The Evaporative Cooling Effect(blog.bumblebeelabs.com)
blog.bumblebeelabs.com
The Evaporative Cooling Effect
http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-evaporative-cooling-effect/#storycontent
5 comments
Last time this was posted <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1777665>, Eliezer linked to a related article worth reading as well: Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/
I was hoping for some thermodynamics awesomeness.
I agree.
Here's one in lieu - the stillsuits in "Dune" could not work. They use evaporative cooling ("Perspiration passes through it, having cooled the body") but turning the evaporated water back into a liquid - which is condensative warming - requires more energy than was needed to cool the person in the first place.
Here's one in lieu - the stillsuits in "Dune" could not work. They use evaporative cooling ("Perspiration passes through it, having cooled the body") but turning the evaporated water back into a liquid - which is condensative warming - requires more energy than was needed to cool the person in the first place.
They could work assuming you had both an energy source and a heat dump. For example the ISS could use a dehumidifier to collect sweat and process it because it has large solar panels and can dump heat to space. However, as described they are not going to work.
Stillsuits have a layer of maxwelldemonium.
[deleted]
For that, you might want to visit the Perimeter Institute archive to see Bill Phillips' lecture Time and Einstein in the 20th Century: The Coolest Stuff in the Universe[1].
[1] http://pirsa.org/08060002/
[1] http://pirsa.org/08060002/
Perhaps all this time spent worrying about getting into the inner sanctum would be better repurposed making cool shit? Making smalltalk with the Director of Design at Facebook isn't an end in itself.
This is one of the things which annoys me most about a certain strain of SF startup culture: too much worrying that there's a holier of holies you haven't managed to get into yet (Davos, seriously?) and not enough time nose down on change-the-world problems.
This is one of the things which annoys me most about a certain strain of SF startup culture: too much worrying that there's a holier of holies you haven't managed to get into yet (Davos, seriously?) and not enough time nose down on change-the-world problems.
Facebook is not a community, it's a medium of communication. A sixth of all humanity is not a very useful group for social purposes.
Calling it a community with warrens doesn't seem like a useful description, to me.
Calling it a community with warrens doesn't seem like a useful description, to me.
Isn't Facebook more of a paradoxical phenomenon? You go to Facebook to use Facebook to communicate with people on Facebook. My point being that it's both a community and a medium of communication at the same time?
You go on Hacker News to use hacker news to communicate with other users of Hacker News.
This also works for every other website in existence, I think.
This also works for every other website in existence, I think.
Hacker news is somewhat more of a community though, because it's a group based on common interests.
Facebook is supposed to be for everyone, so it's not really a group at all.
Facebook is supposed to be for everyone, so it's not really a group at all.
Something I think the OP doesn't get is that this delineation into high and low quality people isn't useful anymore. It was, in a time when books had to be copied by hand and almost everyone was illiterate, and when long-standing reputations (built over centuries, carried through blood) mattered because information traveled at 20 miles per day (if that) but that ended a few centuries ago. Ideas and contributions matter a lot more.
For example, Davos and the Bilderberg Group are relics of a feudal era that humanity is evolving out of. They don't belong in this century.
In fact, one of the most disappointing things about getting rich for a lot of people is realizing that "rich people" actually aren't more interesting, more creative, more intelligent, or even more energetic than people in general. Few people will admit as much, but a lot of the desire behind social climbing is the belief that "better" people hang out behind those closed doors. And yet, in reality the people don't get worse or better as you climb. The average quality stays (perhaps remarkably) the same.
The problem isn't, "How do we keep the hoi polloi out?" The whole point of the internet is that you can't. It's, "How do we keep the average quality of contribution high?" It shouldn't matter if those contributions come from a European prince or an African peasant. It's a big world and there are a lot of mind-bogglingly stupid rich, expensively-educated people, and an equally large number of very intelligent poor people with no formal education.
To prove that "high quality" people can produce low-quality content, just look at Autoadmit or some of the Wall Street-oriented career websites. These are some of the most educated people in the world, and yet the quality of content is very low. Or look at fucking UrbanBaby, which represents the average IQ among the Manhattan upper class as 82 and a third.
For example, Davos and the Bilderberg Group are relics of a feudal era that humanity is evolving out of. They don't belong in this century.
In fact, one of the most disappointing things about getting rich for a lot of people is realizing that "rich people" actually aren't more interesting, more creative, more intelligent, or even more energetic than people in general. Few people will admit as much, but a lot of the desire behind social climbing is the belief that "better" people hang out behind those closed doors. And yet, in reality the people don't get worse or better as you climb. The average quality stays (perhaps remarkably) the same.
The problem isn't, "How do we keep the hoi polloi out?" The whole point of the internet is that you can't. It's, "How do we keep the average quality of contribution high?" It shouldn't matter if those contributions come from a European prince or an African peasant. It's a big world and there are a lot of mind-bogglingly stupid rich, expensively-educated people, and an equally large number of very intelligent poor people with no formal education.
To prove that "high quality" people can produce low-quality content, just look at Autoadmit or some of the Wall Street-oriented career websites. These are some of the most educated people in the world, and yet the quality of content is very low. Or look at fucking UrbanBaby, which represents the average IQ among the Manhattan upper class as 82 and a third.
It's nothing to do with rich or poor, educated or not. It's all about the quality of the contributions. Some people produce consistently high quality contributions, and some people produce consistently low quality contributions. That's what's meant by high quality and low quality people.
You might be projecting. Where did you get the idea that high quality contributor means rich or educated? The author mentioned neither.