10,941 karma · joined November 30, 2011
Here's what Firefly uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photography
Hopefully you can see that from a raw tech level, there's practically no overlap between those things at all. The technology has moved on _completely_.
One of the first time I got interested in reading medical studies was when I saw a bunch of headlines announcing that a randomized controlled trial had proved that echinacea was ineffective for treating respiratory problems. This surprised me, because I'd always been a dogmatic drinker of echinacea tea whenever I had a cold, and had thought that it helped. But then again, I come from a culture of damn dirty hippies, so I was open to being wrong about it. Rather than rely on the headlines, I decided to dig up the study itself.
Here's what the study actually found: that rubbing an echinacea-infused ointment on your wrists has no effect on respiratory health.
Er... yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Literally nobody uses echinacea that way. You've just falsified a total straw-man of a hypothesis, and based on the number of headlines generated off the back of this, I think it's reasonable to presume there was some kind of funded apparatus for disseminating that bogus result.
Ever since then, I've learned not to trust the headlines when it comes to trials, reserving judgment until I've looked at the methodology. When I do, a lot come up short.
Many years ago I worked on a project in Amritsar, which had me regularly engaged with the Golden Temple (the most sacred place in the Sikh religion) authorities. I have to say that all the Sikhs I interacted with were fantastic: honest, generous, hard-working, fun-loving, good-hearted people. I do think a lot of this was grounded in Sikh religious principles, which promote a kind of radical moderation that's actually pretty unique among religions. (the story goes that the founding guru of the Sikhs had two sons, one of whom destroyed his life with gambling and alcohol, and the other of whom destroyed his life with asceticism and abstinence. The guru repudiated both of them, saying that the latter was as much of a vice as the former. Instead, he preached that the point of life was to be happy, and to make other people happy: have a family and take good care of it, take care of other people, don't be an asshole, and have a good time. Balance these imperatives well, and you're doing God's work. As far as organised religions go, it's really pretty great.
And langar at the Golden Temple is a truly amazing experience. Men and women from every strata of society, from every religion, sitting down together to eat good food in silence. No preaching or any other bullshit -- the shared togetherness and humanity is enough. Honestly, it's profound. One of my dreams for later in life, when I have the time, is to go back there for a few weeks and volunteer to cook in their kitchen.
That said: Sikhs aren't all cuddles and sunshine. Early in their history they were strictly pacifistic, and also heavily persecuted. After a while, one of the head Gurus decided that if the way to do God's work was to live a good life, and there were oppressors who were committed to preventing you from doing so, then a necessary part of God's work would require, er, helping those oppressors to reincarnate as quickly as possible. Ever since then, they haven't been keen on turning the other cheek, and have had a very strong martial/military culture. There's still a very strong ethic that you shouldn't use violence unless there's absolutely no alternative -- but if you do have to use violence, then you might as well be bloody good at it. But of course the more that one participates in violence, the greyer the morality becomes. So I wouldn't dare wade into the India vs. Khalistan conflict: I'm sure that many of the beefs on both sides are well-founded at this point. But if you can separate the culture and the religion from the politics -- then yeah, it's a really great thing they've got going on there, and I think it's great for the world to have more exposure to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27TvGDpPLNw
It will be interesting to see how these two approaches fare vs. one another.
But that's a very ahistorical theory, isn't it? The manuscript was written hundreds of years before cryptanalysts were invented. For its author to anticipate that would have required an impossible degree of foresight. Rather, whatever features give it cryptographically interesting properties must have been motivated by something other than a desire to confuse/intrigue cryptanalysts, with that just being a coincidental side-effect.
But when the surviving kitten saw my drawing, he began crying so piteously, reaching out and clawing towards the drawing -- and this went on for most of an hour -- that there was absolutely no mistaking the emotion behind it, and soon everybody else in the room was bawling as well. (Also, I was impressed that he responded to a drawing; it was a decent drawing, but quite abstract relative to (say) a photographic representation. Cats usually seem oblivious to photos in any case, and this is one of the things which confounds animal consciousness research: it's very hard to tell the difference between something that an animal can't do, and something an animal doesn't want to do. I suspect that most of the time, cats simply can't be arsed to process static 2d imagery, because what's really the point of doing so -- but in this case, an overwhelming emotional imperative overrode that natural disinclination, proving that both the cognitive and the emotional capacity is there.)
Anyhow, ever since witnessing that display of emotion, anybody who tells me that animals aren't conscious or don't have real feelings immediately gets ranked -- per my personal hierarchy of the spectrum of consciousness -- as being far below the level of that kitten.
Ariane Next could be a worthy competitor to the Falcon 9R, if they manage to get it to market by, say, 2020. Looks like they're planning to be about 15 years late to market there as well.
They've also got a fully-reusable Starship competitor in the works -- can't be bothered to dig up the link for it, sorry -- which if the schedule holds, should hit the market about 20 years after Starship enters commercial service.
No, they do not. But they do have other concepts which in turn cannot be translated into European languages. The great thing about human consciousness, culture, and language is that not everybody is working off the same epistemological map. There really are concepts which don't translate 1:1 from one language to another. That doesn't mean they can't be understood across cultures -- just that they may take many paragraphs of text to convey the meaning accurately, whereas in their original cultural context that meaning is embedded in the shared experience of how that word is used.
Think about Greek words for "Love" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love). With a short paragraph of text you can at least the gist of their meaning (but there are definitely shades of meaning which will nevertheless be missed, barring greater immersion in its use). Suffice it to say, simply mapping those words onto "Love" will lose a huge amount of meaning.
Agreed that it's annoying to present words that aren't directly translatable as incomprehensible mysteries, which could never be understood by the non-French mind. Of course it can be understood, it just takes a bit of work to understand this. But equally, I don't think it's appropriate to go the other direction and think that there's a straightforward 1:1 mapping, when there definitely isn't.
Let's say I publish a page -- nothing fancy to it, no dark patterns at all -- just the word "architecture". For anybody searching for the term "architecture", this is now the perfect page -- a 100% match to their search, with no dark patterns at all. Completely useless, but perfect.
What would my motivation be for doing something like this? Well, imagine that I now deploy 100,000 identical or very similar pages. Your search engine is now fully _nuked_ for those terms. Does your competitor have a product that you don't want being found via the search engine? I'll happily nuke its search terms for you, for a fee of course. That's my motivation. Remember that advertising is not just a competition for you to be seen, but also for your competitors to not be seen. Your search engine, as-is, would be great at enabling the latter.
(Maybe you could fix this by allowing down-votes from logged-in, IP-logged users... but with 100k pages to downvote, that's not gonna help. So maybe you take pages which have been downvoted and do similarity comparisons to pages which haven't. A simple Levenshtein distance is too crude and easily-gamed, but maybe you could feed the downvotes into a neural-network classification system... and down the rabbit hole you go.)
So these kind of biological arguments really don't hold. We're not constrained by our biology. That ship has sailed, literal aeons ago. We're constrained by our technology, and in technological terms, relative to our evolutionary cradle, Inuit garb is about 80% of the way towards being a space suit. Doesn't mean that space is "easy". Just that "easy" isn't what we do.
- https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IONQ?p=IONQ&.tsrc=fin-srch
My understanding is that the use of Roman concrete was very highly centralised in and around Rome, and tailed off dramatically towards the outer reaches of the Empire. Indeed I've seen this cited as the key factor in the technology going extinct -- basically, it was very locally endemic.
In any case, I'm unaware of any Roman concrete structures having been found in Britain, so this statement may indeed be true.
From memory, he described the cafes and bars of Paris as "fungus which consumes the pavement". He wanted to raze Paris to the ground in order to sort that out. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Voisin). There was one line in particular -- I wish I could find the exact text, but it went something like this: "the modern phonograph or victrola can perfectly reproduce the sounds of the orchestra, so there is no more need for the modern man to expose himself to the germs of the audience of the virtuoso of the soloist."
(I threw that book across the room SO many times during architecture school.)
In short: at one scale Corbusier may have had a fine sense of aesthetics and a generally keen mind, but at social scales he was a sociopathic germophobe who absolutely abhorred the complexity of organic living systems.