In manyclangs (which uses elfshaker for storage) we arrange that the object code has stable addresses when you do insertions/deletions, which means you don't need such a filter. But today I learned about such filters, so thanks for sharing your question!
In this comment, you say "20% compression is pretty good". AFAIK, usually "X% compression" means the measure of the reduction in size, not the measure of the remaining. Thus, 0.01% compression sounds almost useless, very different from the 10,000x written next to it.
Not even limited trials with a long window of study (how long?) will prevent this. Science itself is a non-holistic way of looking at the world, blind to what is not measured. Concerning this example, it seems like a predictable effect of pesticides and global trade -- not unexpected, though perhaps not hoped for. Instead, the principle of caution must be applied when using technology. Pesticides that increase yield or decrease risk by only 10% may not be necessary at all.
Any industrial action will disrupt Earth's equilibriums given the high level of consumption those in the developed world currently enjoy.
> Science itself is a non-holistic way of looking at the world, blind to what is not measured.
This is unfortunately a broad class of error; qualitative metrics which are difficult to measure and quantify get brushed aside by people who want to make rational data-driven decisions. Robert McNamara became infamous for this; the 'data driven' way he tried to manage the Vietnam War focused on hard quantitative metrics, like bodycounts, and de-emphasized or ignored qualitative metrics like popular opinion in Vietnam and America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
In the software industry, those that would rely on instrumentation and telemetry to guide product development often repeat the same mistakes. Many times I've seen user feedback ignored, derided, and demeaned. "Users are dumb, they don't know what they want. Ask users what they want and they'll ask for a faster horse." These ostensibly rational data-driven designers are ironically irrational because they ignore the well established limitations of their data-driven approach.
This is interesting, but I'm guessing most of the effect is due to the novelty of the "robot". Most kids have probably seen a tablet before, and not this.
I don't recall whether or not it's the default, but Bitlocker can do this on domain-joined machines-- they get automatically backed up into Active Directory where they can be retrieved from the computer account's properties (or there's a tool in RSAT that can find them).
Amazon (amazon.com side)'s revenue depends on consumer behavior. If marijuana use in the general population is thought to change consumer behavior in their favor, then they would be foolish not to support it. This effect probably outweighs any worker productivity issues that might be introduced.
That survey result has very little to do with the assertion that there is such a social pressure. All it implies is that respondents think it would be nice if there were.
My point is that there might be unconscious biases at play in parents, no matter what they might respond to a survey. It's not feasible for parents to account for 100% of their behavior when it comes to something as unimportant as this. IMO, this is something that just can't be determined scientifically.
> Would any parent have thought that 50 years ago?
Yes, not only was parents doing that recognized as common-but-not-dominant thing 50 years ago (as a near-50 GenXer, I was aware of it existing and being perceived by adult society that way as a kid), it was even before that a popular media cliche leveraging a social trope that it was a real if eccentric recurring pattern (especially by fathers without sons toward girls) even earlier.
Yep, the fact that this question is even being asked shows that flawed assumptions have been made.
We don't even have to get into the nature/nurture debate: It's possible that your daughter learned to play baby dolls by watching and imitating her mother. This counts as socialization according to these nature/nurture studies, but ...
To attempt to take away the human being from society, from parents, etc., and find out what this human being would do outside of human society is an act of extreme cruelty, because human beings cannot grow up and function in total isolation. This is why, although science can be applied to specific biological processes such as reflexes, it will never be able to describe a person or a person's behavior. This is why psychology and sociology are considered "soft sciences".
There absolutely is a genetic basis for behaviour though. A bird doesn't sing because it likes music. But because genes that exhibit that trait have a competitive advantage. And the same kind of thing can be seen in humans, and most keenly in babies and toddlers. Suddenly something happens in their brain and behaviours emerge by instinct.
There could easily be a genetic basis for why girls and boys like different things. And that is interesting. And obviously other factors play a role (like TV and siblings). The mistake is to believe that this is somehow a restriction on free will. The amazing thing about humans is out ability to break out of our genetic mold. The robin can never make rock music, but we can.
Also, no one is suggesting that we isolate some kids on a desert island to see what would happen. But there is nothing wrong with running that thought experiment! And maybe that understanding can help us break out of our genetic mold. We might be able to catch bad instinctive behaviours in ourselves and moderate them.
Memory in gene expressions might even account for the difference. Gene expressions can change during a lifetime and across a couple of generations (ie. memory of famine can last 2 generations in gene expression). There are outliers that go against the norms, so seems not hardcoded on chromosone level.
It would be interesting if environmental factors had unexpected consequences down the line at a population level. Like famine leading to behavioral changes and effecting world events. There could be very compelling evidence out there to support claims like that, although obviously very difficult to establish causality.
I wouldn't be surprised to find gene expressions making Western-style education and standardized tests sub-optimal for whole swaths of people (hypothesis). Imagine if your very makeup go against what you're told should be just routine, but it goes against your innate body-mind preferences. Imagine that for whole tribes of people, and that maybe there are better paths more optimized to grow and educate different populations. Being able to communicate the gap or avoid misgivings, would be next to impossible.
A discussion of such would be less about identity, and more about who-we-shall-become, the evolving versions of ourselves, though also respecting heritage.
This is only possible with trust and common ground.
If there's a cellular radio. it has to be declared to the FCC. You can look up your TV's FCC ID to verify that it doesn't have one. I'm not aware of any TV that has an embedded cellular radio.
