gbrown

I think you misunderstood the OP.

> what cat you put on what as long as it sniffs within spec

As others have said, humidity makes an absolutely staggering difference.

I guess not, it says 180 on the back. Haven’t bothered to meter it under full load + charging though.

To be clear, I’m skeptical of pushing that much power over USBC.

Most of these gaming laptops likely don’t; they’re really not intended to be used for heavy gaming while on battery, because the battery can’t support the discharge rate needed by a high end GPU.

No thanks, I’ll keep my gaming laptop. Far more portable than a desktop, lots of compute overhead, and I can use it for games. At home it’s basically a desktop with external keyboard and monitors.

Oh yeah, and when it’s not being used with the dedicated graphics card, it gets 6-9 hours of battery life.

Oh, almost forgot - it’s lighter and about the same size as my 2012 13” MBP.

Macs were around when Microsoft was shut down over browser bundling. Perhaps duopoly or monopsony would be more precise terms.

... which is monopolistic rent-seeking, the like of which would have been shut down (and was) in the 90’s

> that's what a jury is for. Determining matters-of-fact from presented evidence.

That’s a pretty shockingly huge amount of faith you’re putting in a system with well documented shortcomings and biases, especially in a capital case with a black defendant.

Also, it seems frankly absurd to claim that the absence of the subject’s DNA on the murder weapon isn’t material to the decision to convict . It’s surprisingly hard not to get DNA on things, and the prosecution’s case appears not to have painted the defendant as some sort of methodical dexter-type.

Nobody has claimed that we should rely solely on DNA tests - that’s an absurd straw man. I think it’s even more absurd to defend this sequence of events in a capital case.

I didn’t see that in the article, but it’s still trivial to come up with reasonable doubts:

1. What does known/recognized mean? It’s perfectly possible for additional people to make a mistake in identification, especially if prompted by others. 2. Even if it was him, the crime wasn’t witnessed; he’d be agitated just by having seen the scene, I imagine

The big thing that adds to number 2 is that people often forget that reality is messier than neat stories. The defendant could very well have been doing something else illegal or furtive, and been agitated for that reason. They might have been involved in related criminal activity but not responsible for the actual attack. They might have had an innocent reason to be there and not expected to be believed. It may really not have been the suspect there to begin with.

That’s why the death penalty is bad, and it’s why eyewitness testimony is crap by itself, especially when it’s circumstantial.

The idea that eyewitness testimony obviates the need to examine hard evidence is absurd, given how poor people are at providing accurate eyewitness testimony. It’s not that DNA evidence is perfect, it’s that eyewitness testimony is hot garbage.

You got your answer: seriously, just do a cursory search about the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Which is an absurd statement on its face

It would still allow them to go after notorious people caught in the act where there really is no risk of confusion.

I mean, better to just ban it entirely, but I’d take culpability as a half measure.

Especially when the current result is based on eyewitness testimony, which is known to be crap.

Ah, duh. Not enough coffee.

Wouldn’t it be even faster to solve that problem conditionally? P(x >= a)P(y >= a | x >= a), since the conditional distribution is known and normal?

I’ll chime in as a long time vegetarian and former meat eater. The more realistic an imitation meat product is, the more it creeps me out. I lost the taste for meat, and I’m no longer used to the texture, and I find it disgusting.

Imagine my disappointment when all the restaurants in my area replaced their excellent vegetable burgers with things like Beyond and Impossible. To each their own, but it’s not just a rational issue of “is this an animal”, but also a subjective question of taste.

> That's insanely accurate.

This is misleading, and it's a misconception arising from the way that even physicists sometimes misspeak when talking about statistics. The "sigma" is a reference to a standard deviation, and we use it to measure evidence against a null hypothesis (which is generally defined relative to a model of some type). An 11 sigma result means that there's strong evidence against (hypothesis + model), not anything in absolute terms about "accuracy".

The meaning of such a result depends on the model being used; sometimes it's as simple and easy to defend as there being some sort of distribution with a mean which exists, and other times there's a complicated model which may itself be incorrect (producing significant results).

A human subjects determination isn’t really an approval, just a note that the research isn’t HSR, which it sounds like this wasn’t.

It’s been a long time, but having been a student working on a .NET project with no C# background, I’d say that for me it had less to do with the language than the discoverability of language features through Visual Studio.

It’s process based, so communication overhead is heavy and the infrastructure is minimal - if you’re distributing jobs which are individually large it works fine, but it can’t really be used to replace multithreading in a shared memory model.

> Good riddance.

Matter of preference I guess. I like to hope humanity will continue to learn things about and explore the broader universe rather than descent into feudal oppression (or some-such) in the ashes of our former civilization, but whatever.

> I don't know what you mean here - are you suggesting mass migration is inevitable?

At this point, that's the conclusion, yes. Climate impacts cause incredible destabilization for folks who rely more closely on their local environment (subsistence farmers and the global poor generally), and yes - disruption leads to mass migration.

> No, I mean spraying dust into the atmosphere to make it darker, so less sunlight comes in.

.... yes, an emergency uncontrolled experiment to solve some of the symptoms of a global problem. The global economy as it currently exists is geoengineering at an absolutely monumental scale.

Also, your reply is just incredibly baffling and frustrating, to the point that I half think you're not being serious. "Oh, we'll just spray some dust in the air and reflect more sunlight to solve the problem" - it's ludicrous, and nobody serious who studies geoengineering shares your attitude. I do believe we're going to have to engage in geoengineering, but it's not something to be taken lightly (and the experts who study it generally agree). Never mind the fact that even if your "solution" worked, it wouldn't solve things like ocean acidification, and would at best buy us some time... while having potentially unforeseen consequences on cancer rates, crop production, solar efficiency, etc.

> It's like people procrastinating their homework until 5 minutes before the deadline. Eventually they'll get it done.

Talk about unearned optimism. Not everything is a problem you can just go "fix".

I was talking about humanity as a whole, that's the "team" I'm worried about.

I made a more specific offer which received no response, meanwhile others have posted a number of research articles in this very thread.

Nothing I’ve said disagrees with the scientific consensus, so you could also just Google it rather than whining that someone on the internet isn’t holding your hand.

> If you're calling for action

I mean, I guess I am, but really I'm mostly relaying my understanding of the scientific consensus. I didn't make my comment in some sort of vacuum where readers are supposed to understand the last few decades of climate science just from my comment...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or if you're objecting to anything in particular, but being global carbon negative seems like a good start.

In terms of the definition of "advanced", the question I was answering was a subjective one. I think it's appropriate to use the term "advanced" for societies that can plan for their long term futures and continue to exist in stable equilibria in a given environment.

The second point isn't dependent on an external comparison.

That’s a very common line of reasoning which I would call magical thinking. Sure, there’s not really any risk that humans will go extinct in the near future, but our technological global civilization is much more fragile.

First, we look at the numbers concerning best case scenarios and see that a few degrees of warming is basically inevitable. Then, we ask how likely it is that well make rapid corrections now - personally I see little evidence of that, but I hope I’m wrong.

Next, try to remember that nothing in the world is disconnected. There’s a long scholarship concerning resource conflict and the destabilizing effects of mass migration. We don’t have a good track record of dealing with this, and I see little reason to expect us to become better at it soon.

The geoengineering idea is especially ludicrous to me - what we’re really talking about are emergency uncontrolled experiments to stave off a worse disaster. We’ve organized our entire global economic system around carbon - any geoengineering project has to not only compete with that, but actively remove more carbon from the atmosphere, which is a problem you’re underestimating the difficulty of.

Meanwhile, we need to worry about positive feedback cycles from various sources of methane, and the rest of the related threats to our biosphere (ocean acidification, wildfire, extreme weather).

To close, what has humanity done to convince you that we’ll 100% restructure our society to collaboratively solve this crisis “once it gets bad enough”?

One of the worst features of humanity is that we’ve proven ourselves incapable of planning more than a few years ahead. The fact that it takes acute crises to get us to take dramatic action is the problem: climate change and biosphere collapse take a while to start affecting people (especially the global rich), and once things get bad enough for mass action it’s probably too late to save our civilization.

I look at the insanity in how the US responds to small movements of people now and despair at the thought of how we’ll deal with simultaneous waves of millions of climate refugees alongside the predictable handful of domestic crises.

You’re probably right.