>Ultimately I think there are a lot of industries that a degree requirement is a good thing (I really want my doctor to actually have an MD), a lot of industries where certification is sufficient .
Why only Doctors? Because human lives are involved? I assume by the same logic, Civil Engineers also need to have a degree (they build bridges and other life critical infrastructure)
There may be thousands of software products that are also life critical. Not just the obvious ones like some medical hardware control program/firmware, Air traffic control programs, Flight onboard software Self-driving car auto-pilot software etc. So I assume those would require a qualified software engineer with a degree.
But there may even be others that may not be so obvious immediately.
I have a degree and not been on the other side (not having a degree) and so cannot identify with any injustice that is perceived by folks on other side. I can certainly see somewhat equivalent when it comes to bachelors degree vs Masters/PHD as I don't have those. So I am not sure where the lines should be drawn to make it fair to everyone.
Facebooks customers are the ad buyers. I and my data is the product. Mark says I should have control over which of my personal data is shared to whom.
1) But can I control which of my behavioral data (ad clicks, etc) can be collected and used by facebook and provided to the ad buyers? Can I say nothing be collected , even in anonymized manner?
2) Primary selling point to ad buyers is facebook provides them ability to do targeted advertisement. Granted over time facebook has limited discriminatory targeting (Race based, political inclination based) etc to comply with anti-discrimination laws. But as a user, do I have control over how I can be classified, what legal category labels facebook can apply on me and my data? And whether I want to be classified into any category at all ?
Goods have intrinsic value...currencies don't. They are just trusted (and backed by a public trusted entity, usually government, but need not be) stores to 'hold' transferred 'value' that lubricates an otherwise raw barter exchange economy.
Raw barter economy:
I provide service to someone in exchange for food/clothes
Currency lubricated economy:
I provide service to someone. They give me 'token(s)' equivalent to value of my service. I use the token(s) to buy what I want from someone else.
The token(s) need to be trustable, not-easily-duplicatable, should be equal to the total sum of values of all services + goods that exist in the society/economy. The token(s) needn't have any intrinsic value themselves other than the properties mentioned (probably more than the listed ones, but I listed basic ones)
Punish/hurt the company with punitive damages, big enough to discourage negligent behavior - 100% on this
Compensate the victims with amount equivalent to their loss(physical) + some decent compensation for emotional losses etc. But that need not be 30X of their actual loss. May be 2x or 3x. The rest of the punitive damages should be awarded to the regulatory body that can improve their oversight, or to a public research body that works on fire safety alarms/products etc for example, or to a public cause/charity that helps fire hazard victims or to a publicly funded affordable fire hazard insurance body etc. I see no need to award all the punitive damages to a single victim. This only encourages the 'sue first and for anything' behavior of the society.
iPad or other tablet with facetime or skype. Open a chat session, ask parents to point camera at laptop screen. Then guide them thru steps (click on this, click on that etc). Bit more time (and patience) intensive but has the side effect of making parents/relatives more familiar with doing new things on the computer as well as satisfaction of some level of self sufficiency :) . Only useful for this type of remote support use cases only though.
For me both problem 2 and problem 3 should also be 1/2 .
The variances are due to how people interpret the outcome space .
It is right that probability = favaroble out comes / total possible outcomes.
In problem 2, in my opinion the possible outcomes are not how it was suggested in the post but as below. When a family has 2 kids , the below are the only possible outcomes
1) Potential Outcome 1: Both are boys
2) Potential Outcome 2: One boy and one girl
3) Potential outcome 3: Both are girls
The 3rd one is not a legal potential outcome in our particular constraint of problem 2, since problem #2 statement already states 'at least one is a boy'
So Total possible legal outcomes = 2
Favorable out comes for our event (both boys) = 1
So probability for Problem 2 = 1/2
Similarly for problem #3, I think the post unnecessarily complicates the calculation of problem space. The fact that 'Tuesday' is mentioned is irrelevant in my opinon, if you state the problem #3 in a different way that is more clearly understood.
There are 14 baskets labelled as follows "Sunday Boy", "Sunday Girl", "Monday Boy", "Monday Girl",....."Saturday Boy", "Saturday Girl". A stork came and dropped 2 babies. One baby was dropped in "Tuesday Boy" basket. What is the probability that both are boys?
Now the total outcomes and favarable outcomes are :
Total possible outcomes = Number of ways second baby could have been dropped = 14 possible baskets = 14
Favorable outcomes = second baby dropped in 'boy' basket = 7 possible baskets = 7
The small metallic type suitcase/box may have been a perfect container
1) To cram in all the ugly looking wires inside while the outer appearance of the product looks polished
2) Nice platform to tether the circuit boards etc to keep them in place
3) Doubles up as a carry box to move around his project and display/show to friends , teachers etc
On the flip side
1) There is subtle difference between timers vs clocks
2) Doesn't look anything like a traditional clock, but more like a James Bondish suitcase/gadget, especially if I just saw the picture of the device alone with no other context given to me.
Having said that, , I am in no way defending the action of police or the school.
What is needed was context, ability to do minimum analysis and common sense. And the teachers, school administration, police had plenty of that. It could have been a simple matter of explaining to the kid , while his zeal is appreciated, to notify his teachers in advance in future, to make sure his projects don't disturb the class, and to encourage more such robotic/electronic projects for science fairs etc (appropriate time and place for everything)
Also unfortunately, due to the current security song and dance every where, kids (and adults too) have to be taught about being sensitive to fear and perceptions of others timing/location/context . Even kids may have to be explained to be sensitive to such things.
May be all or some involved may be bigoted towards the muslim community as the media or comments suggest and that may have played a role in the escalation.
And may be some(or all) weren't. But generally concerned about past incidents related to school environments and violence in schools (Shootings etc). Some of these were perpetrated by fellow students, which can't be discounted in playing into the fears of those involved in this incident.
We can't say for sure , religion/color was the sole motivation. Some past violent incidents were perpetrated by white kids/persons. So if it were a white kid in this situation, can we absolutely discount 100% that similar amount of concern might have not been triggered in the class teacher's mind, or the administration or police.
The point is, reasonable benefit of doubt can be given to the teacher, admin, police for going into a heightened/alert mode.
But what cannot be justified is the failure in subsequent analysis and diffusion of the tension at every level. The teacher could have clarified the intention, and diffused the tension and not escalated it after establishing facts (and the awareness of the enthusiasm and character of a kid of their own class that they should be familiar with). Or the next level, school security/admin could have diffused and de-escalated the situation. Or the police could have done that.
But, no, escalation seems to be a one way process for authority/admin/police these days. What happened to 'peace keeping' part of their job ?
You can still answer 'no' without violating the law , if you rearrange the headline a bit without changing its meaning at all.
Will your grandkids run out of oxygen to breathe by 2100?
No.
I agree with the parent poster that the participant's awareness of whether the host acted randomly or made an informed decision is critical for the participant to decide whether set B's 2/3 probability shifted/concentrated into the one unopened door in set B or whether set B's overall probability got reduced.
I can illustrate this with a variation to demonstrate that revealing a goat in the door is not that important compared to whether the host knowingly opened that door. For example, say the host blasted the door (and it's contents) instead of opening and revealing what's inside. Now it becomes critical to know whether the host randomly blasted it or whether it is guaranteed that he would never blast a door with car inside it. That knowledge rather than the 'reveal' of what's inside the door he selected (to open or blast) is what influences my decision to recalculate or keep the probability of set B.
OP points out that warp 1 is supposedly speed of light and yet some how warp 9 being 1000 light years per year is somehow not impressive enough. I reversed the calculation to point out that warp 9 = 1000 times speed of light. And want to know what part of it is not impressive enough or misleading.
And by the way OP did not directly point out that warp 9 is 1000 times speed of light and my intention was to point that out to make sure they did not get confused by their own calculation which might have led to their underwhelming impression.
Seeing OP's response to one of the comments below (warp 9 factor = 834 ) validates my assumption that OP was lost in his own calculations for a moment. Only they can confirm.
I could say the same about mechanical or electronics of a vehicle
"I've always been leery of vehicles. They run on mechanical parts. Mechanical parts are only as good as the mechanical engineer that designed them and the quality of material. What if a newly introduced part was not well tested and developed a stress failure due to design or material deficiency. Be it in the middle of rush hour traffic, or hurling down the highway at 70mph? How do we account for the issue of buggy mechanical parts or electronics "
See how that works? Everything other than your own two legs is man made. It's just the level of maturity of the process and testing and time that eventually gives you enough confidence to start trusting any human made device, whether it is software, mechanical, electric, electronic etc...
What part of "2.74 light years per day" seems low?
Assuming your break down to the day level is right, to expand, it means at warp 9 voyager is capable of covering a distance of 2.74 light years in 1 day. That means the distance that light could travel in 2.74 years, Voyager could cover in 1 day. So warp 9 = 2.74 x 365 x speed of light =~ 1000 times speed of light.
So warp 1 = speed of light.
warp 9 = 1000 times speed of light.
which does not seem 'low' to me.
I am not vagrant user... but what role can it play when my dev laptop is ubuntu for eg? Does it become redundant layer if all my virtualization,configuration and deployment needs are met by docker and dockerfile?
It is messy because VM layer is unnecessary. If OSX had native support for containers or if ur dev laptop was linux then all you had to do was use docker directly with dockerfile. That is the purpose of docker. To make usage of container virtualization easy and standardized and to be used directly on baremetal. All the convolutions introduced by the VM virtualization will evaporate as container support becomes standard across all OS.
Why only Doctors? Because human lives are involved? I assume by the same logic, Civil Engineers also need to have a degree (they build bridges and other life critical infrastructure)
There may be thousands of software products that are also life critical. Not just the obvious ones like some medical hardware control program/firmware, Air traffic control programs, Flight onboard software Self-driving car auto-pilot software etc. So I assume those would require a qualified software engineer with a degree.
But there may even be others that may not be so obvious immediately.
I have a degree and not been on the other side (not having a degree) and so cannot identify with any injustice that is perceived by folks on other side. I can certainly see somewhat equivalent when it comes to bachelors degree vs Masters/PHD as I don't have those. So I am not sure where the lines should be drawn to make it fair to everyone.