OrganicMSG

If society does not need or want something, there is an entire industry devoted to convincing society otherwise, that uses psychological and social modelling on vast and detailed databases of the targeted population.

Democratic systems these days are not followed, they are moulded.

So, what happens when you have lots of well funded Hari Seldons, each with a completely different idea of what the foundation should be?

Technically correct, if the ball of money is large enough.

Distributed battery storage is getting cheaper than upgrading the interconnects right now though. Never mind the generation, it is getting cheaper than the wire.

If they had pointed that out, it would have been included, and thereby pointed out.

My point is that it was omitted.

And that it seems dishonest to omit it when making a comparison with renewable against reactor designs yet to be tested while battery prices fall through the floor.

US Army at the Redstone arsenal in Alabama.

Whatever your position, this reads like a barely touched industry press release.

"Nuclear power is one of the few sources of clean energy that can reliably provide always-on power (unlike solar or wind)"

Ignoring renewable paired with storage when comparing capability with future reactor designs seems dishonest.

I should thank Michael Crichton for getting me in the habit of looking out for potential "Wet Streets Cause Rain" articles.

Or possibly, how problems with prediction may stem from autism.

You are likely to annoy many of your customers even further.

Including the word 'may' shifts the sentence from apologising for causing actual inconvenience, to apologising for causing a minor risk of possible inconvenience, which is not what you are trying to convey after selling someone something for a lot of money and then remotely breaking it at no notice.

In many customers, it is likely to elicit a response something along the lines of:

"Any inconvenience this may be causing? I'll give them may be causing. The fucking thing won't boot. May be fucking causing. I wasn't using the damn thing as a doorstop."

You ever sewn any? Some clothing is incredibly labour intensive.

I hereby invent the race classifier of tongue-dexterity. Society consists of those who can and cannot roll their tongue and there is a high priesthood of the folks who can bend their tongue into a 'W'. It is just as arbitrary and capricious, but has at least one benefit I can think of over classifying people by latitude adaptation.

Doing infrastructure piecemeal is surely the most expensive way of doing it. It should require more than a whim for a politician to put a halt to an infrastructure development or to screw with the brief half way through. Same goes with stuff like NASA. Things that take longer than a political campaign to plan and execute, should require a defined formal process to be followed in order to screw about with them.

So then you have to go to other people in that field and have them look at it. Sure, you have to take them on faith too, but a little bit less each time unless they all wildly disagree, and they can explain their reasoning to you in layman terms when you canvas their opinion. Now, none of this guarantees success, but it is a long way from trusting others to just do their work properly.

I'm saying I can invent races on the fly, then find genetic differences that would appear to back me up. Is like playing numerology with a large enough book, you can always find patterns. Finding patterns however doesn't mean that black and white as racial qualifiers are anything other than a highly inaccurate classification system that is used to align skin colour with social class, and which doesn't even fall within the gamut of actual skin tone. Is patently obvious where black and white came from as concepts, if you look through history rather than biology.

While I do not expect to win this argument on nomenclature within the next fifty years, I do hold out some hope over the next century.

edit - Also, am British, the use of a sarcasm tag is offensive to our people. Probably for genetic reasons.

To avoid the risk of this entirely predictable meta-discussion regarding a headline format, that has little to do with the readability of Medium, but was probably chosen to try and increase clickthrough rates?

I think it is called IBM.

OTOH, I quite like; "Make Tragedy Farce Again".

I'm reminded of the Russian proverb; "Trust, but verify".

A citation does generally mean that you hold a given paper with a certain level of trust, but that isn't the same as having trusted the people who wrote it to have done their job properly.

The trust in the paper could be because you trust the folk who wrote it to have gone and done their job properly, however the trust could also be from having actively gone and checked the working.

Best coder I know is fluent, as in he can code the solution as fast as most people can accurately describe the problem. He pretends to be a lot slower than he is however by very carefully managing the client milestones and coasts on 70 thousand UKP, doing roughly half an hour a day of actual work.

At which level in the sciences are you ever supposed to trust that your colleagues have done their work correctly? That sounds more like the opposite of what you are supposed to be doing.

By the way, it turns out people have been fucking all along and that there actually aren't any black or white people. Never were. Someone made the whole thing up and it got a wee bit out of hand. Thought you might like to know, as it might save you an awful lot of time and worry.

She's got grenades and blasters down, so I suspect she could work out where the pointy end goes.

Luke was never meant to enter. He was supposed to be the getaway pilot.

Lando, R2D2 and C3PO are supposed to break out Chewie, fetch Leia and Han, then all escape and get picked up by Luke.

Luke is just winging it after everybody missed the rendezvous, as Leia underestimated just how long Jabba and his entourage could wait silently behind a curtain.

The lightsaber was carried in by R2D2 as a backup weapon for Leia, who also came up with the plan.

Writing seems to have developed initially to keep track of favours.

Perhaps teach an expert system to automate selecting a flowchart on the fly for each user, that will accomplish a given set of requirements and also not be found in a search of the existing patent corpus. Don't forget to patent it though.

I've been reading through the text of the act, and while there is an exception allowing you to process data that has been made explicitly public by the person it relates to without asking them for permission, it seems to indicate that you still have to give them the ability to edit it later.

The simple logical answer to that is that it is clearly impossible to blacklist.

The more specific answer is:

git config --global user.name "Your Name Comes Here"

git config --global user.email you@yourdomain.example.com

Also, looking up, you can undo a rebase with reflog, so even editing commits with an interactive rebase may not be enough to purge a git repo of identifiable information that people have entered.

"Either they have the organizational capacity to handle private information properly, or they should not do it at all."

While I admire the intent here, in the world at large it seems that multinationals and governments fail at this one with monotonous regularity and Blanche's final line - 'Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers', has been adopted by the computer security industry as the unofficial motto.

How does this work out for Git repos and other things with encryption backed histories? If I run a software project and a developer wants an identifying section of a repo back-edited, do I have to edit and rebase the whole repo, and what does this do to the trust in a project that is based on a verifiable history?

Also, I can't help but notice that currently there is a hell of a lot of money being bet on immutable public ledgers.