I def. take a critical eye to authors that have themselves taken a racist and/or homophobic stance (to name just two issues), and will defend that without question or apology. Make up your own opinions, but first get an idea on who you're trying to defend. This person's writing doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's no a secret what his agenda is. I agree he has the right to express it, and I have the right to counter his writing, by showing what else they're writing about.
This only holds true if the physical only identifies disease that have downside risk. More realistically, most early identification situations can greatly reduce the cost of future care, eg the overweight 40 y.o. who intervenes to avoid being the obese 60 yo.
It also ignores a number of other selection criteria and behavioral issues, which you are honest enough to note in your pretend for a moment intros.
However, people who proactively care for their health carry "upside risk" as well as downside, which your scenario does not account for.
The suggestive adverb "terrifyingly" is not about an objective state but about Craig Mod's (author) subjective perceptions. Honesty in the sense of fidelity to the objective world is not really at stake. Presumably, Mod is being honest about his experience.
Additionally, Mod is from Brooklyn and Lynchburg, Virginia, is in the South (at least for a New Yorker like Mod). If he'd never been and had been aware of Lynchburg's media reputation as home of religious conservatism, "terrifyingly" is understandable.
As someone who lived in Virginia for seven years, I remember the town Lynchburg having ominous associations. I also recall stories about lynchings that had occurred in Lynchburg as well as something about a haunted building on school grounds. Not that these are things Mod was aware of.
I'm only pointing out that the idea that Lynchburg is "terrifyingly" named is not about being "honest" to the historical and geographical fact of Lynchburg.
Doesnt this limit you to at least a 50 ms response time, before your CPU can "trust" the data? (before/current/next required to smooth before handing off to processing?)
In the odd case that the data is clearly garbage, you'll just drop it and keep going as before (so you add a frame to the response time at that specific moment).
In the general case of data affected by noise, it shouldn't be a problem: These things run a simulation of the external world, and every new input frame is never fully trusted, just used probabilistically to update the simulation. It is expected to carry noise, so if your sensors would tell you something like "a pedestrian in the sidewalk just jumped 10m in the air", you'd deduce "the guy most probably has kept walking as he was doing before, he possibly jumped instead, or he might have changed directions instead".
Is there evidence that Intel Inside had a margin gain for the CPU product? Although not the tone of this article, the graphics suggest the II branding campaign had so much less to do with their growth than general computing trends.[0]
To answer your Intel/TV ad question more directly: because there are a lot of people on Intel's payroll whose salary directly depend on them placing ads on TV.
I do not demand you see my perspective, not even sure that's how I see it. But really, how do we know that Intel's branding campaign was valuable to them? It seems obvious, but if it's super obvious, it should be easy to explain.
Revision of distant childhood memories is very common. We all trust our memories too much, especially in a legal context. Childhood memories are just as, if not more, malleable.
It's more useful to think of memories as Michael Bay's version of "Pearl harbor".
Yes. But it's one thing to question whether the chicken soup your mother made used canned or homemade stock. It's quite another to question whether she ever actually made chicken soup when you were sick, and then repeat that for the millions of other people who remember having chicken soup.
People who are familiar with, and use Perl on a regular basis, are already aware. (TLDR: never capitalize the full PERL; the language is Perl, the executable is perl, and anyone with much experience understands and communicates this difference.)
It is worth noting this SO answer[0], which is a reasonable heuristic when people are talking about Perl. (And, IMO, one of the few times to ignore pedantry is when it's being used as a Shibboleth[1]).
Do you think it is possible for this to be sorted out by science? It seems non-nullifiable, which generally puts it in the not-science category when I think of social science.
Do you think it's possible that your (well-thought-out) post could replace "people are well characterized by being on one side of a dichotomy" with "people are more comfortable thinking they are on one side of a dichotomy", without losing any resolution?
For me, that weakening seems inaccurate. And going further, I really do believe some people besides me are well-characterized, in part, by the introvert/extrovert divide.
When you say "support", do you mean by giving him ad revenue from your page view? What if this author were espousing something you already believe in?
Personally, I find those other views different than my own. I still found this article entertaining and interesting.