I’m glad you said that, because I was also surprised by the fact that the bwv-1011 only made it to honorable mention even though its technical focus was on visualizing the rarity of books, which ostensibly was the primary objective of the whole effort.
I really like that your page talks about _why_ a Hilbert curve is good. I don't remember ever learning about those before, and now hopefully if I'm ever trying to visualize 1D data, I might remember that :)
To answer your question, it already has changed us in many ways. You are not the only one who does not realize this though. It is in fact the prevailing position.
We have diseases and genetic defects, among other impacts through modern behaviors and environments/toxins, which are also retained in the genetic mutational load. We even have a whole lot of energy and human activity working to counter evolutionary pressures and assure those accumulated mutational loads remain in the genetic code.
Fitness depends on the specific environment the creature is in. Environmental fitness for the ancestral environment when all humans were hunter-gatherers is not necessarily the same as fitness for living in an industrial society. Evolutionary pressure still works just fine.
Not really. I wasn't a pilot, just a lowly ABF in the Navy. But when we deployed, on an LHD, most of our flights were what you could probably "classify" as training. We ran flight ops every day because pilots have to maintain hours. We flew every day for 7 months and only 2-3 of those months were we in the gulf. And even in the gulf, not all flights were missions, I would say less than half were. That also isn't counting 4-6 months prior to deployment of work ups where we would go out to sea for a week and come back, everyday pilots flew training missions off our deck. All in all, all in the military probably spend most of their air time training then actually flying missions.
I also recall, even experienced pilots, would rotate out to training units as their "shore" (break from a deploy able unit) duty.
This wasn't a Navy aircraft, but I imagine a lot of that is the same regardless of branch.
This comment was written by a US Coast Guard helicopter pilot. It gives a lot of information on how the two aircraft should have been able to share the space and some speculation on what went wrong:
A helicopter instructor suggests that possibly the helicopter pilots, who were told to go behind an aircraft that was landing, were looking at the previous aircraft that was landing.[1] That's just speculation at this point.
Humans are generally not very good at properly evaluating things in general. They are exceptionally good at believing themselves to be very good at properly evaluating things though.
It is why empires collapse from miscalculations about war by their experts, it is the foundational mental model underlying communism that simply cannot work but keeps being attempted, and it is how countries can be destroyed in every which way while the experts maintain that everything is just fine.
Never underestimate the powers of the ego, the destroyer of worlds. I mean they don’t know what they are doing, but we have advanced technical knowledge and experience, so we should clearly be in charge of all things, including those beyond our narrow scope of advanced technical knowledge and experience.
To be fair, capitalism doesn't really work either, you get a very unstable systems with cycles (which people try to stabilize in ad hoc ways), you optimize for the wrong things long term (right now producing much more goods than we need, without factoring in devastating costs that climate change will bring in a few decades, and destruction of nature and eradication of species) and when things crash many people are hurt. And it practically needs wars and destruction to reset wealth distribution every 50 to 100 years.
No communism doesn't work either. I wish there was more alternatives.
And some of the usual examples of "socialism doesn't work" might have worked if US hadn't interfered. E.g. in Chile, no system would have survived US actively supporting Pinochet. We will never know how socialism would have played out there if US (and Soviet too) left it alone.
Anyone who wants freedom and to control the excesses and abuses of the people in power would support the ideals of the Constitution. Just because white people created it does not mean that non-white people may not want to also be free and protected from abuses of the powerful.
Considering how non-white people keep streaming into white countries that have benefited from these white created Constitutional limitations on power, it seems they too desire freedom and liberty even if they are being used and manipulated by the powerful in the white world to essentially break those shackles on the powerful by a kind of civilization fracking, pumping so many people into a system until it collapses and those shackles on the powerful can be removed and the powerful can once again act just like the powerful act in all the non-white countries that have not implemented the white created constitutional limitations on power.
People may not realize they are a tool of the rich and powerful to destroy the very freedoms you currently enjoy, but this has never been a white vs non-white issue even though the jealousy has been used to further the aims of the rich and powerful. It has always been a rich and powerful vs the middle class and poor, with the rich and powerful manipulating the middle and lower classes to act against their own interests and in the interests of the rich and powerful. The saddest thing is that people on the “left” and often the poor, are just useful idiots for the rich and powerful, no different than some gang leader uses and abuses people to commit more abuse and crimes to get richer and more powerful.
I’m not sure what people imagine will happen when white people, who essentially created everything we all enjoy, including freedoms from tyrannical violence and oppression, have been eradicated, but there is no indication that it will end well.
And no, I’m not white since that seems very important to you.
I'm pretty sure they're referring to "the ideals that formed the United States". They're not nearly as admirable as we like to believe.
Some of the worst atrocities are no longer in practice -- though it took the bloodiest war in US history to achieve some of them. But that's not the same as fixing the ideals, and many of those problems are still woven through the fabric of the law and the society.
Imagine what those "ideals" might have been if women, blacks, native Americans, poor people, and others had been in the room. Giving them the right to vote after the basic framework is laid down does not accomplish that.
> I’m not sure what people imagine will happen when white people, who essentially created everything we all enjoy,
Just... No. Not only non-whites created a lot of things we all enjoy (money, algebra), that are also foundational for our civilization. Also, white people also invented a lot of things we all should vehemently reject (such as fascism).
> including freedoms from tyrannical violence and oppression, have been eradicated, but there is no indication that it will end well.
Very hard NO on this one as well. Nobody is eradicating white people and nobody is even considering it.
interesting you said that, because I was totally unimpressed and bored with it and thought, "Ok, so this it? So it's just the Switch, scaled up by 10%?"
It's not that I expected something groundbreaking, but if I had been the creative director I would have said that they need to focus on whatever was updated, e.g., graphics or performance since effectively nothing major has changed.
At the end of the video they announced a direct for the start of April. This video is just a teaser. I’m sure they will cover everything you mention in the direct.
The 30lb backpacks were only a function of our deranged society, economy, and government. I am sure others here will be able to attest that education in Europe not only was better for reasons that cannot be openly discussed in our censorious society, but the textbooks were denser with information that was also better structured, while also being lighter in weight. Lockers are simply not even a thing in Europe because children are carrying less and they have standardized backpacks.
We had lockers in the European high school that I went to. As I recall it was not allowed to bring backpacks into the classroom, you were supposed to only bring the relevant items to each class and keep the rest in your locker.
I don't think the combined weight of all books used in an entire semester would add up to 30lb, maybe if including dictionaries and atlases and other reference litteraturen that was kept in each classroom (or carted around on trollies by the teachers).
You are conflating things, and then also making my argument, but are unnecessarily cantankerous so you just want to argue. Are you a Brit by any chance?
Have you ever seen the school books that Americans had to carry around? They were/are 2"/5cm thick books, weigh a few pounds each, and kids carried around about 6-8 per semester.
You made my point in that European school books are a lot less heavy and also less physically voluminous. The theory behind American books being that more spacing and less information per page makes learning easier, even though all the evidence clearly indicates that is very likely inaccurate.
Even though you are clearly one of those necessarily contrarian types for reasons that are your own, my point still stands that even if you had lockers for other reasons, the fact that school books in most European countries in which I have visited schools, utilize books that are a lot less heavy and are more information dense and can easily be carried around.
What is it with you types that you latch onto meaningless and nonsense things like that you did have lockers, while totally missing the core of the point, that the argument was about the weight and size of books??? That sounds like something you may want to think about.
I'm not sure which European country you're thinking about, but we had lockers, individual backpacks and heavy textbooks. I never used my locker because we didn't have enough time between lessons, so I just carried all my heavy textbooks for the day as did most people.
I would explain it to you, but there are topics that simply cannot be discussed, regardless of how correct, important, and critical they are. I may as well try to tell you about the heliocentric model in the 17th century.
It's certainly up to you, but "my ideas are as important as the heliocentric model, but humanity is so far behind me that I can't even tell you about them" does not speak favorably about your ideas. (Not to mention that it's hard to imagine that the consequences for whatever your heresy is several posts deep in an anonymous HN comment thread would be anything worse than a few downvotes.)
That’s correct, but there is also something else, NASA has argued that their satellite imagery has shown an increase in the planet’s plant coverage as CO2 has increased, since to plants, CO2 is what not just oxygen is to us, but also in many ways like nourishment by absorbing the carbon from the air, which they use to grow.
Plants are generally not CO2 limited. General water is the limit - thus deserts are not very green despite having as much CO2. Even in wet climate a few weeks without rain and the plants are going dormant.
In the ocean the limit is often other nutrients like iron. Attempts have been made to add iron to the ocean and those areas suddenly turned green (though it is not clear how sustainable this practice would be, nor if there might be other unknown negatives).
That isn't to say CO2 is never the limit. Large greenhouses often are CO2 limited (often burning fossil fuels indoors to provide the CO2 without opening windows and thus letting something else undesired in). There are no doubt areas where CO2 is the limit and so NASA can see more green that is attributed to more CO2 - but still CO2 is rarely the limiting factor.
This is a bunch of nonsense. Of course reduction in C02 can limit growth. You even make that very point by mentioning the use of CO2 generators in commercial greenhouse operations.
The argument NASA makes is basically the same that CO2 increases have resulted in expected increases of plant growth, as is observable by satellite.
I do not subscribe to the insane CO2 Bad religion that you appear to subscribe to because it is yet another dumb religion to harness the naive and gullible peasants, but you go right ahead. How about you stop being horrible to other people about it though and stop traveling and using technology that all produces CO2.
