> Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
> Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
I'm curious how he ranked furniture to determine which of the cultures flourished or collapsed in their construction of chairs, tables, nightstands, etc...
There are all sorts of spurious correlations here. The part that might be interesting, to me at least, is whether a decrease in "sexual morality" as defined by the author leads to increased sexual misconduct a generation later, as OP seems to claim. That's indeed a plausible causal link to civilization decline.
The plot of The Matrix was supposedly originally based on the humans’ brains used as the hardware substrate for running the computers’ programs – if you like, human brains as CPUs – explaining why the computers needed to keep humans alive in tanks but in a dream-like state.
This was deemed to confusing for audiences to understand, so the story was changed so that humans became the power source for the machines. Since humans take in a lot more energy (food) than they produce as heat (or “bioelectric power”), this makes zero sense. In a future world driven by physics as we understand it, the machines would be better off killing all the humans and using some other power source.
The brains-as-CPUs version of the story is both physically plausible and a lot more interesting than the humans-as-batteries version. So some Matrix fans maintain that this is what was happening in the movie, with the human battery explanation just Morpheus’s misunderstanding.
I read up on this before starting and one or two cups shouldn't matter if there's nothing added to it. Also, the size of the coffee matters slightly, but here in NL we get small cups, not Starbucks size.
Just a heads up but if you click on the video with the pop up overlay & play it, then exit/close the modal, the video will continue playing in the background.
This doesn't really answer the persons question in my opinion. Are we supposed to assume this person has a BS in Computer Science? In that case it's more like 4.5 years and not 6 months.
I don't think anyone can give a definite yes or no response here. There are lots of factors that contribute to one's successful job interview which then translates to a job offer. I've read many blog posts and ex-Googlers say that practicing leetcode problems increases your probability of making it through the technical rounds. An applicant also needs to have well-rounded knowledge of general CS fundamentals. So I think the answer the OP is looking for is maybe: try to practice data structures, algorithms and get the fundamentals right specific to whatever job title they're applying to, and hope your interview goes well.
Why on earth is that unfortunate? Seems like a positive thing to me, even if some people don't make it to the pinnacle of their craft so what? If someone has gainful employment and meaning in their life I see that as a net positive.
Because many times, they write bad, buggy software. Because other people end up having to maintain it, or fix it, or replace it. Or they release things like plugins that malfunction, but because they're the best out of a set of bad options, end up being the de-facto solution that everyone has to deal with.
I'm not talking about people who build software that works ok, but has bad patterns. I'm talking about people who write cash register software that uses floating-point math to do calculations, or Wordpress plugins that fill up error logs with garbage or nearly DDoS sites because they don't understand how to write efficient code.
Not that I've done any of the above as an early PHP developer, no sir...
Found a forum thread about it from some aviation enthusiasts [1]. Some choice excerpts they made:
‘A simulator session flown by a U.S.-based Boeing 737 MAX crew that mimicked a key portion of the Flight 302 accident sequence suggests that the crew faced a near-impossible task of getting their 737 MAX back under control, and underscores the importance of pilots understanding severe runaway trim recovery procedures.’
‘What the U.S. crew found -. Keeping the aircraft level required significant aft-column pressure by the captain, and aerodynamic forces prevented the first officer from moving the trim wheel a full turn. They resorted to a little-known procedure to regain control.’ (YoYo Roller Coaster)
The excessive descent rates during the first two steps meant the crew got as low as 2,000 ft. during the recovery.
...
‘The simulator session underscored the importance of reacting quickly to uncommanded stabilizer movements and avoiding a severe out-of-trim condition, one of the pilots involved said. “I donʼt think the situation would be survivable at 350 kt. and below 5,000 ft,” this pilot noted.’
“This is the sort of simulator experience airline crews need to gain an understanding of how runaway trim can make the aircraft very difficult to control, and how important it is to rehearse use of manual trim inputs,”
That's why it is so essential to recognize and stop the runaway trim (for whatever reason) ASAP or you could get into a situation where it would be physically impossible for the crew to do so.
Most likely aerodynamically relieving trim wheel pressure by intentionally letting the nose of the plane drift down. This allows the pilots to more easily crank the trim wheel and fix the issue.
If I remember correctly, this procedure was specifically described in older 737 manuals, but had been dropped more recently.
It's a "roller coaster" procedure where the plane is pitched down to lessen aerodynamic forces on the stabiliser, allowing the trim wheels to be manually turned, then pitched up to regain altitude. The process is repeated as necessary until the trim wheels can be manually moved without it.
Interesting, it seems similar to how large sailboats need to head into or down wind when attempting to trim sails in some conditions? (to reduce pressure on the sails to allow trimming to be doable by hand)
Yeah, with the important difference that in sailing you lose speed (and heel) when heading into the wind, whereas a plane will go even faster towards the ground... Scary!
Yes. Mentour mentions it in the video I have posted above.
You unload the stabilizer by pitching down for a few seconds so that you can trim it back somewhat.
However, that is not something you can do close to the ground (you lose altitude, obviously) and the "vomit comet" ride won't be appreciated by the passengers neither.
Basically in this situation, even though the nose of the plane is uncontrollably pointing down, to get it to rise again requires that you momentarily push the nose down even further to allow the trim control to unjam and start working again.
If I remember correctly, this is a procedure that once was on the 737 flight manual as an recommended procedure but later Boeing removed it. I recall reading about in an article here at HN.
