Greiner group: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.02704.pdf
Zwierlein group: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.04089v1.pdf
Bloch group: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.05661v1.pdf
So if you are designing the hardware, give it an extra 4 KiB or so (16 pages), mapped through a paging circuit to the zero page. On entry to a function, increment the current page; on exit, decrement. Now you have a way to push all "local variables" that is faster than even pushing all the registers. You could even get fancy and XOR bits 7-4 of the page register with bits 4-7 of the paged address lines, so the compiler can choose anywhere from 16 256-byte frames up to 256 16-byte frames.
So, my real question: how much, on average, does a founder get as part of one of these acquihires? And does s/he actually, y'know, have to do any work after getting paid?
Where does the belief in the tech come from? Are there any examples of real success with this tech?
Bots can't solve discovery in a novel way without big advances in NLP. There doesn't seem to be a bridge from here to there where it makes sense as a user.
Is this just irrational exuberance?
I'd love to understand why microsoft/google/facebook are all continuing to bet big here.
I love when great companies do well.
I'm a happy customer (and wish I were also an investor, but I'm not).
Using the word "journey" is this context is rather... risky.
The reason why...
"uARM is certainly no speed demon. It takes about 2 hours to boot to bash prompt ("init=/bin/bash" kernel command line). Then 4 more hours to boot up the entire Ubuntu ("exec init" and then login)."
It is so slow. Btw if you ever ask about system compiles of Elm on RaspberryPi which requires Haskell, you'll get similar responses.
If you view underemployed young people with lots of "free time" as trapped by leisure and cheap entertainment, the paradox goes away - they're not in an enviable position at all.
1) Once you become rich you also have a fair bit of say in what it is that you do. If you are an hourly worker stocking shelves at Walmart your autonomy is limited and the chance that boredom sets in is much higher than it might be for most white collar employees. Where white collar employee's is a proxy for rich.
2) An hourly worker can only grow their income linearly with the number of hours that they work. The rich often have huge leverage with the time they put in vs the amount of money they get out. Sales is one example of this, a hedge fund employee might be another case. This tends to favour the "you eat what you kill" type of compensation.
3) The people I know who become rich often do so not by diversification but typically from concentrating on one endeavor, typically a company. In this case the company tends to become a very large part of their life. They aren't always at their desk but they are always thinking about their company. Maybe this is just an offshoot of point 2).
The richer you get, the more you win.
When you're poor, life is boring, nothing good ever happens to you and your work makes you feel like shit. The only time poor people feel good is when they're playing a computer game which simulates the feeling of 'winning' which they never get in real life.
Games are fun because they put you on a level playing field with other players - Your skills actually have an effect on outcomes.
Only in fairy tales. The conclusion in economic textbooks is always the same: if you're rich the opportunity cost of having a day off are _much_ higher so the more you can create in an hour the _less_ likely it is you'll have a day off. That's why CEOs of larger companies have assistants or, in case of mega corps, helicopters or planes.
Practical conclusion: if you're an independent professional schedule a fixed number in a year of weeks for vacations. If you plan for it you'd be less likely to hesitate than when making the decision on a week-by-week basis. (Said a person who had longer vacations about 5 years ago)
What a perfect way to describe the constant struggle I have with whittling away evenings drinking beer and playing Overwatch vs investing time in learning new skills or working on side hustles to generate additional income.
But now I'm in the business world and much higher up the ladder. Work is incredibly engrossing. I love it. And the higher up I go, the more I get to pick and choose the kind of stuff I want to work on. Making more is just a special bonus on top of extreme interest in your field.
So I think the premise is pretty much right. People who love their careers do more of it. People who don't love their careers don't have to do as much of it.
There are lots of interacting causes and feedback loops around behavior and wealth. But trying to understand a subject while omitting an important arrow of causality can make anything seem like a paradox.
It's weirdly taboo in liberal American journalism to suggest that one's industriousness might be a major cause of one's economic status. Or maybe not so weird: journalists work hard and are terribly underpaid relative to their contribution to society, because the structure of the industry makes it hard to monetize.
The same thing happens when I go on vacation now. About 10 days, and I'm itching to get back to work. I have no interest whatsoever in retiring and puttering around doing meaningless tasks. I enjoy working, doing hard things, being in the fray, and most especially doing something productive that matters.
"So, what are are these young, non-working men doing with their time? Three quarters of their additional leisure time is spent with video games, Hursts research has shown."
Perhaps 1990 was about the point when computer games got cheap enough and good enough to keep young men out of trouble.
I run a small technology business and have thought about ways to try and reduce the number of hours I work. One of the principal challenges is that every day I am fending off competition from offshore firms with lower cost structures and VC funded startups with resources to burn. That competition dictates a certain tempo whether I like it or not.
Outside of work I play video games a lot because, honestly, nothing else seems worth doing. I'm already decent at video games so let's just keep doing that. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these people avoid board games due to lack of friends and lack friends because being social is super hard when all of your time is spent on video games. It's a negative cycle that's hard to motivate yourself out of.
On the bright side it's a pretty frugally lifestyle (don't really go out, only vacations I take are staycations, no car, etc...) so I'd imagine that it's a decently sustainable lifestyle for those who don't work or rarely work.
That's quite an interesting thing to say that is super true. Consumption of too much media is now a sign of low class status.
Dont be too upset when you see the poor kicked around, and justice and right violated all over the place. Exploitation filters down from one petty official to another. Theres no end to it, and nothing can be done about it. But the good earth doesnt cheat anyoneeven a bad king is honestly served by a field.
The one who loves money is never satisfied with money,Nor the one who loves wealth with big profits. More smoke.
The more loot you get, the more looters show up.And what fun is thatto be robbed in broad daylight?
Hard and honest work earns a good nights sleep,Whether supper is beans or steak.But a rich mans belly gives him insomnia.
Heres a piece of bad luck Ive seen happen:A man hoards far more wealth than is good for himAnd then loses it all in a bad business deal.He fathered a child but hasnt a cent left to give him.He arrived naked from the womb of his mother;Hell leave in the same conditionwith nothing.This is bad luck, for surenaked he came, naked he went.So what was the point of working for a salary of smoke?All for a miserable life spent in the dark?
I don't know too many top 1 percenters that would say that would love what they do. Very few.
And I do know of many that would say they never really made it -- because independently wealthy -- until they found what they really loved to do: from going into a new field to opening up their own store that grew.
I think loving what you do has a lot to do with wanting to put in the effort to really getting paid back what you put in.
From Wikipedia: "In economics, a backward-bending supply curve of labour, or backward-bending labour supply curve, is a graphical device showing a situation in which as real, or inflation-corrected, wages increase beyond a certain level, people will substitute leisure (non-paid time) for paid worktime and so higher wages lead to an increase in the labour supply and so less labour-time being offered for sale.
The "labour-leisure" tradeoff is the tradeoff faced by wage-earning human beings between the amount of time spent engaged in wage-paying work (assumed to be unpleasant) and satisfaction-generating unpaid time, which allows participation in "leisure" activities and the use of time to do necessary self-maintenance, such as sleep. The key to the tradeoff is a comparison between the wage received from each hour of working and the amount of satisfaction generated by the use of unpaid time.
Such a comparison generally means that a higher wage entices people to spend more time working for pay; the substitution effect implies a positively sloped labour supply curve. However, the backward-bending labour supply curve occurs when an even higher wage actually entices people to work less and consume more leisure or unpaid time"
Check out this Wikipedia page for further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_...
As far as the main theme of the article: having more people idle is something society needs to adapt to. In the extreme of insufficient work, I would like to see a very low minimum income and a policy to promote breaking up jobs so people at least got 15 or so hours a week. Looking forward a decade, I bet there will be much less for people to work on.
For many people, getting paid is literally society's signal to them that what they do every day is worthwhile and necessary.
> building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.
When you put a lot of your effort into something, you become invested in it. It doesn't matter what it is. I'd suggest that past a certain point, the drive for greater material wealth is no longer about survival or comfort, but is instead about wealth as its own end goal. It's like grinding in an RPG, if you grind past a certain point the game itself becomes too easy, so the enjoyment changes to maxing out your stats just because you can.
I guess the author has never heard of homelessness. instead of being homeless, or being forced to find work, young people are living with parents longer
1) Those who found companies, or who otherwise become rich through their work (e.g. pro athletes), as opposed to more passive ways to make money, in a way have a viewpoint similar to a feudal lord: The fiefdom called self has to be cultivated, protected and expanded.
2) Modern economics expands the sphere of success more easily than ever, through things such as branding or genre-crossing. E.g. Trump, Kanye, Michael Strahan.
3) The old-school rich indulged in a lot of leisure but also personally patronized a lot of culture. This doesn't seem to happen as much today, or if it does, more of it happens through foundations that probably free up time to generate more income.
For many of us writing code is the use of that free time.
On the other hand I can understand why unproductive people are unable to do much in USA. Most things are automated and minimum wages lock out people from mundane work.
> young men > lower-skilled men > non-working men > rudderless middle-aged men > elite men > poorer men > rich men > young non-college men
It's not that "rich people work so much", it's that "people who work much tend to be rich".
Shouldn't the market state be a pretty big experimental control?
If we're coming out of a downturn and the market is going up, on average anybody taking a financial risk would be rewarded for doing so.
It would be interesting to see the same group in a financial situation in which the market is at a peak and headed down. Are these traders who have greater interoceptive ability able to take the right risks since, on average, those who take on risk before a downturn lose money?
It lead me to http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n2/full/nn0204-102.ht...
Which formalizes the directions I've started to think about, namely the connection and feedback loop between physical sensation and emotion.
When in those type of situations, I definitely have perceived a heightened awareness, where the feeling is like being in the "zone". Decisions are easier, communications more fluid. I tend to be a more instinctual person in general, but these types of situations are far more pronounced.
Does it suggest that physiological emotions help traders make good decisions? Or does it suggest that conscious awareness of physiological emotions helps traders compensate for gut biases and make more rational decisions?
What happens if you combine physiological signals with machine learning to create an application that trades based on a human's "gut" along with other input, and perhaps historical data?
You can imagine a man vs man-machine competition where a trader's regular profit/loss is compared in real-time with the "enhanced" p/l.
What could be done if you network several traders' physiological signals and mix with machine learning and automated trading?
Is anyone doing this kind of frankentrading? Could even imagine going for scale with an Apple Watch physio-trading app :0
In fact, when I am looking for "bullshit-free" explanations of statistics concepts, I am emphatically not looking for a resource that reads like lecture notes from a graph theory class.
I think the one thing that stuck with me, personally, is the issues Dropbox had in the early days (TC 50 tech issues) and that it took six months to get Aston on board. From what I understand, pre-YC was not easy for Drew either.
As a stubbornly impatient person, this has to be hands-down the hardest part of building a startup. You're running an endless marathon as if your life depended on it, and you have to stop at the sidelines and calmly ask people if they'll run with you. And then be okay if they don't - because the course will change, and as it does it will become more attractive to different sets of people. You might see the finish line, but you have to understand that not everybody will see it the same way you do.
The thing that I'd add here is that Aston kind of downplays how important having a business model is as an employee / founder (at least per Drew joking around about pricing). I don't think he did this intentionally, but generally we're over saturated with these ideas that you just need a product people love. These stories inspire technical founders, but having a defensible business is something you should think about sooner rather than later. Not everybody can be a Dropbox, so learn as much as possible about every aspect of what your company can and will be, learn how to communicate that, and stack the deck in your favor. It's an ongoing process and I certainly am not one to claim mastery (far from it), but as somebody who's in the weeds it's the perspective I have.
I love this. There have been so many times I've run into a bug that makes me wonder if anyone on the engineering team actually used the product.
I'm curious to know: is this sentiment widely shared? Is git really that much better than hg?
I've been lucky enough to know Aston over the past two years, and have always been super impressed by his insight.
 http://www.autoadmit.com/ https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/
I almost feel like I should just go completely Android given the numbers of devices out there is overwhelming compared with Windows/iOS/OS X combined. I will keep up with my other PLs and things simply through osmosis. It's time to join the Borg!
Like cmake or not, this is a really really great change for the whole workflow of using native plugins.
I once had a student that was taking my Java 2 (OOP concepts) course and was using CodinGame for "fun".
If anything, I believe CodinGame's business model is more on the recruitment side, as their tournaments often offer interviews with the sponsors.
As much as game development is appealing and fun, the process is complicated and requires advanced knowledge of some fairly complicated algorithms even for fairly trivial games.
Also you can find yourself spending hours shuffling sprites and designing levels which is time spent not learning programming.
Also engines like Unity provide a false sense of security when infact you have no idea what's going on behind the scene and when something goes wrong you don't know where to begin and end up discouraged.
Start slow, build your foundation, learn your bits and bytes, data structures and sorting algorithms first then venture out.
If you really need shooting, explosions and fancy graphics to keep you motivated then I don't think programming as a career is for you. Most programming jobs aren't going to give you much of that. And frankly, I think all the wizz-bang graphics just interferes with your learning and getting good at visualizing in your own head what the code is doing.
And it doesn't take half a month to load/download. Neat. It seems fun even as a non-novice, just to learn other languages in a fun way.
Here's what I've come up with to visualize wealth. Suppose you start counting, going up by 1 million dollars every second, and people sit down when you reach their net worth. Most people in the US will sit down immediately. After about 9 seconds, people in the "1%" will start sitting down. Mitt Romney would sit down after 4 minutes. Near the 17 minute mark, billionaires would start sitting down. Eric Schmidt would sit down around 2.8 hours. Finally, after nearly a day, Bill Gates would sit down.
The point of this is there's a huge range of billionaires (analogous to comparing 17 minutes to a day), and the 1% hardly even registers on this scale (like a few seconds).
Do they just simply wait until the stock is at a high point, and sell a lot? Maybe move that money to other investments?
Quick q: How did you set Google Docs to display like that where no one can edit the widths of the columns?
I learned it from reading a state map about forty years ago. The legend succinctly explained the system. Without digging through a pile of paper maps, that might still be the case. Regardless, these rules are probably clearly documented from a simple web search, despite that no one has felt the need to "tell" the author what the rules are.
EDIT: "interstate numbering system" on DDG brings up the Wikipedia page as the first link, and that link explains it. There's no mystery here, though my query string does assume that one assumes a "system" to be explained.
And while I'm editing, state routes and U. S. Routes kind of follow the same pattern, especially the N/S and E/W designations. Would have to go search to verify other commonalities.
The demos where oatmeal flakes are placed on a highway map of major cities in various countries, and the Physarum optimize the paths in ways that closely resemble some of the existing major roads is compelling. I am holding out on how correlated it actually is given highways have developed not only from old horse paths and such, but from civic planning.
My daughter is a Chemistry/Bio major, and I have told her about this, and asked her advice on how I might go about doing this at home. It seems easy enough under controlled circumstances, and it it just seems fun checking in hours later for a 'result'!So much so, I ordered his book "Physarum Machines: Computers from Slime Mould".
Surprise, surprise: regional economies expand at different rates, which forecasters don't always get right. It's not as messy as Social Security numbers or area codes, but there are definite pockets of congestion.
For example, the East-West corridors between I-80 and I-90 have been graced with more highways than expected. We've had to come up with two versions apiece of I-84, I-86 and I-88 in different parts of the country, along with one I-82. By contrast, there's been no East-West build-out whatsoever between I-30 and I-40.
More details are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Interstate_Highways
a) is this new to anybody?
b) if so, what other tidbits of "everybody knows that" are fading into obscurity because of technology? (Surely you all remember how to reshoe a horse in a pinch at least?)
Vox Day (no endorsement) makes the distinction between scientistry and scientody, which I think is an increasingly useful one.
In general in big cities "guanxi" plays a smaller role, while in small cities especially the underdeveloped ones it plays a bigger role, to the extent that even doing some fairly trivial business (or even things like getting a passport or going to hospital) needs you to have some "guanxi". By "needs one to have some 'guanxi'" I mean it's not impossible for one to do without "guanxi" but it's just way smoother and faster if you know someone who can help. That's also one of the reasons people prefer to live in big cities. It's just more fair for young people without acquaintances in every possible field. On the other hand, parents are more familiar with "guanxi".
The existence of "guanxi" also makes people doubt if they have failed to lubricate some "guanxi" if they got rejected or failed for something (e.g. U.S. visa, or a reasonable exam) even if there are other reasons more likely to cause it.
"guanxi" sometimes even helps one to pass the test for driver's license, oh a big facepalm to road security...
(What I said above is not to confuse you guys, the wikipedia page is still worth reading though.)
When Elon buys SolarCity and the CEO is his cousin, that's guanxi.
When your boss gives a promotion to guy who plays golf with him, that's guanxi.
When you give your buddy a referral to a job because he helped you out with yours, that's guanxi.
It's a necessary social lubricant that also spawns nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, corruption, etc and can be found in every business large enough, especially the government.
And unlike what some posters seem to think, it's not a Chinese-only thing. It's a universal thing that has a Chinese word that nicely refers to it, and thus more recognized in Chinese society.
Is it just me, or has the yuan significantly appreciated in value...?
I know plenty of Chinese people who are highly annoyed or disgusted by the necessity of cultivating guanxi, but know that they're not going to get what they're after otherwise.
Chinese often try to sugarcoat guanxi. But to put it bluntly, it is for law/rule breaking or law/rule bending favors to acquaintances. Only because the Chinese have practiced it for millenniums as a daily surviving activities, just as eating and sleeping, the Chinese have forgotten that it's an ugly way of life. Guanxi in China is not a shameful matter _at all_, but a proud and face-boosting accomplishment which is often boasted in meetings and banquets, on social networks, and announced publicly and proudly to anybody as a show of strength.
So, the absolute necessity of guanxi, the enormous amount of utilities, the glories associated with it, most people not grown up in China/Taiwan would find it impossible to play at China's extreme level.
What's the secret source to crack guanxi in China? IMHO, it is this: always remind yourself __the lack of trust is at the core of the Chinese society__, and deduce from there. Law and law enforcement are not trustful, so you need to have friends in the government. Business contracts are not to be trusted at all, so constant monitoring and vigilance are absolute necessary during the entire business interaction with your Chinese partner, even though the contract signing ceremony was attended by high level governmental officials and announced on national newspapers! Doctors and nurses will probably give sloppy or delayed treatment because they are expecting money and gifts from you or your relatives before they treat you, if they are not in your guanxi network, so always work on your network to include someone in hospitals. Don't trust the law to punish the bad doctors for such cruelty, there is no such thing. You get the picture. Now anybody still say it's similar in developed western countries? :)
So how to go about build guanxi in China? If you have overcome the unbearable loath on the whole matter and said to yourself, I am gonna play it all the way to fucking make it in China. My advice is, do what the Chinese do. The No.1 approach used by Chinese to build guanxi is to __inject fixed|irremovable elements into your relationship with someone__ if you want to guanxi that person. Such fixed|irremovable elements include things such as born in the same province, graduated from same school, served in the same division in the army, have worked in the same company(maybe at different time), related to each other by blood no matter how distant that is, basically anything that will not change for the rest of your life, and preferably the elements happened in the past, not recently, as history and time add a little seriousness and trustworthiness to it. In contrast, fickle things in relationships (in the eyes of the Chinese) are things such as your abilities and accomplishments, your credentials, social status, the promises made, member of the same club at this moment (this helps a bit but needed further enhancement), etc. Fire up your imagination and creativity to find out the fixed elements in guanxi, promote it, enhance it, and build from there.
It differs how much it influences daily interactions, citywide or regionally. In Beijing it is noticeable in a lesser degree, but often is perceived by outsiders/foreigners as 'bribing' when a small present is involved.
Edit: I do not mean anything bad. I have lived in Beijing, China for many years (married to a Chinese). Just some foreigners have more difficulty to understand this (as the reasoning why they call it the G-word). I hate to call this a 'cultural difference', as I believe it is mostly related to misunderstanding. This is all due to a different upbring, in a different environment (and receiving a different sense of what is common). This can often lead to misunderstandings as people perceive the actions in the wrong way. It might help to have a look at Cultural Dimensions [https://docs.com/gerard-braad/1061/cultural-dimensions-asia]. This explains some of the things involved. Just a translating it to 'relationship' does not mean it has the same meaning. Many words and concepts are different between cultures. TL;DR It is definitely not the negative words mentioned below. Just 'smoothing' a relationship which seems beneficial should not be seen as brown-nosing. Above; hyh1048576 explained it very well. People blame themselves if they got rejected for something... others might judge them as saying they haven't put enough 'effort' into it. When the relation seems beneficial, they will try to do something to 'smoothing' the relationship. But as mentioned, in Beijing this happens in a much lesser degree but not invisible.
1) How do you build guanxi?
2) How do you maintain guanxi?
3) How is guanxi lost after it's been gained?
4) Give me an example with two people where one has far more guanxi than another. How are they treated differently by the third party they have guanxi with? (No direct familial relation)
If you normally wait 30 days for your money, but you opt for next day pay for a 1.5% charge on your $100 dollars in receivables, what's the real cost? The provider earns $1.50 for 29 days worth of floating money on your behalf (you'd get in in 30, but you opt for it tomorrow for $1.50).
Now, let's say the company flips the same $98.50 12 times per year. That's earnings of $18 on $98.50, or 18.25% on the company's money...not bad. But wait. What if the company has a strong cash position and can finance the $98.50 at prime, at 90% of receivables (cause that or better is what strong companies can get). Well, then the company needs to borrow $88.65 for the year, at 3.5% per year (prime rate). The company pays $2.66 per year in interest, out of the $18, to earn $15.34 on their initial 10% of the $98.50. So, 1.5% quick pay actually yields the company 15.34 / 9.85 or 156% on their money.
156% isn't a bad ROI.
This is the killer for us and, I'm guessing, many other marketplaces without a Lyft-sized (20%) rake.
Our current solution for marketplace payouts charges one quarter per payout. The funds are direct deposited in the user's account the next business day. Maybe we have a sweet deal, but to go from this to 1.5%, in addition to Stripe's other (higher than average) fees, is hard to justify. (Which is unfortunate, we'd love to use their great libraries!)
Handling information requests: instead of requesting it directly from the account holder, Stripe will request information, such as a social security number or passport scan, from you. You must collect this information from the user and provide it to Stripe, otherwise Stripe may disable transfers to the account.
Two years ago, we tried this at Homejoy as an incentives for the cleaners to get 5 stars.ie. If you get 5's on your appointment, we'll pay you out the same day. We did this manually via Stripe, of course.
Efficacy of the incentive aside (it didn't actually have an impact on 5s), we cut this program for two reasons:
1) Transaction cost, as many users pointed out
2) Unpredictability - most of the workers on our marketplace preferred the predictability of weekly or biweekly payouts, even if the size of those payouts varied. It's hard enough for people to manage personal finances on a regular schedule without the added headache of getting money instantly, or daily.
A question for the Stripe engineers: does this mean we would instantly know if a transfer has failed? One of our biggest pain points right now is when a user enters incorrect account details, we transfer money to them, and the payment is reversed a week later.
And one other question: if we're using balanced transactions to take charges and use them to fund transfers, we still need to wait for the charge to settle right? So in that scenario, "instant" means 5-7 days instead of twice that?
Wikipedia seems to have only basic numbers up:
The first sentence of that section says that "geothermal power is considered to be renewable because any projected heat extraction is small compared to the Earth's heat content." I'd like to see some estimates on how much of that heat content is available on the depths we're drilling down to (as opposed to the contents of the whole planet); and again, trees were a renewable resource too, before the industrial revolution.
I really hope this works. It could be a huge answer to LARGE areas that require heat.
One of the most advanced test sites is happening now by a joint DOE/University/private collaboration at Newberry Volcano west of Bend, OR http://www.newberrygeothermal.com/
I think there is a lot of room for investment here. Geothermal is, in general, a relatively safe, secure and environmentally friendly method of power generation (the biggest concerns are in dewatering hot springs, which are beloved if not held sacred by locals). EGS may potentially have some similar wastewater issues as fracking, although not to the same scale both due to smaller volume and the lack of a need for nasty surfactants to get organics to desorb from rock. But it's generally not viewed as a viable large-scale technology in the press or more superficial energy analyses.
Also wonder what gauge the holes will be, I assume they will leave them cased with the rod string but christ they can't be planning to drill HQ that deep could they? Maybe even 8 inch for the first leg? Anyone seen anymore hardware details?
Edit :fix phones autocorrect.
What are the chances of this having similar seismic impacts with the injection of water at those depths - is there already a significant amount of water down there so the net effect would be replacement of the increased volume of the system's interior? Is the nature of the area involved such that adding water is going to lubricate existing fault lines?
Part of the concern with this is whether we're going to start seeing a significant volume of earthquakes in areas where building codes don't and haven't traditionally required the kind of safety features found in more seismically active areas.
Interesting to see this potentially close to fruition. Now if only all roofs, roads and windows could extract solar power...
There's not that much about the project in English, though. Here is a short video interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n853GBQocC4 and a short article http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/finnish-40-mw-district-heating...
I'd be curious how much power is required to vaporize soil and rock.
The motel like place I stayed in had created an exposed pipe network in the room which emitted heat from this water. Don't want heat ? Just close the tap. Less heat turn the tap a little bit :D
One of the things that I find interesting about physical science is how many similarities there are between things that flow of very different types. In this way, making power from heat is very much like making power from water. We cannot make power from water just sitting around somewhere, no matter how high or low; we can only make power by allowing it to flow from somewhere high to somewhere low and tapping that flow. And for practical purposes, we need flow that has a certain minimum pressure and volume to be able to convert it electrical power in a cost-effective way.
Heat works the same way. There may be a tremendous amount of energy in something very hot, but the only way to use it, convert it into power, is to allow it to flow to somewhere cooler, and tap that flow in a way similar in concept to a water turbine. And just like the water turbine, the heat flow must have a certain temperature difference and rate of flow to be converted into electrical power in a cost-effective way.
Unfortunately, geothermal is terrible at this over most of the Earth's surface. The heat gradient between the hot lower levels of the crust and the surface is so long and gradual that it's effectively impossible to make electrical power from it. It's kind of like trying to extract energy from a flowing stream that's thousands of miles wide, but only a centimeter deep and flowing at barely a trickle. The total amount of energy associated with that flow is enormous, but it's so diffuse that it's difficult to tap.
Note that these guys are planning to use it for heating buildings. That's much easier, as water coming out at 120-150 degrees F is perfectly fine for that. It could potentially save a bunch of energy versus electrical or gas heating, assuming they can pipe it around without losing too much heat. But making electricity effectively requires getting the water hot enough at moderately high pressure to make steam to turn a turbine with. You can play games with exotic working fluids and such to try and get something from lower temperature differences, but it's probably impossible to run a plant at market electricity rates like that.
If we ever want to make really big amounts of energy from geothermal, I haven't really run the numbers on it, but I suspect we'd need to tap into heat below the actual crust, just to get the heat replenishment rate from the mantle high enough. We'd definitely need to be able to drill and maintain holes that deep, and then run some sort of working fluid down to the bottom, let it pick up heat at a multi-gigawatt rate, then pipe it back up to the surface without losing too much of the heat. If we ever figure out how to do that, then we'll have essentially all the power we could ever use in about the safest and least-interfering way I can imagine.
For example, what if I wanted to modify the atmosphere for an experiment I'm running, who do I talk to about that?
From the way it reads it looks like he is asking how to bulk remove an email address from the archived messages so when they are turned over they don't contain the redacted email address.
I assume it would be embarrassing and/or problematic to share the email addresses of various ambassadors and other government officials in public records. You could also read something nefarious into it if you want.
This whole fishing expedition is hilarious and transparently political. The Bush administration ran private email servers to avoid FOIA requests, then nuked millions of saved emails when his term was up to avoid handing them over. I didn't see any huge circus or massive outcry about that.
The idea that we should be able to immediately read all the correspondence written by any public official also seems silly... it just encourages public officials not to use email. People are allowed to have private conversations. A reasonable compromise might be a time limit... say emails are held sealed for X years after leaving office, then made public?
Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time.
The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tried to cover up email indiscretions?
Most people do believe that where there's smoke, there's fire. And this cluster of events can't be good.
One of several archived copies of the r/exchangeserver thread, "Remove or replace to/from address on archived emails?" (the user stonetear deleted his account during the r/conspiracy thread): http://archive.is/FXcao
I have not seen this reported on by any major US news media. (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS) Other than The Hill, US News, various right-wing sources, and VICE I don't see anyone writing about this. It reminds me of the first hour or two after Hillary's episode at the 9/11 event where the only major news source reporting was Fox News.
Is this something people are interested in? Is there an obligation to report on this nationally?
If you are going to run an e-mail server in difficult circumstances then hire a System Administrator who does not need to post obviously problematic questions to Reddit.
I didn't necessarily disagree that there are moments where we got it wrong, for sure. I tried arguing that using those events as a point of reference for insulating journalism a bit better was probably a good idea; you know "first step to overcoming a problem is admitting you have one" and he was having none of it. Maybe this story will do the trick.
Really curious to see where this goes taking some points from that debate.
Actually it's the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination.
I don't want Clinton or Trump to be the next POTUS. I think they're both inadequate for the position.
Does anyone know if there is any form of signing the outlook data exports / live datastore that would prevent easy external programmatic replacement?
About a month ago I received this pdf  (1700+ pages of email records) of Chicago's office of the mayor after about three months of resistance. Prior to that, it took a year and a half and a law suit to receive one week's worth of Chicago's mayor's logs  through Chicago's IT department. To my knowledge, prior to this work, records in volume have been impossible to get due to asinine rejections. The amount or resistance (and holy shit was there a lot) led me to run several chains of FOIA requests to gather bulk communication records.
Of note in the call records are many private investigator calls. I haven't had much chance to go through the email records and could use some help if anybody's interested.
 https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/oFwvr/fi-29853345-5f15-4... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR... (four, mostly unstructured sheets)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12533757 250 points (more than this post at the moment)
> Citation needed if you're > going to "correct the record."
It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart and soul. From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always generous with his time and his wisdom. -- Hillary Clinton
Does anyone know what happens in the unlikely event that Clinton is placed under indictment before the election? Does Kaine move up the ticket? Does the DNC pick someone else entirely? What options do the electors have?
"A woman's foot on a pink spiky floor"
Players in China are used to outright horrible software (QQ, Qihoo 360, and in fact the majority of Chinese-produced software installed on a Windows computer of a typical user), bland repetitive art, bugs, grinding and paying to win.
A strong nationalistic sentiment makes Chinese players favour games based on their culture and history, which is mostly unknown outside of China because of how closed the country has been for centuries and the "foreign barbarians can't possibly understand our culture" attitude. In addition, the content is usually limited to the Four Great Classical Novels because that's the only thing a Chinese layman is familiar with. But also, due to censorship, it is impossible to use more interesting settings without getting unwanted attention from the government. A recent development in censorship is , which bans the use of Traditional Chinese characters (as opposed to the simplified ones in use after the Communist Party takeover and which are in use in all Chinese-speaking countries outside the PRC) and English words.
Combined with a large potential player base and lack of foreign competition, even the most atrocious abomination of a game can make some money in the internal market.
A huge issue is that the Chinese gaming companies are accustomed to very little international competition for Chinese themed games and in the last five years or so, limited competition at all. It's similar to how Youku thrived in China (especially after YouTube got blocked) but can't compete internationally. Winning in China and successfully entering a market where US and Japanese game companies are unrestrained are two very different challenges.
These games, all huge successes in Japan and in the west, have all the issues described -- radically different art styles, very different pacing, and complex and unfamiliar user interfaces compared to what westerners were used to. Even worse, during that period, Japanese games got little if any localization for the US and European markets, beyond hastily done and poorly proofread translations of the text.
So what's different about Japanese games?
Oh the many ironies. Things have truly come full circle.
The image caption "Popular Art Style among Game Players in China" could be much better phrased as "The Art Style of popular Chinese games" imo. The original caption gives the impression that the art style led to popularity, which is not true: it is probably because the settings of these game, of ancient China, fill a niche that few foreign competitors are interested in.
Here's a recent Chinese kung-fu movie, (mainland, not Hong Kong) fully approved by the government and Party. This has a game-like look to it. It's a sense of the style expected. Even though this is set present-day, it looks like a historical drama.
>Its not creepy if hes hot. I freely admit it. When a very attractive stranger approaches me and tells me Im beautiful, it brightens my day. When a guy who is short, fat or balding does it, it makes my skin crawl no matter how tactful he is about it. I just want him to go away. Im not alone in feeling this way. Most women feel the same, but hide the true extent of it when the guys are around.
Being afraid of a creepy guy who won't leave you alone is very different than being creeped out by a clown or an abandoned building.
Did Steve Buscemi help define creepiness for the polled group, or did he hit a genetic jackpot of pre-existing ideas of creepiness? (Or both?)
1) The theory of mirror neurons. This theory states that if you are nervous, the other person will pick up on it subconsciously. As the article states, false confidence, even if you try your best to hide it, will come across as a barely disguised nervousness.
One of the things that I've observed while watching some pick-up artists practice is that those who eventually become "successful" are basically asking nothing of those who approach. They don't fear rejection. In fact, they can be quite entertaining and good listeners. However, for most of these individuals, they probably had to go through a lot of rejections to get to the point where they didn't honestly care what the reaction was.
2) The hover zone/kill zone
Commonly used in pick-up artist terminology. This is easily described as wanting to talk to a specific individual, even approaching within several feet, yet not doing it. I know we've all done this, at some point, at a bar or even at a friend's party. You know the person knows that you are interested in them.
In one of Pedro Almodovar's movies, in the director's commentary on the DVD, there is a man in a woman's apartment who is looking through his host's stuff. The director makes a statement along the lines that "liking without reciprocity" makes it stalking (or worse).
In the very rare times, where a woman who has explicitly hit on me, asking lots of questions, showing interest that is out of norm with the pace of conversation (e.g. we just met), I can attest that it feels creepy as in (What have I done to make you so interested?). In more common circumstances, I recall people who are seemingly interested in you but quickly steer the conversation to something like network marketing.
Given these factors, what can be done to not come across as creepy?
First, don't hover. Talk to someone right away, even if it just a quick introduction.
Second, being quiet can actively work against you in most social situations. Especially when you are meeting new people. To this day, I can be enjoying a party by meeting new people in a group and listening to their stories and (usually) extroverts will ask if "are you having a good time?". Even if I am, it doesn't outwardly show, at least in the manner they'd expect.
Third, the answer may lie in being mindful of reciprocity. For example, talking to a cute individual, what is it about him/her/they that you find interesting (that is not related to something she cannot easily change, like her looks).
When I've talked to my good looking friend girls, they basically say they have to ignore all the attention/cat calls when they walk down the street.
Fourth, to escape the friend zone, you have to make it explicitly clear that you are interested in someone romantically and tell them why. Asking someone out to coffee to talk about their job v. asking someone out to a picnic because you like them.
One last side note - if you walk into a party with a couple good looking friends (male or female), people will automatically ascribe a higher status to you, whether you care to agree with the theory and practice of social proof or not.
Take a horror movie. If said collector is a recluse who's history nobody knows about, they're described as scary. If they're out and about, visiting neighbors, trying to relate and engage with people, they are much more likely to be described as creepy.
As such, bringing it back to everyday behavior, I think the critical aspect that determines whether something is creepy or not is whether there is a mismatch between what the person is explicitly informing they want to do (be a friendly neighbor), and whether the person on the receiving end suspects there are ulterior motives (they want to collect hair).
This is hugely destructive for the founder in question. If you don't have vc baking and you don't sell to a big name? Looking for a job after running a business with a gross of a few hundred thousand a year is just not the same as looking for a job after working for one of the big valley companies. I mean I exaggerate and say that employers treat me like I was unemployed, and it is not that bad, but compared to working for large companies with reputations for hiring good people, running an unfunded, ramen profitable company looks pretty bad on your resume.
I would argue that vc mitigates a lot of these risks. First, you have a name, a reputation to put on your reputation. Second, the bit about get big or get dead? In many cases, that is as good for the founder as for the vc. You are way less likely to end up starting your career over when the thing fails, both because of the reputation factor and because either you got big (which is good for the career even if the company gets dead before you can cash out) or you got dead fairly quickly, and have less time to explain away.
I can only speak for myself, but to me, getting individually rich is not the goal. Having a quick exit isn't the goal.
The goal is to make a huge company that shifts the way people behave in a way that I think will make them better off and "build a world I want to live in."
The reality is, for big moonshot things (AI, Nano, Genetics, AR), you can't bootstrap them with revenues - you need a shitload of high risk money to build, grow & scale. That's what Venture money is for.
If you get venture money, make some waves and flame out or acquihire before the unicorn exit and see it as a loss, then I don't really know what you were working for. Think about it like a PhD on steroids - if you do it right, no matter the long term outcome you are making a dent in the market.
I think Eric put together a strong piece that missed commentary from being published on Friday.
Am I misunderstanding something, or is the author asserting that VCs regularly make the sunk cost fallacy?
I would omit the remarks at the beginning about 2 vs. 3 compatibility. Not only is it wrong as an absolute, it doesn't add value to the tutorials. The audience this is appropriate for is unlikely to care or even understand. Simply link directly to the Python 3 version to download.
def sum(list): sum = 0 for l in list: sum = sum + l return sum mylist = [1,2,3,4,5] print(sum(mylist))
Maybe people who already know how to code in other languages but are just trying to Learn Python?
Google Code Jam is very helpful if you like algorithmic programming.
One of the nicest things about python is rich libraries for daily mundane GUI automation: pyautogui, pyhooks, pywinauto, sikuli, etc.
Unlike most astronomical telescopes, the GEODSS stations have a pair of telescopes some distance apart, under common control. They can range near-earth objects by parallax. One of the less-publicized features of the system is that one of the telescopes has a laser, so dark targets can be illuminated.
(In my aerospace days, the specs for this system crossed my desk. Our company had bid on the system, but lost.)
anyway sorry for the rant.
Also, is the match monthly or all at once?
By the way, if anyone is looking to support teachers through small donations, DonorsChoose (https://www.donorschoose.org) does matching opportunities like this regularly. They fund classroom projects, not health issues, but I think the satisfaction and rationale for supporting are similar. The most recent match was backed by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Is this only for new donors? I am already a universal fund donor, but may consider making a new account for my 'friend' to get the match donation.
Also, the matching could be prorated over the next 100 years. This company has only been around for 3 years and doesn't have a profile on Charity Navigator yet. I will give it some more time.
If one indeed wanted to achieve that goal, I couldn't think of a faster way.
At this rate, we'll probably see walls built in Europe before we see Trump's wall over here.
It's noticeable that he does not promote Syrian immigration to Israel, which is next door and has taken in zero refugees, and instead uses all of his resources to force Western countries to accept thousands of young unaccompanied men with violent backgrounds.
Sure there will be talented people, but they'll find a way, it's still nice they'll get help getting funded,
but what about the masses who come for social benefits, and don't really wish to work during their lifetime.
Not to mention the lack of single f*ck they give about European culture.
Come back and live in Europe Soros papa, THEN have it as your playground.
- weapons cannot be sold to countries we do not have reciprocal defence agreements with
- weapon and oil sanctions are enforced globally
- a decade long investment of around 5% of world GDP increasing energy efficiency, at the same time as building electricity pipelines to take solar from tropical zones to rest of world and an end to oil pipelines
- end to oil subsidies globally
- global agreements on water rights between countries, on investment and policy for efficient (drip) water use in agriculture
Grief, that's just off top of my head and is probably only half the problem. Basically if we can do all that, Soros will lose his wedge. I doubt he would mind too much.
Why Im Investing $500 Million in Migrants I will invest in startups, established companies...
Which is the story title + subtitle.
The world has been unsettled by a surge in forced migration. Tens of millions of people are on the move, fleeing their home countries in search of a better life abroad. Some are escaping civil war or an oppressive regime; others are forced out by extreme poverty, lured by the possibility of economic advancement for themselves and their families.
Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies to handle the increased flow has contributed greatly to human misery and political instabilityboth in countries people are fleeing and in the countries that host them, willingly or not. Migrants are often forced into lives of idle despair, while host countries fail to reap the proven benefit that greater integration could bring.
Governments must play the leading role in addressing this crisis by creating and sustaining adequate physical and social infrastructure for migrants and refugees. But harnessing the power of the private sector is also critical.
Recognizing this, the Obama administration recently launched a Call to Action asking U.S. companies to play a bigger role in meeting the challenges posed by forced migration. Today, private-sector leaders are assembling at the United Nations to make concrete commitments to help solve the problem.
In response, I have decided to earmark $500 million for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities. I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves. Although my main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, I will be looking for good investment ideas that will benefit migrants all over the world.
This commitment of investment equity will complement the philanthropic contributions my foundations have made to address forced migration, a problem we have been working on globally for decades and to which we have dedicated significant financial resources.
We will seek investments in a variety of sectors, among them emerging digital technology, which seems especially promising as a way to provide solutions to the particular problems that dislocated people often face. Advances in this sector can help people gain access more efficiently to government, legal, financial and health services. Private businesses are already investing billions of dollars to develop such services for non-migrant communities.
This is why money now moves instantaneously from one mobile wallet to another, drivers find customers by using only a cellphone, and how a doctor in North America can see a patient in Africa in real time. Customizing and extending these innovations to serve migrants will help improve the quality of life for millions around the world.
All of the investments we make will be owned by my nonprofit organization. They are intended to be successfulbecause I want to show how private capital can play a constructive role helping migrantsand any profits will go to fund programs at the Open Society Foundations, including programs that benefit migrants and refugees.
As longtime champions of civil society, we will be focused on ensuring that our investments lead to products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities.
We will also work closely with organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Rescue Committee to establish principles to guide our investments. Our goal is to harness, for public good, the innovations that only the private sector can provide.
I hope my commitment will inspire other investors to pursue the same mission.
Mr. Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC and founder of the Open Society Foundations.
It's clearly stated that the US military is still going to be the primary source for the data.
Why not have an open RFP that anyone is able to provide a proposal and if the a existing agency doesn't win, make it independently run?
Edit sorry didn't read the article. It doesn't sound like they'll have the power to block access to space?