It helps to actually read, although to be fair the article is terrible. The point of this study wasn't to demonstrate the reversal of the Flynn effect, that's been seen in many studies, it was to establish whether or not it's genetic or environmental. Based on the exact same decline when looking at families vs the general population, it rules out a genetic decline (i.e. the Idiocracy hypothesis). Good news really! The stupid people aren't outperforming the general population! Of course, looks like TV/internet something in the water, radiation, aliens, or something is making the general population dumber (probably combinations of things). Personally I think the upcoming generation is generally screwed with smartphones reducing parental facial interactivity. Still, will make it easier for the kids of those of us with a little self control.
Provided this is coupled with significant privacy and free speech reforms. Let's have accountability, but let people control their data and treat these public platforms as public spaces regardless of who owns the hardware.
Zero. That's the point. I'm paying to not worry; it's the farmers job to think about these things.
And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
I dunno... morals? A commitment to truth? Or is that all too passé?
So any time you purchase anything you make sure that every element from every part of the supply chain is 100% sustainably, and ethically sourced? That you own nothing that every other person in the world can not access? That every single thing you do or consume could be scaled out to every single person on the planet?
A nobel endeavour if so; but somewhat arbitrary if you're just picking and choosing when it's convenient.
OK, your argument is filled with these pesky things like "facts" and "reasoned logical argument". But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe) . And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
Hey mate. I'm not sure you are entirely aware of this, but you come across as a bit nuts. I looked at your google plus thing (whatever it is, I'm not real social media savvy), and it just looks like you think every bit of science that's got an alternative hypothesis is both a) completely wrong, and b) trying to suppress any dissenting voice. I mean, tree ring dating, radiometric dating, evolution, the big bang, climate change, 9/11, electric universe, dark matter... I'm sure the list goes on. Everyone is wrong about everything. I'm sure all kinds of scientists are wrong about all kinds of things, but you're not stopping at just "these guys are possibly wrong", you carry on to "these guys are clearly wrong, have bad motives, and these other guys are the ones that are clearly right". Can't you see that is nuts? a) You can't possibly know if they are wrong without being an expert in the field itself and b) You can't possibly know that the other guys are right. And finally c) You can't possibly know the motives of the "consensus holders", and it seems a bit poor form to assume malicious intent. It's OK to not know stuff, and it's OK to form a contrarian opinion on a topic (dark matter just smells like a bodge to me, but I know nothing, so I stay silent), but to go on some sort of crusade from ignorance makes you look pretty foolish. "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues" Proverbs 17:28.
The poster of the links under discussion was mikael (484). He seems to be a generally thoughtful well measured poster. Not "Chris Reeve", who I assume is the person you have issue with.
I don't know enough about physics to know if there was any merit in mikael's comment that "electromagnetism" might be responsible for alignment (is it even worth considering?). Sadly the physicists only responded to the conspiracy guy, so no informative feedback. In my memory, Slashdot used to be different, but perhaps it was always thus.
So linking to "non journal" articles is now somehow a problem is it? This French CEA organisation looks legitimate and non-controversial. The arxiv link is from Dr. Elmo Tempel, who looks like a legitimate cosmologist. The futurism link is just talking about some research from Damien Hutsemékers "senior researcher at the FRS-FNRS in the “Extragalactic astrophysics and space observation” unit (AEOS) at ULg". So which link, exactly, did you find objectionable? The content in which of these articles was somehow "non-scientific"?
I repeat, not one of these links talks about electricity in space, or plasma filaments, or whatever it is that seems to upset everyone. They just appear to be talking about some kind of galactic rotational alignment that was unexpected. Which is interesting dammit! How is that not interesting? Who cares if it's:"laminar infall of gas from sheets to filaments" or really sneaky space monkeys?
They are scientific in the sense that they are about scientific phenomenon. You obviously didn't look at any of the links as none of them mention "electricity" "plasma" or any of the controversial stuff that seems to be getting everyone worked up. Just galaxy rotational alignment.
Which is interesting.
I'm not an "electric universe" supporter, or whatever this stupid argument is about. I just saw links to an interesting cosmic phenomenon, and went "interesting!". Apology?
It's not really new this, what would be more helpful is if we could calculate an upper bound on a human lifespan based on the network size, damage/repair rates or what have you. Of course, being able to extend human life (if it's resource intensive), will lead to the mother of all inequality blow outs. At any rate replication is the only path to significant time span existence, and digital looks like the only way to do that with some preservation of an "I". It's time to relinquish your flesh!
I notice in a previous post you have written, that your day job is running a manufacturing plant. Well my day job is leading the technical group (development group) for the software products that you more than likely use to help you run your plant. I know what engineering is, because I used to be one, many of my friends are engineers, and my users are engineers.
So here's the thing. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job, but I think you may be making a mistake in your assumptions here. Software development is fundamentally different from the traditional engineering with which you would be familiar. I know this because I have done both.
If something is documented properly then actually implementing it will generally take a minority of the time.
Completely false. I have worked in both heavy and light documentation environments. Heavy waterfall style process as well as agile. The implementation is always the longest leg.
Code can be a form of documentation but the most reliable software out there spends a LOT of time on documentation that is not code.
Do you count the code you use to help run your plant? If you use PLCs or SCADA, have you thought about the companies that make that software? Chances are that I know, work with, or am the person who wrote that code. The kind of process that you are familiar with that happens inside your plant does not happen with the software on which you run your software! And it's not going to be consistent across the board from the one company either. What's required for the PLC, documentation wise, is very different from what is required in the SCADA.
The notion that you can do non-trivial tasks without having substantial proper documentation is just absurd.
My experience would suggest otherwise, its a funny old world.
There are times for documentation and times for no documentation. As so many on slashdot are fond of pointing out "Software Developers are not Engineers". Having been an engineer that changed careers 15 years back, I know that to be very true (although the implied superiority in this statement is unwarranted). Creating an API that is intended to be consumed outside of your direct team? Document that sucker.
All that code inside, implementing that API? Waste of time. Good commenting + unit tests will be better than any word doco. In-fact, providing a little stripped to the bones demo app, implementing each api call (with a little comment around each piece), that is built as part of your project, is better than a pdf any day of the week.
Generally though, documentation is all about who you are communicating with. Co-located team members? Waste of time. Distributed geo-location teams? Make sure the boundaries are very well documented. Selling something to be consumed externally? Document, provide examples, provide demos. Mostly it's just common sense.
Where did you get Euclid from? No one is talking about Euclid except you. No one is suggesting the Babylonians were the first to "invent" trigonometry (mathematical concepts aren't invented, hence why you can't patent them). They were the first to use them, but we already knew that. What's interesting about this if that they used them way before we knew, but also that they were able to perform pratical trig (with triangles), in a completely different and novel way, without angles. What's more, this approach has pratical advantages over our current methods (albeit somewhat redundant since the calculator).
Clearly you have spent approximately 0 seconds reviewing this study. It is a table (much like a sine or cos table back in the pre-calculator era), and the missing bit was really just an explanation as to the why of the table. These guys have "reverse engineered" that with a combination of math (how the numbers are related) and an understanding of how the sexagesimal system and babloynian use of it influenced their practical use of math.
The tablet doesn't really contain trigonometry as we understand it today. There is no concept of angle, for instance.
That's absolutely true and also why the discovery is so interesting. It is trigonometry. Trigonometry without angles. The authors have a YouTube video which is very informative Here. There are so many interesting things about this. Angles are not needed to work with triangles. The sexagesimal numbering system had many advantages over our current decimal system from an application perspective. It's just a whole new way of thinking about trig. Anyway, it's well worth 20 minutes of your time.
it should only count as an addiction if it interferes with your life.
There are plenty of functional alcoholics, smokers, even users of heroin. Just because you've managed to incorporate it into your life doesn't mean your not addicted, or that it's a good thing. But in general I completely agree with you, it's just that most addicts are incapable of realizing that they have a problem on their own. (I.e. I'm not addicted! It's not hurting anyone!)
I note the "insightful" article is written by an anonymous author, as I wouldn't want my name tarnished with this steaming pile either. There is nothing of value here. Nothing. I note that "syndeq" simply spams articles from this CIO website, driving traffic there I suppose. Slashdot is a waste of time these days. I still come here out of habit, but it's a habit I need to kick.
What you're saying makes sense. This article makes me wonder about the state of brain-machine interfacing. Obviously at a very crude level, brain to hand to machine to eye to brain interfacing already exists, but the bandwidth is somewhat low. If we were to leave out possible ethical considerations for the moment, is there anything you could implant into the skull of a baby monkey say, that would allow the brain to interface in a bi-directional way with large bandwidth? Is there anything we can implant that can be inside the skull long term without health effects with current or soon to be realized technology?
A quick google of "problems with Git" will quickly reveal the various challenges that git brings to the table, for example git push --force. More generally, any team using git needs to decide on a workflow and carefully adhere to it. How do we manage merge workflows? To rebase or not to rebase? etc. With traditional source control, this is significantly easier.
I'm not anti-git, far from it. I introduced Git into the company I work for and love it; and it is absolutely the best source control system for distributed teams that exists. If you have distributed teams, it's an absolute must. But if you can't see that it's more complex, then you obviously haven't had the wonderful experience of having to field complaining from 30+ developers and having to fix the amazingly inventive ways in which they have managed to screw things up.
The problem with git, and I don't see it as a major problem, is not that it's hard to get up and running, but rather that you can quite easily get into the kind of trouble that needs expert knowledge to get out of. If you don't happen to have a git expert handy; well, you are going to have a very bad day. In this git shares the same problem as most very powerful tools, for example C. So I agree with the original poster, if you need the facilities of git, then you'd be an idiot to not use it, but if you don't, then other tools are better for simpler uses cases. Much like using something like python makes a huge amount of sense for certain applications, and zero sense for writing kernels.
No, the SSRIs cross the blood brain barrier on a time scale of minutes and inhibit the re-uptake of serotonin leading to a massive spike of serotonin levels on a time scale of hours. But the claimed effect (depression cured) takes place on a time scale of weeks or even months.
Which is why this study is so interesting. It essentially replicated this exact effect. The mice had decreased motivation (locomotion speed) after directly tinkering the serotonin up, but over a longer time scale they had increased locomotion from their base levels. Essentially replicating the human experience, and providing a much more direct way to study the effects of this particular chemical. This is interesting science as we still have very little understanding about Serotonin.
Slashdot Mirror
It helps to actually read, although to be fair the article is terrible. The point of this study wasn't to demonstrate the reversal of the Flynn effect, that's been seen in many studies, it was to establish whether or not it's genetic or environmental. Based on the exact same decline when looking at families vs the general population, it rules out a genetic decline (i.e. the Idiocracy hypothesis). Good news really! The stupid people aren't outperforming the general population! Of course, looks like TV/internet something in the water, radiation, aliens, or something is making the general population dumber (probably combinations of things). Personally I think the upcoming generation is generally screwed with smartphones reducing parental facial interactivity. Still, will make it easier for the kids of those of us with a little self control.
It's a really good point.
This is great, thanks for posting.
Provided this is coupled with significant privacy and free speech reforms. Let's have accountability, but let people control their data and treat these public platforms as public spaces regardless of who owns the hardware.
How much time do you spend worrying about them?
Zero. That's the point. I'm paying to not worry; it's the farmers job to think about these things.
And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
I dunno ... morals? A commitment to truth? Or is that all too passé?
So any time you purchase anything you make sure that every element from every part of the supply chain is 100% sustainably, and ethically sourced? That you own nothing that every other person in the world can not access? That every single thing you do or consume could be scaled out to every single person on the planet?
A nobel endeavour if so; but somewhat arbitrary if you're just picking and choosing when it's convenient.
OK, your argument is filled with these pesky things like "facts" and "reasoned logical argument". But, as an ignorant layperson, putting stuff in my food that kills bugs seems like it could have the potential to cause me harm as well (history seems to suggest that much perceived as safe ends up not so safe) . And as a privileged westener with the ability to pay extra for the non sustainable "organic" food. Why wouldn't I?
Hey mate. I'm not sure you are entirely aware of this, but you come across as a bit nuts. I looked at your google plus thing (whatever it is, I'm not real social media savvy), and it just looks like you think every bit of science that's got an alternative hypothesis is both a) completely wrong, and b) trying to suppress any dissenting voice. I mean, tree ring dating, radiometric dating, evolution, the big bang, climate change, 9/11, electric universe, dark matter... I'm sure the list goes on. Everyone is wrong about everything. I'm sure all kinds of scientists are wrong about all kinds of things, but you're not stopping at just "these guys are possibly wrong", you carry on to "these guys are clearly wrong, have bad motives, and these other guys are the ones that are clearly right". Can't you see that is nuts? a) You can't possibly know if they are wrong without being an expert in the field itself and b) You can't possibly know that the other guys are right. And finally c) You can't possibly know the motives of the "consensus holders", and it seems a bit poor form to assume malicious intent. It's OK to not know stuff, and it's OK to form a contrarian opinion on a topic (dark matter just smells like a bodge to me, but I know nothing, so I stay silent), but to go on some sort of crusade from ignorance makes you look pretty foolish. "Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues" Proverbs 17:28.
I don't know enough about physics to know if there was any merit in mikael's comment that "electromagnetism" might be responsible for alignment (is it even worth considering?). Sadly the physicists only responded to the conspiracy guy, so no informative feedback. In my memory, Slashdot used to be different, but perhaps it was always thus.
I repeat, not one of these links talks about electricity in space, or plasma filaments, or whatever it is that seems to upset everyone. They just appear to be talking about some kind of galactic rotational alignment that was unexpected. Which is interesting dammit! How is that not interesting? Who cares if it's :"laminar infall of gas from sheets to filaments" or really sneaky space monkeys?
Which is interesting.
I'm not an "electric universe" supporter, or whatever this stupid argument is about. I just saw links to an interesting cosmic phenomenon, and went "interesting!". Apology?
Your response, however, is simply condescending and adds no value.
It's not really new this, what would be more helpful is if we could calculate an upper bound on a human lifespan based on the network size, damage/repair rates or what have you. Of course, being able to extend human life (if it's resource intensive), will lead to the mother of all inequality blow outs. At any rate replication is the only path to significant time span existence, and digital looks like the only way to do that with some preservation of an "I". It's time to relinquish your flesh!
So here's the thing. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job, but I think you may be making a mistake in your assumptions here. Software development is fundamentally different from the traditional engineering with which you would be familiar. I know this because I have done both.
If something is documented properly then actually implementing it will generally take a minority of the time.
Completely false. I have worked in both heavy and light documentation environments. Heavy waterfall style process as well as agile. The implementation is always the longest leg.
Code can be a form of documentation but the most reliable software out there spends a LOT of time on documentation that is not code.
Do you count the code you use to help run your plant? If you use PLCs or SCADA, have you thought about the companies that make that software? Chances are that I know, work with, or am the person who wrote that code. The kind of process that you are familiar with that happens inside your plant does not happen with the software on which you run your software! And it's not going to be consistent across the board from the one company either. What's required for the PLC, documentation wise, is very different from what is required in the SCADA.
The notion that you can do non-trivial tasks without having substantial proper documentation is just absurd.
My experience would suggest otherwise, its a funny old world.
All that code inside, implementing that API? Waste of time. Good commenting + unit tests will be better than any word doco. In-fact, providing a little stripped to the bones demo app, implementing each api call (with a little comment around each piece), that is built as part of your project, is better than a pdf any day of the week.
Generally though, documentation is all about who you are communicating with. Co-located team members? Waste of time. Distributed geo-location teams? Make sure the boundaries are very well documented. Selling something to be consumed externally? Document, provide examples, provide demos. Mostly it's just common sense.
Where did you get Euclid from? No one is talking about Euclid except you. No one is suggesting the Babylonians were the first to "invent" trigonometry (mathematical concepts aren't invented, hence why you can't patent them). They were the first to use them, but we already knew that. What's interesting about this if that they used them way before we knew, but also that they were able to perform pratical trig (with triangles), in a completely different and novel way, without angles. What's more, this approach has pratical advantages over our current methods (albeit somewhat redundant since the calculator).
Clearly you have spent approximately 0 seconds reviewing this study. It is a table (much like a sine or cos table back in the pre-calculator era), and the missing bit was really just an explanation as to the why of the table. These guys have "reverse engineered" that with a combination of math (how the numbers are related) and an understanding of how the sexagesimal system and babloynian use of it influenced their practical use of math.
Both
The tablet doesn't really contain trigonometry as we understand it today. There is no concept of angle, for instance.
That's absolutely true and also why the discovery is so interesting. It is trigonometry. Trigonometry without angles. The authors have a YouTube video which is very informative Here. There are so many interesting things about this. Angles are not needed to work with triangles. The sexagesimal numbering system had many advantages over our current decimal system from an application perspective. It's just a whole new way of thinking about trig. Anyway, it's well worth 20 minutes of your time.
So people who habitually seek out a stimulate are more likely to also be the the same people who go on to seek out other stimulates you say?
it should only count as an addiction if it interferes with your life.
There are plenty of functional alcoholics, smokers, even users of heroin. Just because you've managed to incorporate it into your life doesn't mean your not addicted, or that it's a good thing. But in general I completely agree with you, it's just that most addicts are incapable of realizing that they have a problem on their own. (I.e. I'm not addicted! It's not hurting anyone!)
I note the "insightful" article is written by an anonymous author, as I wouldn't want my name tarnished with this steaming pile either. There is nothing of value here. Nothing. I note that "syndeq" simply spams articles from this CIO website, driving traffic there I suppose. Slashdot is a waste of time these days. I still come here out of habit, but it's a habit I need to kick.
What you're saying makes sense. This article makes me wonder about the state of brain-machine interfacing. Obviously at a very crude level, brain to hand to machine to eye to brain interfacing already exists, but the bandwidth is somewhat low. If we were to leave out possible ethical considerations for the moment, is there anything you could implant into the skull of a baby monkey say, that would allow the brain to interface in a bi-directional way with large bandwidth? Is there anything we can implant that can be inside the skull long term without health effects with current or soon to be realized technology?
A quick google of "problems with Git" will quickly reveal the various challenges that git brings to the table, for example git push --force. More generally, any team using git needs to decide on a workflow and carefully adhere to it. How do we manage merge workflows? To rebase or not to rebase? etc. With traditional source control, this is significantly easier.
I'm not anti-git, far from it. I introduced Git into the company I work for and love it; and it is absolutely the best source control system for distributed teams that exists. If you have distributed teams, it's an absolute must. But if you can't see that it's more complex, then you obviously haven't had the wonderful experience of having to field complaining from 30+ developers and having to fix the amazingly inventive ways in which they have managed to screw things up.
The problem with git, and I don't see it as a major problem, is not that it's hard to get up and running, but rather that you can quite easily get into the kind of trouble that needs expert knowledge to get out of. If you don't happen to have a git expert handy; well, you are going to have a very bad day. In this git shares the same problem as most very powerful tools, for example C. So I agree with the original poster, if you need the facilities of git, then you'd be an idiot to not use it, but if you don't, then other tools are better for simpler uses cases. Much like using something like python makes a huge amount of sense for certain applications, and zero sense for writing kernels.
No, the SSRIs cross the blood brain barrier on a time scale of minutes and inhibit the re-uptake of serotonin leading to a massive spike of serotonin levels on a time scale of hours. But the claimed effect (depression cured) takes place on a time scale of weeks or even months.
Which is why this study is so interesting. It essentially replicated this exact effect. The mice had decreased motivation (locomotion speed) after directly tinkering the serotonin up, but over a longer time scale they had increased locomotion from their base levels. Essentially replicating the human experience, and providing a much more direct way to study the effects of this particular chemical. This is interesting science as we still have very little understanding about Serotonin.