I think there's a problem at the heart of the matter, specifically the idea that the act of measurement is in itself powerful when in point of fact that this isn't universally the case. As the old adage goes: "garbage in, garbage out." Even more troubling, there is a physical limit to our ability to model what we measure. Take the retina, it has around a million light receptors and even if you assumed they only have two valid states then you're left with around 10^300,000 bits of information to process, so good luck with that. Same thing applies to whatever firms are measuring and what they think is conveying relevant information as they'll have similarly exponential increases if they don't filter out the vast majority of irrelevant data points and states.
> it has around a million light receptors and even if you assumed they only have two valid states then you're left with around 10^300,000 bits of information to process...
That would only be a million bits (1 Mb). You're counting potential states, not bits.
I don't think it's inevitable. If anything, eugenics has been disproven on many levels as a viable model. You can't infer the future from just a set of genes and trying to simulate their expression as there's just too many unknowns in our environment which leave doubt to the probable outcomes of any organism, human or otherwise. The key issue with Eugenics is its belief in a clockwork view of genetics which today has been disproven in the last 30 years. Life ain't a clockwork, it's a chaotic system.
Not really, since the Treasury still honors the interest of the bond. Just because someone values the purchase value lower doesn't invalid the interest rate. You just lose money if you sell it.
Exactly. You're mark-to-market red on your bonds, since if you tried to sell your 2%-yielding bonds in a market where new bonds yield 4% obviously your bond will be worth less than what you bought it for; but you'll still continue to receive those coupons at 2% for the lifetime of the bond.
Honestly, I think this is true. I've noticed ever since I've stopped watching TV since 2007 and avoided most TV dramas (I've been mostly watching youtube videos on various topics like radio electronics, cooking, and the like since with maybe the occasion let's play of Dwarf Fortress or a group of people playing a tabletop campaign) that I've kind of fell out of the loop of the mainstream culture. So many things from pop music to references to TV shows have kind of left me just puzzled. Mind you, I'm in my 40s so I'm kind of "boomer" at this point.
I've had to deal with this kind of weird obsession with folks performing in online spaces like Second Life for a long time. I mean, sure, you can do your roleplay in an explicitly roleplay oriented place, but whenever I'm in what amounts to as a town square I've still found people who would rather play the part of Mean Girls or some other nonsense than being an authentic human being. It seems sincerity and honesty are poison to such folks who would rather live in irony or satire 24/7. I have to wonder that after a while do these people become the thing they're portraying? Is it more like what Oscar Wilde said, "give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth?" Or is it that folks can't actually distinguish their performance from reality? Heck, I've seen the same stuff on Twitter. It just makes my head hurt these days.
MIC isn't so much a conspiracy theory but rather a complex set of perverse consequences when involving military equipment production for the US. Take for example that much of the production of complex equipment like planes or tanks are split up across the entire US. It's not just a cost saving measure of sub-contracting but that it also gives the primary contractor the power over representatives as they can spread rumors of a given production facility coming to X district or out of that district. It makes it painful for said representatives to vote no against a costly military contract even if from the point of view of the DoD it has no benefit for them (this has happened a few times iirc). It's not some sinister cabal that comes up with these plans, it's just a sound business practice when dealing with government contracts.
Question: are you expessing your opinion, or describing reality as it is?
If the latter: what information source(s) have you used to acquire these alleged facts, and how did you go about fact checking them (for example: things that may go on that you have no way of acquiring knowledge about)?
Personally: I think there is an even bigger (potential) conspiracy going on that underlies all of this: educational curriculum (both what's included and what isn't) in Western nations.
I don't really care if I work alone or with someone on a project just so long as the project is well defined. Otherwise, I'm trying to understand what's needed and how to achieve it. And in my experience, I tend to be a bit too conservative with my technology choices that often I wind up confusing younger developers (I'm in my 40s here) which can lead to more reductions in productivity as they try to catch me up to speed on new technologies that we could or should use (I tend to be open to such things, just I'm a slow learner).
I think it's a great presenter of the general idea of visualization in computing but I've not seen many practical applications for it. The biggest thing I wish we could as programmers do is get behind the one idea of actually having computer programs actually negotiate how to communicate with each other in a more hands off approach where APIs like he mentions in the Future of Programming presentation would be possible. Basically, the programs would structure their negotiation in a way that allows each one to 'know' what the other has in terms of functionality which then the calling program would figure out which facilities best fit its request based on some complex set of rules to then fulfill that request (ex. converting a raw image file into a defined format like PNG or JPEG).
Essentially, I want programs to be less dependent on low level constructs much like today we don't depend on pointers or registers (assembly) to do our work these days. The idea that we can't have larger abstractions handled by compilers or runtimes seems silly to me.
Yeah, I think the long term solution to decarbonization is to focus on making it possible to get around without a car which includes a heavy focus on legalizing mixed-use and transit oriented development which for the United States and Canada are basically illegal last time I checked.
I'm a teetotaler, so by your assessment I'm a miserable person to work with? I point this out because I've had to deal with this at my current job and luckily they don't push it with me and respect my no-alcohol position whenever we go out to eat after work. I can't imagine working for any company that demands that I become a drunkard off-hours as a "team building" exercise.
I don't drink either and absolutely no one cares at these type of functions.
I can't even imagine pressure to drink in 2023 in the US at an after work event. It is hardly a kegger with everyone chanting "chug chug chug" or you aren't part of the group.
