Pro tip - don't take your health advice from news articles. Also, if the title is hyperbolic, pay extra non-attention to it.
43 karma · joined April 10, 2015
Every single UI and every single complete set of defaults has a fair number of things wrong with it. Instability, insecurity, lagging feature set, slow ui, ugly and non-intuitive ui, bad documentation, inconsistency everywhere. There is none that are good.
Trying to read that is like trying to learn an entire new language by reading a sentence in it. Way too many words to already understand what it's even defining (commutative ring, irreducible polynomials, UFDs, principle ideal, nozero prime ideal... and I'm not following why p divides ab in R... or even exactly what that means).
Searching youtube kahn academy and numberphile, but not turning up anything. exactly how high level is this?
I love it when my error is so simple that there isn't any question in my mind I missed something.
If so, considering that multiples of the same numbers are always the same, and all numbers that are prime are indivisible, the only way the conjecture could be false is if there were indivisible numbers that aren't prime. Definition inconsistency.
That's why I'm not a mathematician.
I listen to a lot of podcasts. My god, I just want a decent show that is NOT focused on web development. Is that so much to ask? Oh, and not ios/windows focused, 'cus then literally everything you talk about no longer applies to me. And not "a new language every week" because my god, you can't deep-delve into anything like that. Hell, not even javascript can be covered in an hour.
If you want to improve your brain, it's important to be healthy, I get that. But come on, the point of exercising is to be healthy. Beyond that no exercise is going to improve your brain directly if it doesn't actually use your brain. This whole movement makes me very skeptical.
Still though, the blade price alone makes the effort worth it. Plus I had a few solid months of a feeling of superior manliness, and the glory of using a shaving brush has yet to wear off in the last year and a half. How did I go years without using a shaving brush?
Dinosaurs? the best thing in the world. We don't have enough toys, books, and videos even available to us to satisfy. Toy tools? he's "fixing" everything. Usually with brute force. Toy pliers broke, so toy saw was tried and found to be a far superior tool for everything. It is a better hammer, better wedge, better saw, and better chisel than any other piece of plastic in his arsenal.
Then again, the level of intelligence is hilariously lacking. I mean, he's 3, what do you expect? Either way, you have to choose your activities carefully so that you can watch them without becoming a sleep-deprived under-stimulated zombie.
My first thought is that what you're worth is not what you want, and not according to your contribution to productivity. You're paid according to what you'll accept.
So you gotta wonder, if there starts to be a slight shortage of jobs, what do the different actors do? The middle manager and the employee... Well, as an employee you have less and less say, and you probably want to try to prove yourself and work harder or longer. Motivation is toward equal or higher hours than normal.
And the employer just wants to get the job done. They don't want to sift through MORE employees to do it. That means more training, more managing, and generally more hassle. Motivation is toward giving employees equal or more hours than normal.
The thing about life boundries though in biology is that the more you know the less it makes sense. All bacteria are technically a single species, as are Archaea. Virus's aren't considered alive at all, though they do evolve. Then there are asexual creatures entirely. I vaguely recall a lizard that has no real genetic diversity because they are all females that reproduce without any sex, and there are no males. So... they're not a species either, but are still reproducing. Biology is screwy.
Here's one of the multiple big problems. Learning that arguments are often not valid is an amazing insight! However, it says nothing about what what you SHOULD believe, relative to the information you have.
The wise choice is NOT to believe based on your ore-conceptions (ie ignoring the stronger arguments). Better arguments are better than worse arguments. mediocre evidence is better than better arguments. And better evidence is better than worse evidence. And since better evidence is not a guarantee, we measure it by the efforts to disprove them.
So, lets take an example: the conspiracies for the world trade center attack. First we have the official story which we more or less know. Well, some people know at least. Then we have the video Short Change, which goes through a couple hours describing all the points where the official story doesn't make sense. It talks about physics, and background deals, and molten this and that. A lot of interesting stuff. It raised a lot of questions. It didn't provide detailed or reliable evidence, so more research was needed. So i watched the rebuttle video, which was twice as long. They provided evidence, with citations, from experts in their respective fields.
The part that was convincing wasn't "oh, this argument is right, this one is wrong". The part that is convincing is that I can now say "well, according to so and so, this is explained, and so is this, and so is this, and so is this, and so is this" down the line. Now, in this case there was basically nothing left at the end of the argument, but even if there was then I consider the sources. One source says xyz is still unexplained, but that source is now known for making things up and/or not knowing what they're talking about. The other source cites dozens of experts with detailed explanations, photo evidence, clear walkthroughs.
It's not "oh, this argument is better" anymore. Now it's "well, this one literally has no reason to believe it, but this one has a great deal of support."
If you try to replicate a fact, you'll succeed If you try to disprove a fact, you'll fail If you find rebuttles to a fact, they'll be hollow
The only thing in the obvious list that doesn't separate a fact from a non-fact is the arguments in support. Hence why scientists are taught not to care for arguments in support, only research, and then specifically arguments that disprove more than those that prove.
If you were to cut out the alarmist, repetitive fluff you do actually have a problem at the bottom of all this. overused antibiotics (anywhere, on any species) tends to push evolution toward antibiotic resistance. That's bad. That said, from what I read in this article, this bill is also bad.