More cameras does not equal more security. They aren't put there to protect your property in the same way that HR departments don't exist to protect employees.
No, they're put there to collect grainy images of the perpetrator to distribute after the shooting. It's sad/ineffectual, but still far less nefarious than TFA makes it sound.
Right. 1,300 cameras for over 50,000 people in a hundred or so multi-story buildings spread over a couple of hundred acres...seems proportionate. It's maybe a dozen cameras per building on average?
I'm not a fan of surveillance per se, but acting like this is disproportionate is just silly.
Because its the only way the people who would like to be in power and can't manage to produce anything anyone else wants can see to get themselves put in charge: convince enough other people that despite their freedom, high standard of living, etc. they are somehow oppressed.
tl;dr: Since the AI people have lost interest in the frame problem (because they think they can ignore it like the new wave folks, work around it like Fodor, or like Shanahan, think of it as solved) the philosophers would like it back please.
This is like saying "wood burns, even when the tree is dead" but much, much slower.
The disequilibrium (sugars and free O₂) were produced by living organisms, and this is just the gradual drift back to a lower energy state. CO₂ is common in the universe, and not at all a sign of life. O₂ and sugars are rare.
This seems like the better explanation of my laybrain reading this and thinking; why would you start with soil? If it were a true geological phenomenon then shouldn’t they use a sterile jar of granite dust or something that only existed on earth prior to life? It seems like pointing at a jar of bio matter and saying we can’t stop it is not really a good methodology to base much upon. I barely ever even took a chemistry class in my life but something just feels wrong with this approach to me. I assume that’s what the other scientists who doubt the sterilization were thinking too.
They suggest that the soil can somehow catalyze metabolic reactions and break down complex carbohydrates without life but where would the complex carbohydrates come from?
I'm also curious how they could demonstrate that there isn't some sort of very constrained extremophile producing all their results that doesn't exactly colonize very well but will still function.
This is honestly what I'm thinking. Carbohydrates and hydrocarbons will oxidize to CO2 and water in our atmosphere, and especially quickly at warm temperatures, in the presence of energy sources like sunlight, or in the presence of ozone or elevated oxygen levels. In general biological processes like aerobic decay are so much more effective that we ignore this, but it still happens.
Then either n is a constant and it's really O(1), or k isn't a constant and its naming was in violation of the International Conventions on Naming Things to Avoid Silly Arguments, section 3, paragraph IV.7 & ff.
That's more of a compiler limitation that became cultural for a while. Most languages (both natural and artificial) use delimited structures sparingly and rely more on other cues. It sometimes appears spontaneously (e.g. "∫ dx f(x)" is logically fine, but feels wrong) but in general it's rare.
The move away from indentation in programing came as a rebellion against the too-constraining fixed column languages, in the interval between punched cards and python, with a brief resurgence in the early blink tag and font potpourri web era. These days, it's perfectly reasonable.
In my experience there are many problems with significant whitespaces, things like copying pieces of code require much more work, when indentation actually changes the logic you can not ask your tool to do it automatically - because there is no single right way to do it. Tabs vs spaces can also be a problem.
If this seems counterintuitive, consider that only about a third of the two-digit numbers ({0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 54, 56, 63, 64, 72, 81}) can be written as the product of two one-digit numbers.
> We know how to do reliable vertical landing since the DCXA in 1991. Meaning more than 25y ago
One could argue the applicability of "reliable" given the project's track record, but it's not really relevant in any case since that program only got up a few kilometers and nowhere near orbital velocity.
https://theconversation.com/human-evolution-is-still-happeni...
reply