I think it is actually from the bible:
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9
16,495 karma · joined September 13, 2012
Co-founder and Board Member at the Center for New Data (newdata.org), an institutional donor backed data for democracy non-profit.
Software Engineer, Data Scientist, and former Director of Engineering at Fair Financial
Python lover but general polyglot.
Economist, Nerd, Futurist, Maroon/UChicago Alum.
Washington, DC
ryan.j.naughton [AT] gmail
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9
I'm hoping this was sarcasm.
This recommendation was in the form of a report by the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) in the White House. I would suspect it had more thought to it than you're suggesting.
I think this quote from the article is quite useful: "Recent studies from Microsoft and Google have found that about 70 percent of all security vulnerabilities are caused by memory safety issues." Which the article cites [1] [2]
There is validity to their argument on the source of security vulnerabilities.
[1] https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...
[2] https://msrc.microsoft.com/blog/2019/07/a-proactive-approach...
For UFC, your complaint is you don't like their pricing. The whole point of copyright is to give someone the monopoly to control pricing so they can use that pricing power to incentivize them to create the product in the first place. Similarly to patents. Thus, complain about the format things are delivered in all you want (like the client) but pricing is inherent to copyright or patents for good reason. You are now just arguing that you as a consumer should be able to pirate if you don't agree with pricing. And that's ludicrous.
In that case, just read a news article about the event. Copyright doesn't cover facts, only creative expression. So a news article covering the facts of the UFC fight is able to be published without the consent of the copyright holder. Think of the digital video of the fight almost like buying a ticket to the fight. You're saying you should just be able to sneak into the fight and watch it for free without any justification for you're doing so.
Finally, you can also watch other people's videos of the fight that THEY recorded on social media as other sources of the fight information. But if you want the recording with all the right angles, coverage, etc, it clearly has value to you over written recaps or social media coverage. And you are just arguing over price, which they are the copyright holder have the right to set the price.
Did you intentionally not tell them you were in Iran and instead just said you wanted to be paid in bitcoin without explanation? I'm extremely curious.
I took algebra I in the summer between 6th and 7th grade. That allowed me to take geometry in 7th grade, algebra II trig in 8th grade, pre-calc in 9th grade, AP calculus in 10th grade and then IB high math in 11th and 12th grade.
I credit my public, magnet school with giving me a huge leg up in life. All of my peers were middle class, yet a focus on lifting us up, accelerating our education, and challenging us helped me become the successful person I am today.
In contrast, my life almost took a severely different and worse path in elementary school when I was sent to the principal's office often in kindergarten and second grade for distracting the class and causing disturbances.
Thankfully my first grade teacher realized the root cause -- I had already learned the material quickly and was bored and thus distracting others. So she gave me more advanced novels and books to keep me stimulated and learning. If instead I would have had a teacher force me to slow down to the rest of the class, I likely would have ended up suspended and a delinquent.
This holding everyone to the slowest standard in the name of equity is actually very inequitable. It forces children with ADHD like myself to end up as failures instead of recognizing neurodiversity and helping each child succeed in the manner best for him or her.
What you call "weird" others call discrimination. Many racist folks didn't want to rent to black people or other minorities bc they "didn't want them". Others didn't want to rent to see senior citizens or people with disabilities.
Protected classes exist for a reason! It is socially optimal to not allow businesses to discriminate against many groups of people.
One plausible (though entirely speculative) explanation could be they wanted the US to react this way. Now we will waste our military resources responding to these balloons and they in turn will learn about our military readiness. They could be intentionally probing and start sending smaller and smaller balloons to figure out where our detection limit is. They could want to understand how information flows and decisions are made by our government and have already tapped into other intelligence signals that this pen test is helping them monitor.
Again all speculation. But my fundamental point is you don't know their intention to know if they erred.
Let's not make policy out of unfounded fears. Let's look at some simple facts:
1. Fewer people have died from nuclear reactor meltdowns than from any other form of electricity generation. It is by far the safest form of power.
2. Even with the price of renewables dropping quickly, we will not be able to decarbonize quickly enough to prevent the terrible climate change outcomes. We need an all of the above solution to non-fossil fuel energy sources.
3. Germany decommissioned several nuclear plants out of fear and have both increased their reliance on fossil fuels as a result and increased dependency on Russia. It was a very foolish decision
Here is a ludicrous futurist thought experiment:
1) If the slopes could be covered in a building, similar to this: https://th-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com/u-PEeOAFNhog5RDbemURPe...
2) If that building were highly insulated, but with the option to rapidly circulate outside air inside it (for use at night time, when the weather is colder).
3) If we could invent some new meta-material glass that allows infrared light to pass through it, then we could actually make this out of glass and still have the wonderful views on the mountain without incurring a huge greenhouse effect penalty for the transparency. In fact, if the glass is totally transparent to infrared and visible light LEAVING the covered slops, but slightly tinted for any light entering, then it would naturally be net cooler than the outside.
4) if the additional cooling required is powered by solar and wind.
5) Final ridiculous addition: Make these double paned glass roofs retractable so when real snow happens or the weather is cold enough, it is still outdoors.
Having the ability to still ski on the real slopes all year long would be great.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/eight-worlds-coolest-i...
The definition of a hard drug has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Alcohol is a hard drug by the definition of addictiveness and propensity for harm. When it was made illegal, it didn't reduce use and only increased harms. We learned our lesson and made that hard drug legal in order mitigate the harms of organized crime benefiting from selling it.
Similarly all other illegal drugs should be made legal to reduce the harms of them being illegal and facilitating organized crime that increases violence in communities.
In that regard, the silk road was actually a net good. It reduced gang violence by preventing gangs from competing for physical territory. The US postal service delivering the darknet drugs prevented the gangs from being able to enshrine their Monopoly through violence. This was unequivocally good. Similarly reviews by customers increased quality and purity and reduced tainted drugs, reducing harm to the users. Thus, the silk road was a net social good when measured from a social welfare costs and benefits.
Alcohol is undeniably a hard drug. It:
1) is extremely physically addictive
2) causes many overdoses and deaths. More than opiates or cocaine.
At the same time, there is tons of compelling evidence that:
A) making alcohol illegal in the 20s/30s didn't decrease consumption at all and simply increased the danger of consuming tainted alcohol.
B) that prohibition fueled the rise of organized crime in the US
C) that countries with decriminalized drugs and harm reduction policies actually have reduced drug consumption, like Portugal.
Thus, your statement seems entirely incorrect. It actually seems that punishing those who sell hard drugs actually makes it worse for everyone.
When do I get the interest on my I bond?
With a Series I savings bond, you wait to get all the money until you cash in the bond.
Electronic I bonds: We pay automatically when the bond matures
(if you haven’t cashed it before then).
Paper I bonds: You must submit the paper bond to cash it.
See Cash in (redeem) an EE or I savings bond.
Nonetheless, it is worth putting some numbers to gain perspective:
1. World electricity demand was 24K terawatt hours in 2019 [1]
2. Mt St Helens volcano released 24 megatons of energy when it erupted [2]. That is 28 terawatt hours.
3. Thus, you would be adding 824 equivalent Mt St Helen eruptions a year in terms of additional energy extraction from the earth. Which sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for several reasons.
4. In particular, the earth is already radiating substantially than this amount of energy to the surface. "Because of the internal heat, the Earth's surface heat flow averages 82 mW/m2 which amounts to a total heat of about 42 million megawatts."[3]. That is 42 terawatts of continual energy loss from the crust/upper mantle to the surface. That is 16 times as much electricity as humanity uses -- and it is already be radiated to the surface.
My guess is that if we started extracting this from 20KM down and bringing that heat to the surface, then it would cause some increase in energy radiated to the surface, but it would also be concentrating that energy radiated to the surface at the location of the plant and potentially decreasing that energy from its slow radiation path to the surface through the rock above it.
Either way that potassium and uranium is going to decay. Either way, that heat will eventually make it to the surface and eventually be lost to space. The question is whether we can stand in the middle of that process and capture it for use. Our using of that heat and turning it into electricity -- ultimately still turns into heat and is radiated to space. It just is turned into heat when it is loses on the electricity transmission grid, when it is used to heat a house, when it is used to move a car, etc.
TANSTAAFL really doesn't intersect with the reality that stars burn and the earth decays whether we use the energy or not. Entropy comes for us all. We are just trying to be a step in the ultimate transition of all this energy to the heat death of the universe.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/280704/world-power-consu... [2] https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/energ.... [3] https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2013/10/W...
Instead of adding batteries, and thus weight, the train supplies power back to the grid when it breaks. Thus, the cheaper source of energy described here can be achieved without the carbon capture, and consequently, we can use that power to power other things, reducing energy generation overall and reduce CO2 emissions.
Thus, it seems like the primary benefit here is using the train's motion to replace the fans required for carbon capture and thus piggybacking on the energy already expended by the train to move. That seems logical, though it could be deployed irrespective of regenerative breaking. Basically we should do regenerative breaking regardless as it is just more energy efficient. Regenerative breaking can primarily be deployed in electric trains anyway as you use the existing motors to break the train, and in so doing, generate electricity from those motors. Adding electric motors and a battery to diesel trains JUST for carbon capture seems foolish.
One question I had: how does this carbon capture change the aerodynamics of the train and thus its efficiency?
[1] https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/regenerative-braking-trai....
It also isn't unusual in the cities. Humans are wonderful and terrible everywhere. It reminds me of the 30 Rock episode where Jack and Liz go to Georgia to find a new comedian in touch with the "real America" and Liz keeps insisting that all Americans are real Americans and there is no "real America."
The acts of people after 9/11 in NYC remind us of the good in humans just as this small town inspires us.
As Mr Rogers said, "When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping."
There is recent research on this that indicates we could achieve a 10 gigaton annual sequestration rate with only a 5% impact on the total terrestrial tree production and at a cost of $30/ton.[1]
"The quantity of this wood utilization can be controlled carefully to maintain a desired amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the Earth’s climate from diving into the next ice age, acting as a climate thermostat."
[1] https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021...
These employees clearly messed up in that regard.
Devil's Advocate: Could that not also be said for many astrophysics discoveries including: - Edwin Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and galaxies - Kepler's discovery of 1K plus exoplanets - Hubble telescope's ultra deep field
None of these are practical pursuits that provide us with new, widely used technology (or at least investing in them is not the most efficient path to said practical technology). Instead, they provide us context on where we sit in the universe. Starting from Copernicus, the constant realignment of our perspective that we are not privileged observers in the universe (disproving geocentrism, heliocentrism, and galactocentrism), have been essential to the development of modern secular humanism and providing us context on our purpose (or at least an effective tool to knock down foolish purported purposes espoused by dogmatic leaders).
So I guess I am taking issue with your narrowly defined purpose of science. What is an "everyday problem" worth solving through fundamental research?
If however, you include these philosophical benefits of fundamental science, then I agree with you.
"Have we had a case where the Higgs boson changed anything in our life?" I think nails that the reason why we shouldn't pursue a LHC++. It has neither benefits from providing us practical tools or new technologies to advance society NOR does it aid us in philosophically contextualizing where we sit in the universe.
People would have said the same thing about the likelihood of having a gay president 15-20 years ago. Instead, we had an openly gay and married presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, do quite well in the last election with his homosexuality not being a major point of the conversation.
The amount of progress on gay rights and the public's perspective on LGBTQ rights has been extremely fast. I think (and hope) that you are wrong and that society will be ready for a trans president much sooner than you anticipate.
Qualified Opportunity Zone Business QOF 50-percent of gross income test Q56. What is the 50-percent-of-gross-income test?
A56. Each taxable year, a QOZ business must earn at least 50 percent of its gross income from business activities within a QOZ. The regulations provide three safe harbors that a business may use to meet this test. These safe harbors take into account any of the following—
- Whether at least half of the aggregate hours of services received by the business were performed in a QOZ;
- Whether at least half of the aggregate amounts that the business paid for services were for services performed in a QOZ; or
- Whether necessary tangible property and necessary business functions were located in a QOZ.
Q57. Must a QOZ business meet all three safe harbors to satisfy the 50-percent-of-gross income test?
A57. No. A QOZ business satisfies the 50-percent-of-gross income test if it satisfies any one of these safe harbors. For example, if 50 percent or more of all the hours of services that a business receives and uses were performed in one or more QOZs, then the business satisfies the hours of services received test and, therefore, satisfies the 50-percent-of-gross-income test.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/opportunity-zones-fre...
Why the hating on nerds?
Similarly, those who chose hole number prices likely did NOT use a model to determine that exact price (as the odds of a model resulting in a whole number price is extremely unlikely).
Thus, you cannot disentangle the effects of the precise bidders actually being more quantitative from the perception of them being more quantitative by the seller.
To properly disentangle this, you would need an experiment (or potentially quasi-experiment) where you randomize either adding some noise to the bid for some bids and rounding other bids to whole dollar amounts.
The person who dug it up and sold it didn't really have an inherent right to it. They just found it.
I say all this not from a legal perspective but from an inheritors of history and culture perspective. We all inherit humanity's history and culture.
While cheesy, Indiana Jones was right: "It belongs in a museum" so it is accessible to humanity. But is that museum inherently this German one?