crznp

Their fuels burn the same as conventional fuels (that seems to be the point). The fuel needs carbon to have the right properties and when you burn it, the carbon atoms have to go somewhere. CO2 is the best option, carbon monoxide and soot are worse.

It sounds like the change is not how it burns, but how the feedstocks are generated. If the carbon is being pulled from the air (instead of the ground) at the start, then the overall process can be "low life-cycle carbon emissions relative to fuels from crude oil" (from the bioforming link).

The puddle being in a hole implies a world outside of the hole. If the puddle has no means to perceive the outside world except a careful inspection of its own bounds, isn't that an interesting mystery?

The Surgeon General tweeted [0]:

> Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus

The CDC's main page had much more nuanced advice (as of late March 2020) [1]:

> Wear a facemask if you are sick... If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.

I agree that the distrust that we are currently seeing has many different sources. It is hard to have consistency when many different organizations are communicating their own messages based on different views of the problem. Even if you could fix that messaging, it would not have addressed the issue of deliberate disinformation.

However, statements like that tweet from the Surgeon General were indefensible based on evidence and clearly damaging to public discourse. Not to mention being nonsense: why would we prioritize masks for health care providers if they weren't effective?

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20200302023223/https://twitter.c... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200325234207/https://www.cdc.g...

Well put, though one nitpick: the three body problem is solved. It illustrates another case: even if a solution is known, it might not be practical.

https://www.math.uvic.ca/faculty/diacu/diacuNbody.pdf

It isn't necessarily in the bylaws, it comes with being a director of a Delaware corporation.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/10/directors-fiducia...

Removing the mods for a difference of opinion doesn't sound like a "free speech" position.

Expanding the geographic range for Waymo is straightforward: do the same thing in a new place (plus new hurdles like snow, but that isn't currently the limitation to growth).

It isn't clear how Tesla goes from "FSD" to "full automation". They are working on the "draw the rest of the owl" step.

The world made it through the cold war without major disaster, but it is easy to imagine history taking a different path, so I don't think that this is a comforting comparison.

Also, nuclear weapons can't be used 'a little bit' but killer robots can be -- it is much less clear where we draw the line. It seems likely that their use will be normalized/entrenched before we figure that out.

Though I hope that you're right.

It seems to me that the basic problem is that binary trees are the wrong data type. For instance, you can transform the tree to balance it:

    p1 AND (p2 AND (p3 AND notp4)) -> (p1 AND p2) AND (p3 AND notp4)

But the abstraction is specifying the order of operations unnecessarily. Using general trees, I think you avoid the need to transform the order of operations and "NOT" doesn't have to be a special case.

    ALL (p1 p2 p3 NOT(p4))

Is there any reason to choose binary trees for this? (Other than inertia).

This comment only uses the ten hundred most used words and "xkcd" to give back love.

Writing that uses such a small set of words will probably be easy to make smaller when you save it. And for young students, it might help to have clear, simple writing because they don't have to learn new words too.

It might be too simple for older students (or people here). I would like to be able to name new ideas, and it sounds better if I don't have to use the same words over and over. The idea is the same, just relaxed a little bit. Give it a try, it makes you think about writing in a different way.

https://splasho.com/upgoer5/

I believe it, but what were they trying to optimize?

If all of their changes are focused on near-term bottom line, is it really surprising if that comes at the expense of customer/employee satisfaction and brand reputation?

If you are genuinely curious, you might try this book [1].

On the other hand, if you were genuinely curious, you could have figured out who Vandana Shiva was.

[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128176740/inequality-...

Title says unit tests. But to GP's point, it isn't really automatic, the developer still decides what to test. It is transforming REPL logs, not generating tests based directly on the code (which isn't useful in my experience).

To be honest, my development REPL logs have a lot of junk, so it would be extra work to write a clean one, and then make the right assertion (maybe I was looking for "even number" not "exactly 132"). Lisp-y REPLs are friendlier than some, but it would be cool to associate it with something like a notebook where it is easier to update imports/mocks/etc out of order. Cool idea though.

A solar shade would also be a solar sail -- it could maneuver by changing its shape to catch the solar wind differently. It would still need to station-keep (perhaps even more because of fluctuations in solar wind), but it wouldn't need to use propellant.

What things in particular?

Alternately: User-agents changing the behavior of well-written sites without user knowledge is almost always a bad thing.

Giving the user more control is great: things like reader mode, option to disable auto-play video or options to kill resource-intensive scripts. This isn't a tool for the user, it is the browser's behavior whether the user wants it or not.

If autocomplete=off is user-hostile, then it should be changed in the spec. The spec gives a few use cases (site has its own autocomplete, field is sensitive information that shouldn't be cached, field is a one-time key). If autocomplete=off is removed, how would those cases be handled?

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/form-control-infrastr...

> So I'm angry, and I can't recommend Signal to others for this reason. And the devs just don't seem to care.

Could have just been: "I can't recommend Signal to others for this reason."

I read the "Please be nice" post as a request to leave out the part about being angry or assuming that the devs don't care. It is understandable that you feel that way, but saying so doesn't fix your issue. It does make other people feel bad.

If "almost everyone" fails some expectation, is the problem with the people or the expectation?

The average user might not be super invested in the application, they just know that something doesn't work, which is frustrating. If their only outlet for that is a bug report, the developers get overwhelmed with bad bug reports and users get the expectation that the developer is going to fix all their problems for them.

If the outlet is a feedback form instead, maybe the user can feel listened to in a small way and move on. The developer doesn't have to sift through a bunch of issues, they can just follow up if there seem to be any hot-spots that are causing a lot of frustration.

I agree that it is better when it can be used, but I don't think it can always be used (eg: long lived memory, resources with overlapping but distinct lifetimes, legacy code).

So it adds a new way to misinterpret the code: is cleanup deferred or not?

> Either pilot can override MCAS commands to control the stabilizer by using the electric stabilizer trim switches on the control wheel. Additionally, flightcrews can set the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches on the center control stand to CUTOUT to stop and disable MCAS.

So pilots would be able to override MCAS (and they could before, though it was less explicit). They can't routinely override it at take-off or landing because 737 MAX without MCAS is non-compliant and:

> when MCAS and Speed Trim are disabled, SPEED TRIM FAIL is annunciated and a maintenance item is recorded.

e: Also, there were changes for when/how MCAS is in effect

Do you have any examples of programs that run well on Oracle JDK but not on OpenJDK?

Rather: fake youtube followers have a negative ROI.

Perhaps because they don't matter, but perhaps because they are more difficult to create or Google is better at spotting fakes.

You could still make the phone a primary device and allow it to perform the key agreement and pass control off with a QR code, but that is complicated and leaves open the question of who is allowed in this conference.

So perhaps you just give up on persistent identity: just have an unencrypted waiting room, the organizer and their delegates can approve people in the waiting room to enter the encrypted conference.

var a=NaN, b=1; a<b ? -1 : (a>b ? 1 : 0); // 0

var a="a", b=1; a<b ? -1 : (a>b ? 1 : 0); // 0

The switch and if statements would return undefined in these cases. Or others threw an error if none of the conditions matched, that would work too.

They linked the results [1] (starts on page 402). 30% "Strongly support" and 25% "Somewhat support" so the net support is 55%. And among Republicans, the net support is 31%, I don't know what you mean by 'negative percentage points'.

[1] https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/200310... (pdf)

Refusing to drive could work when starting out, but handling changing conditions on the road is harder.

A scaled request for the driver to take over as conditions get worse can train the driver not to use the self-driving system in adverse conditions, so hopefully it wouldn't have to refuse (unless the driver is negligent).

Getting back to the OP, Musk may have a point: people are terrible at evaluating risk for low-probability/high-consequence events like a car accident, so LIDAR might lose in the market even if it is worth it. But if there were standards for when the car asked the driver to take over and LIDAR is able to pester its drivers less often because it is more capable, then perhaps LIDAR can justify its place in the market.

IntelliJ?

But I agree: HTML/CSS/JS is far easier (eg: threading) and generally results in a more polished experience.

On HTTP/2, Google says [1]:

> all existing applications can be delivered without modification....

> The only observable differences will be improved performance and availability of new capabilities...

Lucidcharts may have an inadequate backend, but it wasn't a problem until they moved to HTTP/2, so those statements weren't true for them. For anyone else rolling out HTTP/2, that is worth bearing in mind.

[1]: https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/h...

In Java, I can assume that other developers took an OO approach, even if that isn't ideal. In Clojure, I can assume that they took a functional approach. In Scala, it is hard to be sure.

So, is the increased expressiveness worth the decreased predictability? For one developer, it probably is worth it. For a large team distributed over space and time, it probably isn't, even if everyone is comfortable with each individual paradigm.

It looks like the data is being pulled from Townhall, which has the same issue [1]. Wikipedia has seems to have the data [2], though the percentages are a little different (51.3% for Trump rather than 52.9%). Perhaps it is wrong because not all land in Alaska is part of a borough, Eg: Nome is listed separately, but it is just a census area.

Interesting that it seems to have the reverse trend -- Anchorage and Fairbanks went for Trump while much of the unorganized borough went to Clinton.

[1] - https://townhall.com/election/2016/president/ak/county [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...