simplicio

Seems like the Nazis managed to do the Concentration Camps thing without facial recognition software.

"You periodically have to remove some snow" is a reality for basically everything in Wisconsin. Stuff still seems to get built there.

Aside from the "ban/don't ban" dichotomy, I think the other option is to basically add some legal friction to doing something to the point where those who really want to partake still can, but its difficult to the point where a lot of people who might otherwise participate don't bother. I take this as the main point of the article, its not that sport betting was impossible previously, but you used to have to travel to a casino or sign up for sketchy, illegal web sites.

Now there's almost no friction. You can place bets just by clicking on your phone, and not only that, there's now a ton of ads and other media reminding you that you can do so. Its pretty clear that this change has caused a huge increase in the harm done by gambling, so even if we don't want to straight up ban it, it seems worthwile to impliment at least some of the limitations that article suggests

Is there any one or any time we can't already nuke with an ICBM? Not sure I really see what extra capability would be added by putting nukes on a space plane.

I've found this interesting as well.

It's not really clear that "formal" mathematics is actually that useful to an ancient society, even ones like Egypt or Greece that embarked on large engineering projects (you don't really need a proof of most basic geometry, just empirically noting relationships between shapes will get you far enough). So the idea that it started as basically a religious activity amongst mystery cults in Egypt and Greece is appealing

Of course, the fact that the "mystery" part of "mystery religions" means they didn't write anything down, so rather frustratingly we only get vague third hand accounts of this stuff from classical greek philosophers and Roman-era neo-platonists.

I just got around to reading Howard's Conan stories a year or so ago and was surprised how much it felt like just reading a novelization of a D&D adventure. It feels like a much bigger influence then Tolkien, where the influence seems limited to borrowing some races and creatures.

I've worked on (unrelated to nuclear stuff) computer simulation projects for the Navy where they had standard, notional models of the battleship which had the same sort of general properties you'd expect a battleship to have, but wasn't based on the design of any real battleship, so they could share them with researchers to develop their codes on without having to worry about revealing classified details.

Wonder if this isn't something similar, if the DoE has some sort of "standardized notional warhead" design they can use to give to outside researchers without having to give every post-doc and grad-student a security clearance.

They have a space port at 60'N Latitude? Isn't that extremely sub optimal for launching anything to orbit?

The AI was never good, but before Rome II it seemed like it either got a little better with each iteration, or at least, the parts that got worse had to do with incorporating new mechanics (Empire's AI was terrible, but it was pretty obviously because trying to jump from armies with swords and arrows to those with muskets and cannon was a big change).

Outside of the navel stuff, Rome II's combat wasn't wildly different from Rome I, Shogun, Medieval, etc. This made it kinda jarring what a step backwards it ended up being.

Adds "40 new levels" according to the article, which is basically how many the original game had.

That said, agree I don't really get what the thinking was here. Seems like he'd be better off just releasing the new levels and improved art, etc as a sequel rather then rather confusingly marketing it as an "Anniversary edition" of the original game.

FWIW, I finished a physics PhD 15 or so years ago, and 2/3rds or so of the people in the program with me have are married, and most of those couples have children.

There are certainly challenges to having a family while pursing a PhD, but they're not prohibitive, and there are advantages as well (flexible work schedule, Universities often have a lot of programs for employees with children).

Think the parent meant the client companies probably won't generally be held liable. CrowdStrike is certainly going to be in all sorts of trouble.

The one I linked to? But that was just the first one that came up on google, seems to be a fair number of similar programs in other states.

There's a lot of Men-in-Teaching advocacy, in part because its thought having male teachers tends to be beneficial for male students[1].

I think stuff like that is the main reason to be worried about gender imbalances. A 40-60 imbalance probably isn't a big deal, but once you get to like, 90-10 or worse, as is the case with early education, you start to get a bunch of secondary social problems. Kids who associate learning as a woman only thing, or the culture around engineering or software becoming "boys clubs" that become uncomfortable for the women who do want to work in those fields

https://www.cuny.edu/academics/academic-programs/teacher-edu...

I mean, that's the effect of increasing the supply, but I doubt its the motivation for most people.

In defense of the parents, I think a lot of drownings are people who can swim, but not very confidently, and get into the panic response described at the link and end up being unable to recover without outside help. I've seen this happen to both children and adults.

A lot of the co-working spaces around here let members host tech meet-ups for free, I assume because it serves as good advertising.

Yea, hadn't realized this till I had kids. People are basically constantly throwing sweets at them, and while Im not super-strict about regulating sugar, if I let them eat all the candy they were offered, it'd basically be all their calories in a given day.

Think the main reason is that sea-recoveries are expensive compared to ones on land. I imagine there's at least some extra risk to a sea recovery as well (one of the Mercury capsules sank during recovery, though happily not with its astronaut inside).

The second one seems odd, or maybe Im misunderstanding. Most children develop the idea of abstract shapes well before they can read.

Sort of interesting to compare the US experience in WWI, where a program to deliver 20k planes by the summer of July 1918 managed to get a whopping 196 planes into service before the war ended that November.

http://www.worldwar1.com/tgws/relairprod.htm

Yea, looking at the list of "Computer Graphics Pioneers" on wikipedia, Mandelbrot and maybe Carmack are the only two I'd think would be recognized by the broader public, and Carmack is the only one I personally could tell you any biographical details about.

I don't think there's any reason to think Bùi's obscurity is due to any particular prejudice against Asian Americans.

And in Barnett's case, he'd been talking since 2019. Even if one thinks Boeing would be willing to have people murdered, the time to do so would be before they became public whistleblowers, not a half-decade later.

Is that their business? They've been around for 30+ years and I don't think they've ever successfully commercialized a product. So far as I can tell, they just hop from DARPA grant to DARPA grant and make cool videos of the results.

I don't have any particular problem with that, but its a little weird? I figured they were a more traditional industrial robotics company that just did the humanoid robots as a side line for publicity, but googling, I guess that's not the case.

My understanding is that the excess cost isn't so much the safety device itself but that cheap, flimsy table saws can't handle the extreme torque created by stopping the saw more-or-less instantly, so the device is limited to higher end equipment that's heavier and has better build quality.

Slowing birth-rates mean fewer kids means fewer prospective college students.

Suspect this and a tight labor market are the two driving factors.

A, B and the line connecting them exist before you start the construction, and the author assumes there's no error there.

Then to start the construction, you have to put one arm of your compass on the point A, and one on the point B. These points exist and are already marked, but you incur error when you place your compass down on each one. These are the represented by the blue and yellow circles in the diagram.

But you start the construction with the line already drawn. Then you have to place the arms of the compass on the points, so you have error on both ends.

I think the construction is usually phrased: "given a line, to..", so it assumes a pre-existing line segment, rather then that being part of the construction itself.

Isn't increasing interest rates the opposite of printing money?