Does the stratigraphy department of the international union of geological sciences have such thorough knowledge that they can make predictions about this stuff on geologic timescales? Getting any kind of truth from commercial oil companies is expensive. To them, knowledge is a weapon, and they lie whenever it is advantageous to lie.
The deep earth isn't all that well studied, so while we know a fair amount about plate tectonics, there could be hidden factors influencing that action in ways we can't anticipate from recorded history. Who's to say there aren't 1000 or 10k year cycles of earthquakes? Something novel could happen too, but our records don't let us set probabilities for 10k year natural disasters the way we can with 100 year tropical storms, floods, or earthquakes.
Boring technology is great for making things in certain niches. This argument gets used a lot to encourage Java for every purpose, which comes from a myopic view of the landscape of languages. Advocates of many languages use the "least effort with biggest result" claim, and it's out of ignorance.
I don't think so. I've seen things that say fructose has worse effects than sucrose in terms of spiking your blood sugar or whatever but that's minor compared to the overall impact of any sugar. Sugar is sweet because we were once starving beasts and calories were good. Now it's a hazard. And corn syrup gets dumped into all kinds of processed foods in the US because of how cheap it is, and how much people like sweet stuff.
We have shaped our food culture in a way to maximize short term profit at the expense of making everyone fat and disabled longer term.
Shrinkflation is all over. Burger buns at fast food places were more dense 20 years ago. The small burgers had 1/8th pound patties instead of the current 1/10th pound. It's hard to find a product that hasn't gotten worse or more expensive, even adjusted for inflation.
I know an 80 year old who was a commercial truck driver for decades and still has a strong mental map for a pretty vast area. Anecdata, but I find it interesting.
No, it doesn't. Different algorithms can vary pretty wildly in performance based on the design of the hardware they run on. For instance cache sizes can make one implementation of a sort on a certain sized dataset faster or slower than another. You can have a theoretically fast algorithm that just isn't as cache efficient as a theoretically slower one in big-O terms. All levels of the memory hierarchy as well as storage have specific bandwidths and latencies that inform the real world performance results. Parallelism is another issue. Many cores can do work very fast when you're careful about how you split up work between them, taking into consideration the synchronization latency and individual cache sizes and so on. The best approach for doing work on 64 cores can be dramatically different from what works best on 1 or even 2.
On the bright side, you could live much longer if you went near a black hole. Though, that's according to everyone else's reference frame, not yours. Also, the gravity probably wouldn't feel nice. So, I concur.
Supermassive black holes are generally at the center of galaxies, like a tiny yolk in an egg. That's not a hard rule. For instance, they can theoretically be ejected and make a mess if a few galaxies collide. But yes, it's harder to detect far away objects when the bulk of our milky way is in the way, making things milky. I suspect there are a lot of black holes back there that we just can't see.
Interesting that you use the phrase "quality vs quantity". Normally, I think of precision being on the side of "quality". As in, you carefully make a thing to meet a certain standard instead of making a lot of them.
In the case of "qualitative vs quantitative", despite having the same roots, I think of precision being on the side of the quantitative --with qualitative work answering yes/no questions and quantitative yielding precise measurements.
I just tested out chatjimmy and a bit and it did some misinterpretation of my prompts, E.g. "write me a python script to generate insults for a name given by command line" had multiple of the same insult in the insult list, and it had a list of names like John and Jane instead of doing the obvious thing and making the name a variable. Not good code.
Right. Gentle reminder that tuna has dangerous amounts of mercury in it specifically because of humans burning coal, not because the ocean was always so polluted.
"Common sense" might also mean "do the simple thing" which, given how cheap it is to invest in renewable energy sources like solar farms, and how much room we have to build daytime capacity that way without large scale storage, might mean installing a lot more solar.
Don't pretend the current US admin is anything but corrupt and stupid.
Yeah, a proper mini NES would just be a dongle that attached to a cartridge. It's not hard to make an NES equivalent. It's kinda weird that people want these "authentic" things, since you can emulate them in a toenail form factor. The people who think emulation or fpgas aren't good enough are dumb people.
The example I always go to for oddly unsuccessful games, (good at least, I don't know about excellent,) was Super Monday Night Combat. It was something like Valve's Deadlock, a 3D MOBA game more than 10 years earlier, with a bit of The Finals aesthetic. (Coins, instead of blood, gameshowy, announcers quipping over the gameplay.) I had a lot of fun with it, but it seems like hardly anyone noticed it existed. They never got the critical mass of players needed to keep it going.
I understand what you're saying. I hold a different view of what is well made or not. Commercial success isn't the only measure. I believe dark patterns detract from the cultural value of a thing, which is how they came to be called that. Meta is a valuable company, but they could have made less money and provided much more value to society with different practices. There's a "rising tide lifts all boats" approach to commerce, and then there's the candy crush, perpetual enshittification, monetary maximalist approach, usually with negative side effects.
But that's beside the point. I don't think League of Legends is especially predatory, I just think it's a mediocre game that was well marketed at the right time to go "viral".