the other thing is you're looking at max distance with full recovery of all cores (despite the failure to recover the middle core). If you went fully expendable on all cores you'd get a LOT more payload a LOT further.
1,113 karma · joined December 17, 2013
It's a matter of where you place responsibility. It's like saying, "most websites aren't responsive, so naturally it makes sense to restrict the size of your browser window and leave space for other apps." But most would laugh at this and say it's the responsibility of the website/webapp to build a responsive layout. Why should we hold desktop applications to a different standard?
I completely that it is probably almost entirely windows-switchers who complain about it. I'd, obviously, self-aggrandizingly suggest it's because we've tasted something better. People don't complain about the taste of food they've never tasted ;)
The problem with this approach is I definitely do not need someone else making the decision of what is "optimal" for me. I've been using macOS for about as long as I used to use Windows now, and at this point, macOS seems to have largely abandoned the concept, which is great. Applications get either a full screen in their own isolated context, or option-click for a full-screen in a regular windowed context. The options now are a very windows-95/98 like: "either go completely full screen, or resize to whatever you like," which gives me full control of what I find optimal for any given application.
I get why this is aimed at SME teams, but even one-man-teams/freelancers would find this super handy. I got excited and signed up only to realize of the 11 apps available for integration, none were ones I used individually...
This doesn't mean it's the ideal solution to widespread consumer harm, but it's a tool we have at our disposal NOW instead of hypothetical legislation or regulation we might have at some point in the future...
I can't say whether or not the process is ideal, but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred. The bar for success can't always be directed at individuals; there are very positive societal level benefits that are small to individuals but huge to the whole ecosystem.
Diversity hiring practices may sometimes have a similar outcome, but I suspect the reality at most major employers is more often "these candidates are equivalent, give preference to the minority so our team can benefit from greater diversity." Because teams CAN have real tangible productivity/quality benefits from being diverse. It's not just black and white pure individual performance. By having a team with a broader set of backgrounds and experiences it may produce more thoughtful products/services for the diverse population of users who will ultimately consume them.
I won't ever argue that explicit programs like Affirmative Action and diversity hiring don't ever disadvantage any single individual - clearly, candidates get rejected. But I'm not going to join anyone's pity party over it either: there is real benefit for companies and society; in all cases, the party that gets rejected due to these policies is explicitly the party that statistically has the most opportunity in the ecosystem at large.
This is, I think, the key. We can all recognize that there are REAL, average differences in interests between men and women, DEFINITELY driven by society/culture, and maybe by biology/genetics... BUT, this has absolutely no correlation with performance. If fewer women are, on average, interested in software engineering, this absolutely does NOT mean that women software engineers are, on average, worse at their jobs.
The error so many "Team-Damore" men make is that they zealously stand behind the argument that "Better-performing men are being overlooked in favor of worse-performing women/minorities." And yet there is absolutely no way to possibly back up that claim: can anyone clearly demonstrate over the course of a statistically significant number of hirings that most of the women candidates who were hired were A)chosen from a candidate pool that included at least one equivalently-or-more talented man; and B) that those men who were not picked would have been both better performing as individuals and better employees for the team/company as a whole? No. Nobody has shown this because it is, essentially, impossible to demonstrate. Citing studies of character traits or interests of men and women "on average" does absolutely nothing to support claims A and B. And so all these men end up doing is simply implying: "well, I BELIEVE that all these real women coworkers of mine are worse than the hypothetical male candidate that wasn't hired... on average." Which is clearly an insult to your existing coworkers and toxic to your work environment.
OH YES.
I finally figured it out (see the other comment). Thanks for all the explaining, but this statement right here was the best.
Jones has 2 kids. Let A be "he has a girl" and B be "he has a boy born on tuesday." First thing I realized is A and B are NOT independent - this is key. P(A) includes the option of Jones having two girls. But if B is true, then the two girls option isn't on the table anymore, which affects P(A). Realizing this helped me start to better understand what kind of problem we're dealing with.
Second was realizing that P(A&B) is not at all the same thing as P(A|B) - the probability of A given B - when A and B aren't independent. The problem is asking for P(A|B), and by the rule of conditional probability: P(A|B) = P(A&B)/P(B)
P(B) can be solved for without too much fuss: solve 1-P(!B). For each kid you have 2 genders and 7 days of the week, or 2 * 7 = 14 options. 13 of those are not "Boy & Tuesday." So you have P(!B) is (13/14) * (13/14) = 169/196. P(B) = 1 - 169/196 = 27/196.
This leaves us trying to figure out P(A&B). I can't think of any other way to do it other than enumerating all options. We can take a shortcut and just look at all 27 possible scenarios where B is true. This seems to be the method of choice ;) As others have shown, we see that 14 of those satisfy A. So P(A&B) = 14/196.
Now, we can solve: P(A|B) = P(A&B)/P(B) = (14/196)/(27/196) = 14/27
So I'm now part of the "math checks out" club. Thanks for all the help people!
In this problem, as you've described it, we're enumerating "ways to assign gender and birth-day-of-week." We can do this because there are a countable number of "days of the week" (so we can map to the integers: 1-6) AND there is also a surjective function of [child] -> [day of the week they were born]. Am I right so far?
Now let's replace the set [1-6] with another countable set that also maintains the surjective function. We could say "day in the lunar cycle" (so ~27 options), or better "day of the year" (366 options), for example. Do we now need to consider the 23662366 ways to assign gender and birth-day-of-the-year? Take it further with whatever you want: "birth weight in milligrams" or "number of freckles" (as I previously suggested). All countable things that meet the surjective requirement.
This is starting to smell funny, right? So let's take a look at the math.
You say there are 2727 ways to configure day+gender, assuming independence for kid 1 (k1) and kid 2 (k2). This represents: (k1 gender options * k1 day of week options) * (k2 gender options * k2 day of week options). Right? I'm with you so far. Then you say "Of these possibilities, 27 are situations where one kid is a Tuesday boy." Hold up.
We are given two pieces of information: that one of the kids is a boy, and that particular boy was born on a Tuesday. Let's say the boy is k1 (this is an assignment of enumeration, not of "who came first;" just like Sunday = 1 does not mean that any kid born on a Sunday was born before every kid born on Monday = 2). So now the k1 options are [11] (boy, tuesday), and the total number of options are: [11] * [27] = 14. Of those 14, 7 are girl options. And we're back to a straight 50%.
So yes, I dispute the 27 number. It seems like it is arrived at by 2127, minus one for an apparent duplicate. But the 212*7 represents maintaining gender non-specificity for Tuesday boy, which should be incorrect, no?
> You have stated by fiat that certain things are irrelevant to certain other things...
Yes, but that's what "independent" means, right? You also stated that you're assuming these two things are independent, hence equiprobability. But independence is defined by P(A) = P(A|B). The probability of A is completely unaffected by B. Yet the outcome you arrive at is that P(A) IS affected by B, so the math presented is internally inconsistent.
What am I missing here? I'm fascinated by the uncertainty around this little problem.
The video is wrong. The problem reads: Jones has 2 kids. What is P(he has a girl) given that he has a boy born on a Tuesday. Consider, for a moment, what information we're getting from "boy born on a Tuesday." This is no different than "boy with red hair," or "boy with 5 freckles." The fact that the BOY was born on a tuesday does not change P(day of the week girl was born). Imagine the "boy with 5 freckles" case - let 5 freckles be denoted by F5, six freckles by F6 and so on... would the appropriate calculation include enumerating P(boy F5, boy Fn) for all n? No.
The "born on Tuesday" is irrelevant. Thus you have the following scenarios: - one kid is TuesdayBoy and the other is also a boy, born at any time - one kid is TuesdayBoy and the other is a girl, born at any time
Out of these options P(Jones has a girl) is a flat out 50%. There is no need to bring in concepts of "which was born first" or enumerate all possible days of the week each child could have been born.
Ok... now all the real smartypants here can correct me :)
Maybe I'm naive, but is this really different than today? Let's say Volvo implements some new kind of crumple-zone tech that drastically reduces fatalities in head on collisions, and patents the tech. Is this a big ethical problem?
I think the distinction here is that failure conditions in current vehicles are almost entirely human caused, so that new safety tech only matters after a human has already made a mistake. With autonomous cars, humans aren't making mistakes anymore, software is.
So essentially, we're looking at transitioning from protecting people from themselves, to protecting people from the machines. Which is something we FEEEL very differently about, even if the big picture isn't all that different. I mean, it's certainly something that changes the dynamics of liability, that just a matter of of who's paying the insurance bill.
Actually, this claim isn't based on any particulars of any scenario. It's simply a common human cognitive pattern. We will readily accept a familiar risk over an unfamiliar risk, even if the unfamiliar risk is less risky. We all readily jump in our cars every day despite the statistical fact that car-miles are quite deadly when compared with alternatives like bus-miles, train-miles, or plane-miles.
We're also likely to underestimate the magnitude of a risk when we have some perceived sense of control. Most drivers believe they are above average - so the risk of accidents is undervalued (due to ego). On planes, the risk of harm is overvalued because passengers have no sense of control in failure scenarios.
Like I said, we SHOULD understand how new tech can fail. We ALSO need to be careful about the biases with which we approach a new technology and aware of what we're expecting from it. We tend to overvalue the ways in which a new tech can introduce unfamiliar harm, while undervaluing the ways in which a new tech can remove familiar harm that's currently taken for granted (hence, undervalued). This presents policy/planning problems that can inhibit introduction of society-benefiting innovations. This does not mean that conservative approaches to deploying new tech are wrong - far from it: conservative adoption is responsible - it simply points out that our natural human biases tend to maintenance of the status quo.
My point is that, quite simply, we need to be as realistic and comprehensive in our establishment of the benefits a new tech could introduce, as well as the risks, in order to have a balanced perspective of its overall value.
The thing is, we're all MUCH more comfortable with the danger we're familiar with, than the danger we're unfamiliar with. Imagine if planes were just being introduced today - what are the edge case scenarios? What happens if there's mechanical failure at 30,000 feet? What happens if there's turbulence, lightning, birds, volcanic ash? What happens if the pilot is suicidal? What happens if... But we really don't care, do we? Air transport is familiar.
I'm not saying the dangers of new tech aren't important - they're very important; but keep in mind that while the idea of suffocating after a crash or malfunction in a hyperloop tube/tunnel will feel significantly more perilous than any misfortune that may befall you on a plane simply because a plane's risks are now familiar.
When we look back at how planes came of age, it seems like people were idiots to get on them (I recently read about the de Havilland Comet... it disintegrated in mid-air like 3 times in a year - don't quote me on that, but it was bad). Did it have to be so bad? No; of course some disasters could have been avoided with better oversight and accountability, but nonetheless, in the face of risk, the new tech provided such great advantages that its risks were accepted. It's fair to be aware of the way new tech can fail, but we shouldn't dismiss a tech simply because it can't "prevent human error" 100% of the time, or be perfectly immune to failure of any sort.
If we can introduce a new tech that has failure properties similar or better to current tech, but that adds significant value to everyday life, we're netting a very positive gain. We shouldn't let fear any failure prevent us from pursuing new tech, just like we shouldn't let fear of stubbing our toes prevent us from walking.
Reading the dissent, it basically says: when the person was convicted, they paid their fine, and at that point the fine money is now property of the state. The overturning of the original conviction doesn't, however, mean that the fine money also reverts ownership - he claims it is still in ownership by the state so the person cannot claim it is their property being deprived without due process under the 14th amendment.
He proposes that the "correct" way to get the money back is by invoking this other thing called "The Exoneration Act," NOT the 14th. The problem is the Exoneration Act isn't a law that says the state HAS to return funds, it's more of a specific appeal process for people to apply to get funds back. In other words, he recognizes there is no state law in Colorado that requires refunding these fees (nor does he offer a viable Federal one), but he claims there is a process available, at least.
In that sense, his dissent isn't really about him believing these people are NOT owed a refund in the moral sense of what is just, he's simply arguing that the court should not establish that refunds of costs/fines in cases where convictions are overturned is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It's kind of a pedantic dissent. And I still don't agree with him :)
Think about it this way, it's like malpractice insurance for doctors. So there should be malpractice insurance for states/courts - if a conviction is later overturned and the state is liable for the return of property, it gets paid out by insurance.
Wait... but ISPs CAN charge consumers for faster speeds. There are most definitely price/speed tiers of service. Net neutrality was about not allowing an ISP to artificially throttle the speed of individual services going over their pipes, not about throttling total connection speed for an end user based on price.
The complexity seems to be that ISPs have 2 customers - end consumers, and content owners (to keep it simple). Comparisons to UPS aren't accurate because UPS contracts with ONE party - the shipper - for service. ISPs are contracting with both ends, and unless one side is neutral, they will be allowed to sell one thing but not provide it arbitrarily because some other party didn't also pay up. I can pay Comcast for gigabit access, but it isn't required to provide it to me at all because it can throttle any service it wishes. It's contract with me is purely to the curb.
Imagine this scenario: I pay for access to a toll road that runs for a few miles through Houston, TX. However, because my final destination on my trip is Florida, and Florida doesn't pay the toll road operator a special fee, my car is magically restricted to 15 miles per hour. The toll road provider provider sold me a pass to access the road at full speed 75 mph, but can arbitrarily (and magically) limit my speed without notice or consent based on information that is really arbitrary to the toll road's existence: my final destination.
If you want better coffee, you'll get most out of your investment by buying fresh, whole beans and a grinder. The $15 blender-like grinders? Just fine for most. As long as your beans are fresh you'll have a vastly better cup of coffee. Grind up whole beans in like 30 seconds and stick it in your regular drip coffee machine and enjoy 10 minutes later. You've now improved your coffee game 100%.
Find a local roaster, or a roaster that will ship coffee within 24-48 hours after roasting. The reality is you can often get fresh, locally roasted coffee for the same price or less than what you can get national brands for like Starbucks, Pete's or premiums like Stumptown. If you're a 2-4 cup a day, expect to need 1.5 - 2 pounds (~1kilo) a month. That's probably ~ $30 in fresh beans. (depends on what a "cup" means to you in terms of volume, but 2 pounds of beans makes quite a bit of coffee). YMMV, but that's a conservative estimate.
After that, investment in fancy equipment is much more marginal so make investments that fit your needs.
The next big step up in quality comes from temperature (regular drip coffee machines just don't get hot enough for the best flavor extraction), but solutions to better temperature brewing usually require more direct attention at brew time. Pour-over is great and inexpensive, and even if you don't take the time to carefully poor for 5 minutes and just dump, you'll get decent results. The Aeropress is another option in the same price range that can be marginally faster and also has really good flavor results. I use one frequently.
Impatient? Well, if you're thinking of spending $2+/cup on instant (where you still have to heat the water for those that want hot coffee) because you're in such a hurry, consider what that will cost you in a year and look at investing in something like a Breville Barista Express* or independent burr grinder and espresso machine. You can grind beans and pull a shot in less than a minute. Drink Americanos (espresso + hot water to yield what is essentially a regular cup of coffee. Flavor IS different than drip/pour-over though. maybe taste at a good coffee shop first (not starbucks)) or drink cafe-au-lait (warm milk+espresso) or even just espresso shots. You'll be net positive in about a year if you're drinking around two cups a day. This route also ends up wasting less coffee than making a whole pot and never finishing it (to be fair, also a pro of Sudden/instant).
* This isn't a plug for Breville explicitly (I DO have one, though), it's just that the Breville is really the only machine of it's type on the market (a grinder and true-espresso machine in one housing, not a super-automatic like the Jura). You CAN get great (maybe better) results with separate grinder and espresso units that have better qualities independently, but you won't necessarily be saving money. Imho, never buy a super-automatic.
You can easily spend ridiculous money on coffee and equipment. For most people, it's not worth it unless you want coffee to be your other hobby, (or, "snobby" as I'd probably call it). For me, it's just sourcing fresh beans at ~$20-$30/month and that gets me most 90% of my enjoyment for my multiple daily cups of coffee. I enjoy my Aeropress, Chemex and espresso machine, but they'd be useless without good, fresh beans.
That said, I really do like the concept. It's literal reality TV. Very cool.
Unfortunately details are sparse on their incredibly annoying, scroll-hijacking marketing site. But it seems to be a simple enough, plug-and-play mesh network setup, and the industrial design is quite nice. I think Ubnt just doesn't have the marketing machine needed to really push it in the consumer space.
It really seems like this should get more attention: Every voting system is flawed. You cannot design a voting system that will, in every possible case, be "fair."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
That aside, that's not really the point at hand. The hypothesis is that there is still a value desert between smartphone cameras and DSLRs that isn't adequately filled by traditional point-and-shoots. And perhaps, Kodak could uncover some by pairing a pocket space computer with a data connection and a better lens (think about what Nokia put on their smartphonecamera) but dropping the phone requirement. This Ektra isn't it, obviously, but it might be a step in that direction.