Some advice for grad students who want to preserve their mental health:
1) Have an entirely separate life outside of academia. Do not mix the two, maintain a strict separation, and keep all academic relationships strictly professional.
2) Don't think of your advisor as anything other than an employer. They're not a father figure or a mentor or anything like that. You're just cheap labor, and don't forget it.
3) Don't think of you university as a 'place of learning and research' - they've all been corporatized to the hilt, and are basically run on the same lines as any business entity, including the worst aspects of corporate HR.
4) If you do have mental health issues, absolutely never go to anyone like a university-affiliated therapist, etc. If you ever have a dispute with the university, they'll use any such interaction in an effort to discredit you.
5) Fraudulent manipulation of data is more common than not as is dishonest behavior by PIs, and if your data from your own research doesn't agree with their past work, they'll try to prevent it from getting published and otherwise sabotage your progress, so expect that.
6) Academic politics is among the nastiest that exists, and enemies of your PI will also happily sabotage your progress just to make your PI look bad. Even other grad students might try something like this, so trust noone (and see #1).
7) If you have any really brilliant ideas with commercial potential, don't say a word about it to anyone, don't write it down, because the university will claim that it owns all your IP and will demand a percentage of anything you do with it, so keep quiet until you've left the system.
You can learn a lot if you get into the right situation, however. Careful vetting of any prospective research group is important in that respect.
How sensitive exactly is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). Climatologists compute it using global climate models and different climatology groups have different models, so they produce different numbers. Unfortunately the span is wide and has been getting wider with time as the simulations become more detailed, so confidence in this value has been falling. This isn't meant to happen and we're rarely directly told it is, actually we're told the opposite (that there is consensus on everything).
IPCC 2013 AR5: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence".
The most recent IPCC reports try to solve this by de-weighting the models that compute a high ECS i.e. a highly sensitive climate. They do this because they know the models must be wrong, as they conflict with observational data. The climate can't actually be all that sensitive to CO2 relative to what some climatologists try to claim. Unfortunately most climatological research does not do this and assumes all models are equally valid, so justs averages all of them. It's clearly not valid when error bars are so wide.
Also, this situation leads to the obvious question of why not simply compute ECS from observed data to begin with? Unfortunate answer: because if you do, you get a very low value indeed (see the work of Lewis). With ECS values that low CO2 stops being a significant environmental problem and is probably less important than other environmental problems like e.g. clean rivers, biodiversity. Climatologists don't like to do this and prefer to continue deriving values from models, even though they know that at least some of them cannot be correct.
tl;dr - what you state as fact is actually one of the most bitterly argued and controversial aspects of climate science. They have a way to express it numerically but nobody can agree what the right number is.
1. Create fake url endpoint. And go to that endpoint in the adversary's website, when your server gets request, flag the ip. Do this nonstop with a script.
2. Create fake html elements and put unique strings inside. And you can search that string in search engines for finding similar fake sites on different domains.
3. Create fake html element and put all request details in encrypted format. Visit adversary's website and look for that element and flag that ip OR flag the headers.
4. Buy proxy databases, and when any user requests your webpage, check if its a proxy.
5. Instead of banning them, return fake content (fake titles and fake images etc) if proxy is detected OR the ip is flagged.
6. Don't ban the flagged ip's. She/He's gonna find another one. Make them angry and their user's angry so they give up on you.
7. Maybe write some bad words to the user on random places in the HTML when you detect flagged ip's :D So the user's will leave the site and this will reduce the SEO point of the adversary. Will be downranked.
8. Enable image hotlinking protection. Increase the cost of proxying for them.
9. Use @document CSS to hide the stuff when the URL is different.
10. Send abuse mail request to the hosting site.
11. Send abuse mail request to the domain provider.
12. Look for the flagged IPs and try to find the proxy provider. If you find, send mail to them too.
Edit: More ideas sparkled in my mind when I was in toilet:
1. Create fake big css files (10MB etc). And repeatedly download that from the adversary's website. This should cost them too much money on proxies.
2. When you detect proxy, return too big fake HTML files (10GB) etc. That could crash their server if they load the HTML into the memory when parsing.
Just to nitpick, I don't think that formula is valid. We're primarily interested in "unrelated" wolf attacks, but it counts the total fatalities, not the total number of fatal incidents. If we count each fatal attack as only one incident, regardless of the casualties, we get 2^-258 instead.
But of course we also need to take into account where the 6-member team lives. If they all live in West Bengal, India, the consideration is much different than if our developers live in Atlanta. Atlanta doesn't have any wild wolves. There is a Wolf's guenon in the zoo, but that probably doesn't count as a risk because they mostly eat small animals and also are monkeys.
Making sense in what fashion, to what end? Investment opportunities? Proposed public policy changes? Where to look for a job?
To a large degree the economy is unknowable. That's why you can get two economists in a room and receive seven opinions. Don't get me wrong; there's good value there. It's just that economics is an odd mix of philosophy and math. On my more cranky days I call it astrology for people who know calculus.
If the economy were knowable to the degree that some economists claim to know it, they'd all be billionaires. So my advice is to scope down your question to something a bit more workable.
There's probably a simple article out there but I'll summarize it a bit:
You go to https://manager.ens.domains/ to register a .eth address and on the settings page for your domain you add a Content record and point it to
ipfs://Qma7nxS98CAb2BTaxLJBSFozxxSp5XTu6tMtCrKcRQ9ByV or whatever the IPFS hash of your website is.
After that you can visit your site at https://myname.eth in a browser that supports ENS/IPFS or you can go to https://myname.eth.link in any browser and see your website.
Pretty sure you’re engaging in selective blindness to the nature of politicization among humans.
At a fundamental level the political winds are that of retaliation for past grievances. Not just immediate grievances with lving victims, but all grievances across recorded history, with no definite end-game.
This creates a politically charged atmosphere that polarizes players to exist in two camps, primed for conflict intended to escalate beyond a stated goal of fairness.
Now you have bitter, uncompromising rivals who will not negotiate, striving to enforce inflexible terms and who benefits? Those external to the fight. Those not dragged down and injured by the grudge match.
Pay attention to the ones looking for a fight, trace that back to those who egg them on, and a picture develops about what’s really going on.
Where there’s an “us versus them” tone, the divide and conquer tactic can be found.
Years of setback may be true, if enemies are alert and opting not only to defend, but actively destroy dissent and redouble dominance.
The war being fought isn’t something camparable to the abolition of slavery. To call our current climate tantamount to one of slavery is hyperbolic without question.
It just so happens that over the last 2 winters I've been burning a scrapped wooden boat in my fire stove so I know how much fire you get out of a boat.
The boat in question was a 15 meter long oak on oak boat. It lasted 2 winters for 2 homes with a fire stove, and we didn't even burn it all.
There's an amazing amount of wood in a boat, particularly around the keel. The framing, keel and other structural elements are made of really heavy timber. On top of that good wooden boats are (were..) built of slowgrown oak that is incredibly dense. One large piece would last for 6-8 hours in my stove and give off a lot of heat.
It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a 25-30 meter boat would last for 15 years if you the goal was primarily to keep the fire going, only getting it really big/hot when needed.
Possibly its asymmetric political power at its finest but I am aware of at least one "business intelligence" application that outputs its CSV files consistently as UTF-16BE (not LE)
I'm not even sure what planet its from, much less the application, I just get stuck importing what they feel like sending me.
I don't know why everything that upstream sends me is in UTF-16BE format, its just what they do. Perhaps they hate me, or my employer. I donno. Perhaps its an intelligence test to cut down on support costs, you must be this smart or smarter to mess with our data or go away.
Did you use https://excalidraw.com?