Whole house fans are great. They cool the house, clear out the 150º air radiating from the attic, and also take a lot less energy than air-conditioners. I use both, but my air-conditioner runs a lot less since I installed the attic fan.
Same. Well, it's an evaporative air conditioning unit but 90% of the time we don't turn on the evap function (which is only really useful on days which are very dry and not too hot) but just run it as a fan in the evenings. Blows all the hot air out of the house and replaces it with cool night air in minutes.
Some examples: they admit in interviews to lying to obtain votes. They propose entrapping their client's opponents by bringing girls to them, or by giving them an offer 'too good to be true'. They give the impression there isn't much they won't do.
Alright let me try to be real. After reading http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/even-artificial-intel... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test (in that order thank you), it looks like the implicit association test is a good way to magnify small differences (I'm thinking floating point error) in how much you associate one of a few words with a certain other. So, presumably, quantification would really be a natural way to eliminate those types of subtle differences.
I'm glad we could at least get you to read it, but you're still not caught up. The effect is many orders of magnitude larger than floating point error.
The notion that implicit bias could be corrected by quantization (not "quantification") is an interesting hypothesis, with a low prior probability, which could be tested by experiment and easily published if it is true.
Oh come on, it's always fashionable to blame the current government. The Guardian's view (which has shifted further left and become more "us vs them" divisive in the last couple of years) of an already unpopular Conservative government is not the first source I'd used.
Personally, I've seen these reports come up from time to time, and having experienced some of the other countries listed find it very hard to believe. It sounds like a lot of the data is collected from patient surveys. My claim that citizens have a positive-skewed view of the system is relevant (I recently read a survey result where UK citizens considered the NHS a greater achievement than defeating the Nazis and the abolition of slavery).
Well anti-anxiety compression vests work for cats and dogs and there's some very preliminary evidence that deep pressure touch improves subjective relaxation https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3688151/
This is actually the first time I've ever heard of weighed blankets. As someone with severe anxiety that's helped with a hard squeeze, I'm very interested in getting one, I just wish I could try one first.
> work for cats and dogs
That could still be conditioning.
> deep pressure touch improves subjective relaxation
That could still be conditioning.
I'm not saying it definitely is conditioning, but I don't see enough evidence to rule it out.
For example, these animals could associate the pressure with the warmth and comfort of being the in the womb. So in a way they've been conditioned by being in the womb. Maybe animals grown in a 'test tube' wouldn't give the same results.
I would suggest that we shouldn't ever rely on digital archiving of important information. There should always be a copy of the information in analog, that can be dated & verified with analog methods.
This is one feature a blockchain excels at. People have stored the Bitcoin white paper in the blockchain. Anyone can then download it, and verify it is the untouched original.
Going fully digital with info, verifying with blockchain is all well and good, until a malicious actor forbids/prevents people from using blockchain somehow. if you've gone fully digital at that stage, you're in trouble
Block chain still handy to verify that no one tried to rewrite history and pretrnd hash was different in first place. And hashes on larger documents are never safe from collisions.
> if a person tries and fails and I never try; at the end of the day we're both in the same place, no?
What a bizarre statement. This is a generalisation that can easily be shown to be false. If I try and win Gold at the olympics, but fail (only winning silver), I am in a completely different place from you who never tried. There's a million other counter examples.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who considers winning a silver medal to be failing - but yes, failure is subjective. The original premise was about a person who tries being "better than" someone who doesn't try - my argument is simply that the act of trying doesn't automatically make you better.
Do you want one already very large company to be the only browser provider? That company could start to make its implementation less user friendly/less friendly to competition; but users would have no alternative but to use it. e.g. "Let's track everyone's usage, and prevent adblockers".
Not sure that applies to language implementations. Imagine if C++ started trying to send user data to some organisation.
Air conditioning -> cool human by cooling environment
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill