lives; they care about the 5 or 10 people who are cheating. They want to sacrifice the entire human population to bring swift retribution unto the rich, the illegal immigrant, the drug dealer, the welfare slob, anyone they don't perceive as being as much of a valid human being as themselves. It distresses them that someone who is clearly beneath them enjoys a benefit in life they clearly don't deserve.
My brain has room for approximately 500 years of unedited memories; I don't know how it handles overload, but I suspect it will remove the least-used. The problem is memories aren't discrete: they're built out of piles of association, and removing one part of the memory removes a *lot* of memories.
Geriatrics to make you about 30-40 years old until you're about 300 would be cool. 1000-year lives would probably suck.
He said aging, not immortality. I already know how to fix the heart disease thing, but not diabeetus. Cancer is solved. A bullet to the head or Ebola will kill you.
It's a partial-information argument--cherry picking. Not just for what you said, but for the methodology used: it's as if they claimed male and female bodies aren't really different because they all have heads, arms, and legs.
Neurological studies have examined the way information transmits across the brain--front to back or side to side--and found enormous differences between male and female humans. They research the difference in development of various areas of the brain, which can be either genetic or influenced by experiences; experiences can be influenced by hormones (genetic factor: you developed ovaries instead of testicles, you got less testosterone). More emotional and less intellectual? The emotional part of your brain gets a bit bigger, the prefrontal cortex doesn't. London cab drivers's hippocampi (involved in encoding long-term visual memory) grow by roughly 7% due to all the spatial information they memorize.
To say the gross structure looks the same is just anatomy.
Mozilla Incorporated, the business. The profit entity. The thing that moves money and negotiates deals with Google and Yahoo and Ask Jeeves and Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not even sure if this is real language. "Collapse the superconductivity"? Wouldn't you collapse the waveform?
Quantum computers are, specifically, computers which use quantum state to probabilistically enter all output states at the same time and then collapse the waveform into all valid states. It's a very specific type of operation, same as how an optical processor would use light beams to transfer data internally.
That's really what's going on. Mozilla Corporation is "streamlining"; when HP does it, we call it "stumbling over failed business endeavors".
It is physically impossible for the heat to transfer without heat sink compound. You "highly doubt" we need heat sink compound; you could also "highly doubt" we need lugnuts to hold wheels on cars.
I didn't comment about pressure; I commented about the use of a thermal conductor to attach a paste. You are, again, not thinking; apparently you're also not reading, or you have no reading comprehension. Either that or you're trying to cover your stupidity by ignoring the topic which was addressed in the message.
That's inherently an economics question.
We have to find a cheaper way to get into space--"cheaper" meaning "less human labor". In the beginning of time, hunter-gatherers spent 20 hours per person per week just acquiring food; now, 2% of the US population is agricultural workers, half our products are non-food, half our food gets exported, and we spend 27 labor-hours per person per YEAR producing food. The rest of the time? We build space ships and smart phones.
People don't like labor theories of value because they associate them with socialism and Karl Marx, with old economics, with all kinds of broken theory; I've moved past theories of value into theories of wealth: why are we *capable* of doing what we do? I'm less interested in "how much should a pound of rice cost?" than "why are some people not able to afford a pound of rice?" or "why are we able to buy flying cars now, when before we had to struggle to buy just a pound of rice?"
So extreme simplifications.
It's bluntly obvious that you can only make what you can make. Tautology.
That is to say: if you have 40 hours of work per person available to you, and you have 100 laborers, and it takes you 4,000 hours per week to supply food... you're going to have a society of naked savages eating crappy food. Figure a way to make food in 1/10 the time and you have 3,600 hours per week to do something else. It takes 3,600 hours to make clothes? You have clothed savages eating crappy food. Wash, rinse, repeat.
That's technology: the development of new techniques to do things with less labor time.
From an economic perspective, each time you reduce the amount of labor to produce a good, you reduce its cost. Cost is the labor cost in total, including all input costs (coal? You have to mine coal, which means humans have to operate a coal mine, which is labor time), excluding all profits. Price is the market price. Negotiating a big steel deal? The whole production line gets packed with negotiation for enormous bulk purchases, and so your suppliers compete to secure 10-year contracts for a hundred million tonnes of steel or coal each year, and they slash their profit margins down to 1% and they still make billions of dollars more in profit than they would if you went to a competitor. That's why we only account for labor cost as costs: anything that threatens your ability to sell a product for $LABOR + $PROFIT pressures you to reduce $PROFIT; if you could reduce $LABOR you would do so. Cost is the minimum price.
That means you create a small amount of unemployment, drop product costs, lower prices, leave money in consumer hands (concentration of buying power: the unemployed's buying power moves to the still-employed), and then can create new products and thus employ new labor (creation of buying power: new products which can be sold to derive income from the unspent income in the consumer pocket), creating more buying power per person and thus more wealth.
Carry that out.
Space industry costs so much because there is a lot of human labor time involved. That human labor time carries a high labor price ($100/hr laborers instead of $4/hr), sure, but it's a *lot* of human labor time involved. You can't fix this just by paying all the space engineers minimum wage--assuming they work for that. You'd still have minimum wage engineers and construction workers and mechanics and managers investing enormous amounts of labor time into space industry, meaning the consumer of space industry products must pay all those wages, and so those products cost millions of dollars.
We can commercialize space when the consumers of the product are both capable of purchasing it and interested in purchasing it. That means we have to develop the technology to a point that achieving useful goals (to the consumer--business or individual) costs little enough that someone buys the products.
A bunch of obvious stuff, and not very organized here. I have a highly-organized, carefully-pruned view of
You can not do functional programming in C
Looks like you're right; I'm one paradigm off. When I started, the programming books I used didn't talk about using subroutines as a major programming structure; using function calls was new when I got into C.
Understandable if your background is so limited
The books are a mess to read. They're not well-organized, they're not well-written, and they don't convey information. They have a lot of information, but it's organized like shit.
Imagine if you got in a car with 7 pedals. Depending on what combination of pedals you hit, the accelerator or brake may come on, and the gears may switch to a particular configuration. To accelerate in third, you need to hit pedal 3 and 5; to accelerate in first, you need to hit pedals 2 and 7; to brake, you hit pedals 4 and 7. Is your difficulty driving this beast a matter of your background being limited, or the interface being fucking retarded?
Human memory is associative, and heavily benefits from organization.
consider how far Tony Bevis would have get if he had not the shoulders of giants to stand on
He took the disorganized mess out there and produced a couple books covering concepts in ways people can more readily understand. That reduces the amount of time a person must invest to develop a particular skill. That's the same thing the original GoF and Code Complete books did, except they brought together more information and didn't do it as clearly.
We use heatsink compound because it's not that flat. Heatsink compound is fluid and fills the voids to make a perfect contact bond where an air gap insulator exists.
Think before you speak.
The article is like, "Hey! Look! Android! Containers! New execution environments! IDEs!"
Meanwhile I learned to code in Quick Basic 4.5 in a procedural model. I then started doing functional programming in C, and that whole "modular" thing where we break out programs into chunks. Object oriented programming was in relative infancy, and I learned that when it was just wrapping up related stuff into objects.
We now have more complex design patterns. The Gang of Four book and Code Complete are a mess to read; Tony Bevis did a better job writing a clear, concise explanation in C# and Java.
It's not the tools and the languages; it's the method of problem solving. Project Management today is not the same as Project Management in 1980 (I'm CAPM certified). Engineering isn't the same. We've created new construction techniques, not just new materials and tools. Programming hasn't just advanced in terms of languages and system platforms; we've created new methods for writing enormous programs without doing a shitton of refactoring.
I haven't assimilated the new methodologies yet. I can't plan in a grand scale using those tools; my brain knows how to use the old ones and can project at low resolution, then fill in all the gaps at high resolution. I need to burn these new abstract factories and decorators and other bullshit into my contextual thinking before I can just throw down immensely-complex, well-architected computer programs. I know the whole deal with being from the old school, and i know how hard it is to change; I also know what worked for the last set of problems doesn't fit this new set. That's sort of foundational knowledge for me: the correct approach depends on the problem, not on what your favorite tools are.
It would have to be flat to the degree of molecular bonding, such that the CPU surface would cold-weld to the heat sink upon contact if they were made of the same material, with no application of heat.
Didn't say it was enforceable; just said it could be policy.
Risk is about probabilities and outcomes, not statistics. It's about saying, "Hmm, there's a 1 in 10,000 rate of contraction of HIV if I have sex with an HIV+ person, and about 0.2% of the world population has HIV; there's approximately 0 chance I'll contract HIV by unprotected sex. HIV would be life-destroying, so I should use a condom." The raw statistics say using condoms is a waste of time and money; we have birth control and abortion. The risk analysis says otherwise.
My logic is fine. Your understanding of risk analysis is poor.
Schizoid personality disorder. I don't develop affection for people.
That does give me a lot of time to think about everything else, though. No relationships, lots of economics. You find out a lot of interesting things when you read the financial and economic history of society.
Likely they're intentionally trying to deform the surface to fit, and to compress and thin the thermal paste.
You want a thin, fully-contacted surface to maximize thermal transfer. Intel likely made the substrate thinner to increase thermal transfer: 1 inch of highly-thermally-conductive silver is a better insulator than 1 micrometer of highly-thermally-conductive silver (hell, a mile of silver wire is a better electrical resistor than a layer of silver foil stuffed between two terminals). Silicone substrate isn't particularly thermally conductive, and thick silicone substrate is even less so.
Because the CPU surface isn't perfectly flat but *is* flexible, pressure will help conform it to the (also not perfectly flat) heat sink surface. This squeezes some of the thermal paste away, and compresses out voids to increase contact surface area. If you assume more is better, you'll naturally conclude that crushing the CPU into dust will give you better contact.
If Intel puts out a specification saying 50psi is rated contact pressure for correct heat sink function, you might decide to put 90psi on it. It works. You ship that, Intel releases a CPU that can handle 70psi instead of 140psi, they don't bother telling anyone because the CPU's spec is still 50psi, and shit starts breaking.
Amusingly, Intel could have glibly put every cooling system manufacture on a list of warranty-terminating equipment ages ago. They could have said, "Hey, we tested all these EXXXTREME COOLING jet fans and they dump 120psi onto our chips like the Hulk putting our balls in a vice. You strap that to the CPU and it fails, we're not responsible." It's fair for Intel to claim that unknown third-party equipment can destroy their hardware; can they quality control third-party equipment? They could, and they could stamp their name on it. That's how motherboards are made, and the board manufacturer is still liable if their board is mis-manufactured (now, if Intel passes the design and the design is flawed, Intel's certification makes Intel liable--Intel is negligent here; if the manufacturing is not within tolerance to produce properly-working equipment and it pumps out flawed boards, it's the manufacturer's fault).
These things happen. It sucks when they do.
Actually, from a risk standpoint, it's a good investment.
Every time you spend $12 at Taco Bell, that's a gross waste of money. The time expended to drive to Taco Bell just to eat bad food is higher than the time expended to prepare your own food. I live a 5 minute walk from a McDonalds, and I can prepare an Egg McMuffin at home in under 10 minutes using better food, for cheaper. Even if I drive, it's still 4-5 minutes there, 4-5 minutes back, and anywhere from 3-10 minutes in the drive thru, depending on the rush; if the McDonalds were further away, it'd be nearly an hour wasted; and even hitting McDonalds on the way to work is a 20 minute detour, whereas I can put together a sandwich in 6 minutes (the actual cook time is 5).
Cooking takes some up-front investment in time and materials, and then becomes very time-efficient once you've developed the skill. More time-efficient than a trip to the nearest Burger King. It also costs half as much at worst, down as low as 10% as much in some cases; operating a restaurant is expensive as fuck.
Playing the lottery, on the other hand, costs even less than that. You can play for as little as two dollars. If you lose, you lose two dollars; if you win, you win hundreds of millions. The actual invested amount is trivial, and the risk of loss is nearly 100%: you could lose nearly 100% of every $2 you put in. Even investing in cooking is worse: some of those pots cost $100, a good knife will run $30 plus an $80 sharpening stone or just $100 for an already-sharp knife (and eventually you want the stone), and you're going to put in a lot of time and stock perishable ingredients you'll never get around to using because your judgment is poor. If you don't develop a successful cooking routine, you'll never recover the time cost, and you'll invest hundreds of dollars in a few months at nearly 100% loss.
The probability for return in cooking is better. Call it even 30%--you're 70% likely to be too fucking lazy to really learn to cook--and the $500 invested is a risk of $350. If you went out and bought $500 of lottery tickets, your probability of winning wouldn't increase appreciably; your risk of loss would be nearly $500. Further, if you try to learn to cook later, you have a lot of reusable equipment, so the repeat risk is much lower.
If you buy just one ticket for every weekly drawing, that's $104/year. Probability of loss is $104/year, which is tiny. Repeatedly failing to learn to cook will eat up several tens of dollars of ingredients you never bothered preparing--bought a bunch of stuff, put it in the refrigerator, "will make lunch and dinner this week", instead went to mcdonalds, $40 of food went bad this week.
The pay-out for learning to cook is roughly a permanent cutback of 50% to 80% of your expenses and a return in time. The pay-out for the lottery, if it ever happens, is hundreds of millions of dollars.
Probability is one thing, but this is risk. The cost of this risk is *way* below most people's risk threshold: it's $104/year. It's $2/week. You have an opportunity to suddenly be a deca- or centa-millionaire; the four actions are exploit, enhance, share, and accept. In this case, "Accept" is actually "Accept that it won't happen", because the probability with zero action is 0%! "Share" is to go into a lottery pool with your friends, so if you win $300 million everyone gets $30 million. You enhance the opportunity every time you buy an additional lottery ticket, but it's not by much.
By far, your best single-return option is to buy exactly one random, active ticket every round. The difference between 0 and baseline is drastic; the difference between baseline and twice baseline is not. Your best overall strategy is to share: a lottery pool brings additional investment, sharing the cost of risk while also sharing the benefit. Anyone wins the lottery pool, the difference between baseline and pool is actually significant, and the difference between zero return and pool return is big. That sou
You want to work in both directions. Engineers use the reduced set; scientists use the expanded set. I'm aware of and use both because it gives me another way to be outside of every system: I can be a broad-scope thinker or a narrow-scope thinker at any given time, and even simultaneously (I can also hold both aspects of a Necker Cube in my head at once in the same geometric space--conjectured in the weakest form to be neurologically impossible for humans, but nobody has ever done serious research about that kind of cognition and the conjecture is roughly equivalent in nature to Alcubierre's conjecture about folding space by applying negative energy if such a thing exists).
Being inside a system makes you blind to the system's working. Experts don't make great advances in their field; they make great experiments in the field they study--and, frequently, in fields they don't study.
Teachers are technically incapable of improving education because of the noise in the line: they're exposed to the reinforcing results of taking action and observing outcomes, and so bias toward short-term responses instead of long-term results. That's usually good (it's how you generate expertise), but it only works for short-term results: you're getting feedback immediately, not feedback about the eventual long-term consequence. When you play piano, paint, perform mathematics, build furniture, or whatnot, the immediate result *is* the final result: typographical errors are forever errors, and that stuff you delete and retype affects your final typing speed, and so avoiding those errors improves your final typing speed and error rate.
We have statistics and the scientific method so we can try to understand long-term movements. This isn't great for humans. On the other hand, outside observers have less reinforcement from short-term observations: they're less invested in minor outcomes, and can observe the patterns and the system over time. They start simulating internally, predicting the outcomes without predicting their own responses--a teacher responds to a student becoming easy to manage or reciting correctly, but an observer respond to the long-term observation of learning rates in general--and make conjectures and predictions about changes. They then tweak, observe, and respond to the impacts of those long-term projections. It's less efficient than expertise development, but it accomplishes goals which require more long-term feedback.
Occam's razor and reductionism in general are like cognitive mip mapping: you can do less and get more broad data. I can simulate the whole damn universe in my head trivially; in the major sense, I can use my limited facilities on gross scale, because I know how big pieces of the system interact. I go back and fill in the details when I hit interesting states, then take samples of the minor effects. That's how I learned basically everything about economics before I started studying what others had written on economics--and started correcting their models. A lot of what everyone's come up with is *very* close, and itself behaves as a simplification or reduction of a larger, more complete theory which consistently produces more accurate results.
These are all tools. If you can be a part of any system at any time, you can be a part of no system, and thus exclude yourself from integration bias. I don't integrate that with any educational plans because I haven't been able to predict the degree to which this will make people... well, like me. At this point, I'm hardly a human being anymore, in the philosophical sense; I'm a conscious automaton. When people die, I simply discard them--any imperative I have invested in their well-being is immediately invalidated because a corpse is not a person. I *think*, however, that this is just a personality disorder; a person using the same facilities I use should, in theory, have their own will and desires and prerogatives, and slip readily into whatever feelings comfort them, and thus still function as a normal human being.
It's not so much my plan--it's a well-developed plan and I have problems with people doing ad-hoc, zero-information bullshit by pulling numbers out of the air and crying about ideals that don't line up with reality, but that's a different problem--as that the basic motivation is not the same.
I'm trying to create an efficient economic system that provides stability, increases employment, and eliminates homelessness and hunger. Wealth grows more quickly, taxes on the working class can decrease over time, the cost of products become cheaper because the cost of labor drops, the laborers have more buying power and can buy more products, and we can take bigger risks and move more rapidly into higher technology thanks to market stability and the lower cost of each risk investment.
Other people say, "Oh, we need to save the poor, end hunger, stop homelessness!"
You show them my plan, and they squint and say: "Wait a minute... this doesn't PUNISH THE RICH!"
They look at it and they say, "You just give money to people? ... what if they're lazy? MY TAX DOLLARS SHOULDN'T FUND THE LAZY!"
They're not concerned with helping anyone, as much as they cry about injustices of the world and all the poor, starving children; they're concerned with inflicting pain on people they don't like.
I was lied to. The entire human species lied to me.
This is not a bill, but it's a description. The next 2 posts have graphs and charts analyzing impact; that huge fucking behemoth of text is informational, but not particularly approachable. Graphics really do make the topic easier to parse and understand. If you're curious, there you go.
I'm 30, actually.
It's quite simple: raising kids is a huge financial expense (if you do it right), and it's a giant investment in time and energy (again, if you do it right and aren't a negligent or absentee parent).
Rich people buy nannies, pay for private tutoring, hire maids, and simply buy off all that inconvenient shit with their mega-billions while enjoying whatever it is that makes people want kids in the first place. Do you think Bill Gates or Donald Trump really need to change diapers?
Bill Cosby had 5 children. Angelina has like 60. My grandparents on both sides had almost 20 each.
During growth periods in the US, we had baby booms--sharp upticks in population growth. My model of economic scarcity limiting population growth accurately predicts this, while yours says it's not a thing; but my model is inadequate because the limiting impacts are not direct enough. I don't understand what, specifically, happens to your life as the economy tightens. I don't get why people suddenly realize more kids would lower their standard of living by causing a major upset in the economy when kids *always* lower your standard of living.
Maybe the answer is they don't. Maybe population expands into scarcity, and the downward pressure causes recognition: we're always slightly overdrawn, pushing against the cork in the bottle, so we stop moving when it jams up and we flood forward when it pops out of the way. That's conjecture; I simply don't know.
Over and over, we've seen in country after country, that when the standard of living goes up, the birth rate drops. All this hysteria over overpopulation with reduction of aging is completely irrational.
The population of the Earth was 1.8 billion in 1920 and 1.9 billion in 1924; it was 2 billion in 1930, when running water was popularized. In 1940, it would be 2.1 billion... but the standard-of-living increase of running water, the wide access to refrigerators (first introduced in 1920s, rapidly expanding market in 1930, with freezers popular in 1940!), and the improvements in food production (Green Revolution starting around 1920) all contributed to a rise in population from 2.1 billion to 2.4 billion. The population growth rate after 1940 dropped back to .1 billion per 10 years.
I've noticed a lot of people consider "standard of living" as relative: more people are middle class, thus higher standard-of-living. They discount the total movement of wealth. Even economists don't have an explanation for this; I've been rewriting macroeconomics to discuss capability and total wealth instead of value, because modern economics is all designed to figure out the correct price of a product and the real income rather than the capabilities of an economy to support a particular type of civilization (i.e. standard of living--what technology, population growth, welfare, etc. is actually physically possible?). That's just the usual major paradigm upheaval: not a huge change, but a fundamental one, solving the same problem with the same tools in a different manner; it's not that 99% of modern economics is wrong, but rather that they're simply looking at it the wrong way.
We've come a long way from spending 20 hours per week to acquire food for every 1 person; now 2% of the population does that work--around 25 hours PER YEAR per each 1 person--and the rest of us build space ships and iPhones.
I haven't figured out all the economic factors, and only have the rough observation: populations do not expand into poverty. I don't know why. I know why poor people don't expand themselves into starvation, but I don't know why middle-class and rich people don't expand to 18-child families to fit their means at the expense of crushing the poor people.
The rough theory is easy enough: scarcity limits population growth. I don't use the classical economics definition of scarcity; I use a more complete model which produces the classical economics definition as a simplification.
Consider if you have limited fertile land, such that 10 hours of labor per week produces food for 1,000 people. Expand the population by 4,000 and you need 1 extra person working 40 hours per week to make food, and the other 3,999 go into other industries.
Now expand the population until you're out of fertile land.
Expand the population by 4,000 again, past the limit. You're now growing on less-fertile land. You need to irrigate. You need to fertilize. You get half as much yield, so you need to irrigate and fertilize and harvest twice as much land. Instead of 40 hours per week to produce food for these 4,000 people, you need to expend 120 hours per week (working twice the land with 1.5 times as much labor time invested per land unit). You have to assign 3 extra people working 40 hours per week each, leaving you 3,997 workers to enter other industries.
This means two things.
First, the specific cost of that additional lot of rice is three times as much as the prior lot. Instead of paying one guy for 40 hours, you pay three guys for 40 hours each, only to produce the same amount. That doesn't consider if the fertilizer producers or the water pumping infrastructure are run by workers with higher salaries than your agricultural workers.
Second, you're short 80 hours per week of work in other industries. Out of these 4,000 new people, someone is getting a slightly lower quality of life because we don't have the capacity to produce some trinket everyone takes for granted, because the 2 extra people we'd hire to expand capacity and produce goods for the expanded population are busy making food.
That means the ability to provide supply for some goods is reduced. The labor-hours to provide supply of some good increases as the demand increases, and so the cost of a good increases. The demand for some other good increases, but that good can't be produced--or maybe the people who would buy it are just struggling to afford food now, since food is expensive, so the demand for that other good decreases, and we're just a little less wealthy.
A gross simplification of one aspect of this is that demand exceeds supply, and prices go up. Demand exceeds supply *because* scaling up supply requires more labor (thus more cost) than the proportion by which we've scaled supply up, and so supplying is hard, and costs increase. It's not that we can't supply; it's that we can't supply cheaply at this scale of production.
Eventually, we will run out of capacity to produce cheap food. I don't care how much excess capacity we have right now; expand the population by twice that much and you will run out of capacity and have higher food prices and lower capacity to produce other goods due to reduced labor availability.
Expand population too much and your entire population becomes poor.
How that actually carries out in real life is, again, a mystery. I know the population will suffer if it expands; I don't know what stresses appear to tell population to stop growing.
I developed an economic policy, including transitions and risk management, that eliminates all homelessness and hunger in the United States. This strategy would have bankrupt the entire population in 1950 immediately (costs 120%+ of the total income of everyone), would have been prohibitively expensive in 2000, showed indications of viability in 2009, and became less expensive than current public aid system in 2013.
Some of my models show the top tax bracket raising from 39.6% to as high as 41%. Taxes on businesses drop by 4.5%. Taxes on every other individual income class drop more substantially, although those rates above $200k of income are effectively unchanged.
Do you know what people do when faced with a working, well-designed plan like that?
They complain it doesn't tax the rich enough, so they don't pay their fair share, so we shouldn't do it.
People don't care about every single human being on the planet--including themselves--living better lives; they care about the 5 or 10 people who are cheating. They want to sacrifice the entire human population to bring swift retribution unto the rich, the illegal immigrant, the drug dealer, the welfare slob, anyone they don't perceive as being as much of a valid human being as themselves. It distresses them that someone who is clearly beneath them enjoys a benefit in life they clearly don't deserve.
My brain has room for approximately 500 years of unedited memories; I don't know how it handles overload, but I suspect it will remove the least-used. The problem is memories aren't discrete: they're built out of piles of association, and removing one part of the memory removes a *lot* of memories.
Geriatrics to make you about 30-40 years old until you're about 300 would be cool. 1000-year lives would probably suck.
He said aging, not immortality. I already know how to fix the heart disease thing, but not diabeetus. Cancer is solved. A bullet to the head or Ebola will kill you.
I just hope it includes Blagojevich's hair.
It's worse than that.
"This thing can't teach you anything because you won't be able to learn how to use it!"
It's a partial-information argument--cherry picking. Not just for what you said, but for the methodology used: it's as if they claimed male and female bodies aren't really different because they all have heads, arms, and legs.
Neurological studies have examined the way information transmits across the brain--front to back or side to side--and found enormous differences between male and female humans. They research the difference in development of various areas of the brain, which can be either genetic or influenced by experiences; experiences can be influenced by hormones (genetic factor: you developed ovaries instead of testicles, you got less testosterone). More emotional and less intellectual? The emotional part of your brain gets a bit bigger, the prefrontal cortex doesn't. London cab drivers's hippocampi (involved in encoding long-term visual memory) grow by roughly 7% due to all the spatial information they memorize.
To say the gross structure looks the same is just anatomy.
Mozilla Incorporated, the business. The profit entity. The thing that moves money and negotiates deals with Google and Yahoo and Ask Jeeves and Microsoft.