nautilius

In summary: four years in prison for talking to a cop.

But it very clearly is not. Quite the opposite is upheld by a court.

Of course, unless, by ‘principle’ you mean ‘only under certain conditions, sometimes, for some things to be said, by some people, to some specific set of people, YMMV’, in which case I fail to see the difference to the UK (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). You also have that complete principle of freedom to praise the prince in SA.

Americans too.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

Yeah, nothing like being arrested _and sentenced to four years in prison_ for talking to a cop while being black, in the land of the free, where this would NEVER happen because of some often-invoked 1st amendment.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

Sorry, I mistakenly thought you replied to the post you posted your post under. My bad.

Not at all, it's about the reaction mass that needs to be transported in the rocket.

> why are these poor kids forced to learn something they will never use in the future of their lives?

Exactly. I withhold cycling, they'll use a car later; I withhold bow and arrow or .22, because they can just get a real rifle later; I withhold picture books, because all real books have only text; I withhold flag football, because it's real only with concussion; if my 3yr old cannot hold the axe to split wood, fuck him, certainly I won't get him anything he can handle already; a toy grocery shop? where's the fun when milk can't spill or spoil? Playset 'Doctor'? Real surgical grade anesthesia and scalpel is where it's at. Play with a plush tiger? Not on my watch he's not.

Those feeling tempted wouldn't care: I've had students insist on 'this is my own written text' when a full page of text was verbatim copied from a patent, with the only student contribution being to replace 'motor' with 'engine'.

Just because you use it doesn't make it in any way 'usual'. Just because you learned it in some school doesn't make it non-regional. Also, your own example "𝑥" is decidedly not of the )( form, but of the × form.

Pfft, have you tried accessing any standard here? (ASME, IEEE, etc.)

That perverse pleasure must be masochism.

Could you elaborate on your gripe with order, or how that would be abused?

In my field, 1st author did most of the work, typically the responsible grad student, then authors 2 to n-1 supporting characters, maybe contributed some data, some script, wrote a paragraph. Last author is PI.

Sometimes you’ll have a 2nd author who ended up contributing like the 1st as the paper progresses, that’s really the only ambiguous situation, but you can switch that around for a conference or follow-up.

Have them ask around about the PI first.

I’ve had PIs threatening me as PostDoc to void my contract and have me deported for wanting to take some vacation accrued over several years, or (different gig) for wanting to go to a job interview. And that was me as a married 30ish white male. Can’t imagine what it can be like for the 22 year young woman away from home for the first time.

lock-the-spock explicitly writes about reality, and within the real system we have, monopolies develop.

Easy fix to your solution: get more people to vote. How about all 10000 undergrads in your institution?

In your model, a modern day Einstein would have never had a chance; industrialized research, with publication mills and systematic co-authorship permutation is exactly what would flourish under your model.

Holy shit, man. What's your take on concentration camps? At least the prisoners are not homeless?

Haha, yeah no way anyone’s going to game that system! No way some clique recruits all of the voting power (collaborators to undergrads) to push their work through, all it takes is LeCun to simply read all papers and his vote will balance everything out!

Mostly a combination of Ultracrepidarianism and Dunning-Kruger, I would guess. Without doubt there are many very smart people here who know a lot about their respective fields and who have lots of opinions about other fields they may not know so much about.

See also the recurrent discussion of how “current hypersonics is nothing new”, or “a machine cannot learn, it is the programmer who gives the structure “, etc.

By your logic, your “best ever thinker” did not do any science, ever, period - because he was a theoretical physicist.

> “I do not know what scientific process means”.

Maybe that’s the problem right there.

That's us!

They do, but if you want to solve PDE numerically instead of DE analytically, you should enroll in the “Numerical Methods for PDE” course instead of “Analaytical methods for DE”.

> Just like with dieselgate this will be a closely guarded secret.

So ... no secret at all and widely published and discussed?

> 2x the space so the cost of fuel as a percentage of the ticket price is lower. It might not be obvious to you but I'm happy to explain it :)

See, your claim is that fuel cost is the sole reason they do this. I'd argue it's obvious they'd do that even if all fuel was free.

> Aircraft speed as barely budged since we transitioned from turboprop to jets.

Ah, it's again one of those nonlinearities you seem to have trouble with. See, the cost increase is, again, not proportional to speed. On top of the quadratic scaling, you have a very nonlinear and steep (not-proportional!) increase in drag coefficient. So, when you look up that what I say is true, but you want to weasel your way out by saying 'it's not by much', you're missing that the impact on drag (and fuel) is substantial.

Yeah, there is an epsilon on top of fuel. But maybe you missed the obvious fact that all aircraft are getting slower rather than faster over the last decades, so that threshold is in the opposite direction of what you're proposing.

And there is zero logic behind your second obviousm, as your premise is already wrong. The reason they start with business class is because you can charge more per seat. Seems pretty obvious.

> The costs of flying an airplane isn't proportional to its fuel usage. The faster an aircraft is, the more flights it can perform per day.

It is indeed not proportional, but not in the way you are thinking. Drag (and ~fuel consumption) scales with velocity squared, so a plane flying twice at fast (and neglecting any time at the airport, which would make the argument even worse) would use four times as much fuel. I.e., even if twice the amount of passengers would be served, it would be done for four times the fuel consumption and four times the carbon emissions (or twice the fuel consumption per trip).

That argument makes no sense. Presumably, jimbobimbo already sources ~100% of their intake from some producer outside of their apartment, to not be stuck on eating the mushrooms growing in the bathroom.

Just because there is even more out there to miss out on doesn’t make missing out on bananas less of an issue.

I assume you can just stop to eat altogether, because you’re not consuming the vast majority of food out there.

You may want to look into how many conflicts between how many parties there were in Europe prior to WWI, and since.

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." Paul Morphy

True when you focus solely on consuming.

Turn to creating (art, science, a better mousetrap), and there’s no end in sight.

Who do you think is more successful/ safer: the humpback whale that let’s its kin die, or the one where they stick together against predators?

To generalize, draw on your “experience” (movies, thought experiments) from crime, business, sports, society etc.

‘Altruism’ only appears so on the individual’s level but there’s zero surprise this is an evolutionary advantageous trait from a species perspective, so, frankly, I never understood why we make it out to be that mystery.

> or the client optioned for a cheaper engineering solution.

Haha, sure. Let me rephrase: an engineer with a job.