It does matter. I would suggest, that it would be compelling to stop with the deterministic statements that are equivocations to fit your own narrative. What "less" means or what "starvation" means, is information that would be helpful. Given the multiple vectors that compose the general term "nutrition", we can be sure that less intake is more effective for losing weight. Then going on to say "pretty damn easy" is insulting. Most people aren't informed enough to make measured political decisions (many state initiative cycles in the US have shocking consequences), choosing what to eat and how much is an impracticable behavior.
Your assurances that you know what the NSA (or proxy) would reason is laughable, for example. You have a view that he's a bad actor and it doesn't matter to me, other than it's a trivial thought experiment to justify his actions. GL
Not just specific companies, but largely specific areas (which have to compete with specific companies). New grads will, statistically, never see signing bonuses in their career, much less out of school. People paying bonuses for new grads is a sunk opportunity cost and a company should never do it unless it hurts them in some measurable way (cost-benefit analyses are important).
I've interviewed hundreds of people in Southern California, some who came out of google (does give signing bonuses) or Amazon (rarely signing bonus) and it has happened that Blizzard tempted some people with a little bonus...but these are uncommon.
People who jump company to company (google to amazon and back) don't get bonuses (as rehires), although that's outside the topic of "new grads".
I have never seen a signing bonus. Options, yearly bonus, even rev-share, sure.
> There can be other facets of a company that should influence your decision, such as what type of healthcare they offer,
Almost universally, company health care SUCKS. Look for major medical. If it's not there, don't bother. Save yourself the 7$ a month they will rebate you, if you opt-out. JPMorgan? Trash. Experian? Trash. etc
> What the 401k matching looks like
This is important. Generally % of paycheck up to a limit. It does take a chunk from your paycheck, which is you saving for yourself.
> whether they offer a mega backdoor Roth, whether they allow auto-sell of your vested stocks, whether there’s an employee stock purchase plan, and whether they offer free food or gym.
This is all marginal and rare in my experience. Other than a little gym you can pay for or some snacks (which will eventually be abused and changed if the company is growing) or Kombucha on tap or whatever is not a consideration for me.
> What are the motives for leaking information regarding our actions on foreign soil against foreign citizens?
1. Removing plausible deniability. "Well we might be deeply involved in domestic surveillance but we certainly don't do it outside the US!". The laws that enabled the NSA to do the surveillance were attributed to accessing data that traveled outside the US.
2. Demonstrating the power and reach for legitimacy/plausibility.
I'm sure I can come up with more than the first 2 minutes it
took to assemble this post.
It keeps industries (affecting the currency, in the case of banks) stable. There's only 1 asshole to talk to, when it stops being reliable or the populace gets uppity enough for the political animals to notice.
Other non-tech businesses, hell EVERY business that I've ever worked in that used AWS did better per transaction - healthcare, digital advertising, virtual office tooling, gaming. If you can't do better than a credit card processing fee per paid customer interaction across the company on AWS, you might as well be selling retail goods...and depending on age, your company might be soon.
> rock phosphate is a finite resource and the biggest supplies are mined in politically unstable places
A similarity with oil? I think it's a forgone conclusion that politically unstable places are ripe for becoming stable under whatever guise a mining nation chooses. The profits must flow.
I guess that depends on what you consider "weather"
If I said "ground temperature", would it matter to the discussion?
60C (140F) was the Average temp in the triassic. With the amount of water in the air plus the carbon dioxide, I expect to see that in places a couple generations after I die...which is the time period I've referenced (political instability).
The highest ground temperature recorded was 201 degrees at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972, according to the National Park Service. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128. All types of bad things happen at that point. Water evaporates rapidly at 150, so who cares where the water comes from. It's gone or containers rupture as it turns gaseous. What temperature the air is, doesn't matter.
The survival of our technological civilization is very much uncertain. It has been since the nuclear age.
If someone wanted to take meaningful action, they would be sinking container ships. In aggregate, they contribute to more pollution (of all kinds), than most singular countries. Nobody is going to war over this, so it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, it's not healthy to pretend otherwise. The earth will survive, humans will survive, and maybe technological action will allow us to terraform the earth in a different or unexpected way (eg Snowpiercer).
This "debate" about what to do is always toothless and desperate and pointless until the death toll starts to mount. Even then, the wealthy will make the same old arguments about irresponsibility and willful ignorance of those with nothing, blaming the victims, which seems to work generation after generation...until finally we get multinational instability and with smaller populations, some semblance of change too late (eg states of the USSR) to recover from the devastation. What's the mini-state of lower california going to do about 150 degree weather and no water? Nothing.
I don't draw any "consequences", whatever that's supposed to mean. I have been following the article's claim and explaining it in simpler terms, because there was a misunderstanding of the claim. Who do you think Callender is? Not me. Talk to the guy making the claim about your explicit objections. His email is both in this thread and trivially available. I don't care that you object to the claims he makes. That isn't a debate I'm participating in (if you even read the article, or the thread). Your opinion makes no difference to me (a random guy on the internet who can read english). Good luck with whatever.
You continually make the grave error of framing the criticism as if I had proposed it. I am clarifying what is plainly stated in the article, by Callender, but somehow has escaped the narrow focus of individuals like yourself.
> It doesn't make any sense, they aren't equal, they aren't proportional.
That's not relevant. You increase one, you increase the other. [1]The equality symbol is not a literal equality. In a macro sense, it's a relationship that is directly correlated as opposed to equal in any sort of specific calculus.
> The first error is that at some point you use that the volume is "equal" (proportional?) to the entropy, but this relation is wrong.
You missed the point, which was initially:
> Here’s another way in which the analogy falls flat.
> So what do we make of all those thermodynamic relations that include volume, like Boyle’s law
Callendar was making his core argument that the entropy of a black hole is not expressed as a function of volume in one sense - because there's an assumption of quantum mechanics that take over, as you say it's "wrong" following the unproven "black hole thermodynamics" models ... but in another sense (Bekenstein–Hawking) there is a paper describing how surface area is a function of entropy. So this looks like a dichotomy since the surface area (which can tell you the entropy) can tell you the volume of a sphere, but volume of a black hole sphere isn't used to correlate to the entropy...so there's a dichotomy that is related to breaking laws (equivalence doesn't mean anything and it's all nonsense). Basically there's an assumption that beyond the event horizon we assume that the rules of physics break down into something new, although the black holes (theoretically per Bekenstein–Hawking) exhibit what a classical physicist would expect. Why not treat the black hole as if it has entropy as per the classical physics models, since it exhibits that quality already and see what insights that yields, rather than a whole new branch of thermodynamics that are necessarily exotic theory?
> now you are removing and exponent, not a multiplicative constant
See [1]
I have rephrased the position and I think maybe you should have a talk with the originator ([email protected]) if you are still confused.
systemd wasn't necessary for init when you ignore Poettering's binaries which broke with common interfaces (now there are more, sigh). It's worse from a maintenance standpoint, for init. It's quite sane for a daemon management system. It just happened to combine a bunch of systems into one and now we're stuck with it.
It seems incredibly self-defeating, to quit over a lack of CODE REVIEW at any point in someone's career.
Hiring someone just to review your code is not a sane business decision, so you might want to think about how you overvalued that aspect. I would be very surprised if someone could make a business out of 3rd party code reviews, but stranger things have happened.
> No. It is posible to define the entropy of an object that has no internal indivisible parts, for example a black hole
How? If there is no system of parts, there is no entropy. I'm not sure why you have a "black hole" as an example, when you talk about the entropy of a black hole afterward and it's has not been concluded that black holes violate the second law.
You have failed to give an example and I think it's important to at least clarify your statement.
> First, Boyle's law is a law for ideal gases (that can be applied somewhat correctly to real gases). It can't be applied to solids, it can't be applied to liquids, it can't be applied to a photon gas, it can't be applied to black holes.
He didn't say that Boyle's law applied to black holes. He was expounding on the initial point you objected on. If you have a system of parts, it has a volume.
> Trying to apply it to black holes shows a completely lack of understanding of the subject.
You're being disingenuous by not even attempting to understand the assertion and then attacking every logical conclusion as if that means something. He has an understanding, even if you think it's wrong.
> Is volume, which is length times area, really length times entropy?
To your first point, it's semantics when you drop the constants. This isn't some obscure way of speaking and he uses it generously.
To your second point, he didn't.
This was a generalization of the concept expanded to how you calculate the event horizon of a black hole. A sphere's surface area can be calculated from the length of the radius (ie A=4πr2).
So the interpretation is volume = Area x 1/length or Area x Length (ie radius) when dealing with the variants.
A x c^3 / 4Għ = Entropy (Bekenstein–Hawking formula) and dropping all the invariants (A = E) we get
Area = Entropy
So the volume of a black hole (given it has entropy) could be the volume of the black hole (Area x Length) = Entropy and since we can get area from Length, we can drop the invariants and we get Length = Entropy with constants and invariant proportions.
> UBI is especially a terrible idea if you don't want people like Gates and Torvalds and Stallman to emerge naturally from an environment that enabled and fostered their genius every step of the way.
The Pareto principle applies, regardless of UBI. High performers will emerge naturally, regardless of the system. Manipulation of systems is an element of their prominence.
All these issues were at the forefront of the "discussions". The strategy to upsell technological improvements to struggling schools, was a simple way to by pass skepticism. Might as well try something new?
I don't remember specific "Powerful Educators" looking to boost student scores, via a massive monetary investment, but someone had to sign off. There were a few newsworthy failures and no demonstrable good...although it's a little early to tell. I found that my early exposure to computers when I was six, led in to my current career. So there may not be any conclusions for decades.
Other proponents included vendors like Apple (iPads for everyone in a Los Angeles school, lol) and politicians, who were either bribed or philosophically sold (if there's a difference). Again, this wasn't a scientific decision and one-off school trials are VERY difficult to get past entrenched interests like regulators and unions via equivalence challenges (ie if it's good enough for 1 school it's good enough for all, right? Oh so you're experimenting on these kids but not these?).
> 2. It's no(t) going to be easy
> Not at all
Self righteous nonsense.
It does matter. I would suggest, that it would be compelling to stop with the deterministic statements that are equivocations to fit your own narrative. What "less" means or what "starvation" means, is information that would be helpful. Given the multiple vectors that compose the general term "nutrition", we can be sure that less intake is more effective for losing weight. Then going on to say "pretty damn easy" is insulting. Most people aren't informed enough to make measured political decisions (many state initiative cycles in the US have shocking consequences), choosing what to eat and how much is an impracticable behavior.