Later in the article it points out that an undercover person would arrive on a passport under a name but then check into a hotel under a different name. In that case it would trigger the alert that the passport name never arrived at a hotel. It also says that the practice had to change so that an undercover person used only a single persona for a country instead of having multiple personas and switching between them.
Having had an unsexy startup, all of the above helped to attract good talent. As developers ourselves, we were attracted to an environment like the one you describe and so we created a company that we would want to work in. We had no turnover for several years as a result.
Is this an American thing? Thinking that you can take a companies money and then have the right to tell the company what they are allowed to do. If you are unhappy with the way Google operates then you can move jobs to somewhere else. Somewhere that is compatible with your personal beliefs. If you joined a defence contractor it would be odd if you thought you could tell the company not to work on military projects. If you accept the high pay of Google and all the other benefits, then you work on the projects Google management decide on. Otherwise, bugger off and work somewhere else. Simples.
Kind of? I worked in a FAANG and that boasts "everyone is an owner (of the company)". Which must mean I should have the power to change how things are done within.
I can't imagine Google, a company that I have never worked at, would be any different in this sense. And if you buy into that crap and the culture then you want to make that change.
In fact this is how most tech companies operate. I think the hedge funds and boutique finance firms operate on the culture that if you can make everyone money you will be rewarded extremely handsomely.
The oldie research labs would collect great minds and give the opportunity for their research staff to do whatever they like, within reason.
So I think it's more to it than just "if you don't like it then bugger off". But if everyone is an owner - then who gets to decide in the end? Clearly the people with more influence and power. Don't like it -- then bugger off.
All cloud companies are going to figure out that the cloud won't work if everyone is afraid of being protested off their cloud provider.
It's already someone else's computer. If that someone is hostile to me or my business, or has a track record of becoming hostile, then there no way to build a business like that.
If everyone is an owner no one would be let go. Everyone is an owner is Kool aid hr fed you.
I bet it's b series stock and you're an owner of the a small nonvot8ng part (I might be a bigger owner in my investments without working there at all).
If you really believe what you wrote you're fooling yourself
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that there is always something more fundamental to discover. It could be that we have now discovered all the pieces of the puzzle, all the building blocks are now known about. Maybe the LHC has not discovered anything new, apart from confirming the Higgs, because there is nothing more to be found.
Maybe the issue that is that we cannot work out the theory, the equations that correctly describe it all properly. Maybe dark energy and dark matter and not actually 'other stuff' but just an indication that there are errors in our theories. Fix the theory and the 'other stuff' disappears. Quantum physics and General Relativity need to be combined at some point and doing so may resolve everything! Or it could simply be that human intelligence is not capable of finding the solution. In the same way a dog is never going to understand calculus, maybe you need an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000 to solve physics.
Seems internally inconsistent. I may or may not have read that story a long time ago, (seems like something that probably was in Analog or F&SF) but according to the description on Wikipedia, the aliens are overconfident because "they can detect no use of gravity manipulation". But if they are only using matchlocks and black powder, how would they even begin to sense anything about Earth's society remotely? Why would basic antigravity technology be enough for viable space travel any more than rockets were on Earth in the 13th century?
In general, if there was an easy way to travel between stars that we'd missed, then visitors would be everywhere, and in fact would probably have prevented humans from ever evolving undisturbed in the first place. You may say "well, what about UFOs", but as others have pointed out, society has changed recently to where billions of people have high quality cameras with them every minute of the day, and pictures of UFOs, bigfoot, etc. are still blurry and inconclusive. If they were real, we might have such pictures, but archaeologists and astronomers would have copious evidence too. It wouldn't be just hints at the fringe.
> Or it could simply be that human intelligence is not capable of finding the solution. In the same way a dog is never going to understand calculus, maybe you need an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000 to solve physics.
In philosophy, this is called cognitive closure. It’s possible that we humans are hitting some “edge” just like, in your example, you mentioned that a dog may never grasp calculus. To my knowledge, I’m not sure if there’s a way to scientifically test this.
Turing didn't prove anything about human understanding. He proved about computation with an idealized, resource-unlimited computational system, which isn't, at all, the same thing.
Only if you assume unlimited compute time. For instance, if the equations that describe the universe are a million lines long (as opposed to Tegmark's "should fit on a T-shirt" criteria) then it could take an impossibly long time to discover them.
That’s not how scientific discovery works. We aren’t handed a description that might have fractal complexity, but rather we invent models to describe it. Even if reality is infinitely complex, out descriptions need not be. And it’s well established that our approximate models can be vastly simpler than underlying reality.
We have, today, approximate models that are simple. But they're not quite exact for things like quantum gravity. If you want an exact model, it is presumably longer. Presumably, because smart people have looked for a long time for simple models that are more accurate and haven't found one.
If the exact model is only moderately long, then we (or a Turing machine) can discover and simulate it. But it's at least conceivable that the shortest-possible exact description of physics is extremely long.
The issue is more of data availability. Quantum gravity is hard to pin down because the differences are not observable at energies we can test or at cosmic scales we can measure. If we had a probe skirting the event horizon of a black hope the answer might be obvious. But we don’t.
1. Either we actually have discovered all the fundamental pieces of the puzzle and there is nothing significant we still could work on so we entered the infinite journey of technological optimization. Or,
2. We have missed or misinterpreted some important pieces of the puzzle and we're stagnant until we go back and fix them so we can move forward.
It also does not mention that the latest calculations on the flatness of the Universe make it flat with a 0.4% error bar. That means it is either flat, and so infinite, or very close to flat. In the close to flat scenario it would not be infinite but still very very very stupidly large.
Hollywood always goes through cycles. Remember when most films were simple/generic Westerns with John Wayne on screen every other month. Remember after WW2 when there was a glut of war films. Some actors made there career out of playing German bad guys. Or the prevalence of disaster movies in the late 70's. Today it is Superheroes. In another 10 years? Who knows...
"Gen IV nuclear energy is clean, efficient and plentiful - why the fear?"
Despite all the promises, in practice they are super expensive and take forever to build. The UK is currently building a new reactor at Hinkley Point. The total cost keeps going up with the latest estimate at £22bn. The UK government has to provide a guaranteed minimum price for the electricity it generates to ensure investors put money into the project. So every UK household will be paying more for power for 35 years because of just this one reactor. Not to mention the project started in 2008 and is expected to actually generate power in 2025. And this ignores the cost of decommissioning the reactor at the end of its life.
Every generation of reactor is going to be so much cheaper! And yet they never are. Not in the UK anyway.
$20 trillion is the yearly output of the US economy. A fair comparison would therefore be the revenue of WeWork for a year, which was $1.82 billion for 2018.
That makes WeWork about 1/11000th of the economy and so about 0.0091% of the economy.
While not stated explicitly in this PR, the meta-materials that are referenced are supposedly from possible ET craft. This announcement has everything to do with UFO's as TTSA (To the Stars Academy) is the group that brought publicity to the NAVY UFO videos, helped change NAVY policy on UFO reporting, and also got the NAVY to state those videos of UFO's were real.
The guidelines ask to use the original title in the submission https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In some cases it is better to use the subtitle, or a relevant sentence of the article (whatever is less linkbaty).
As an indirect consequence, if the article doesn't say UFO in the title or the body, don't use UFO in the title of the submission.
that's not true on many levels. What the navy said was that the videos were taken by their aircraft and that they were UFOs, but nobody said the UFOs were extraterrestrial craft. Nobody has any "meta-materials from possible ET craft".
Wow, you're really confident in that assesment. Maybe you would be interested to see the WikiLeaks leaked email exchange between Tom Delonge and John Podesta where Tom talks about his collaboration with Maj. Gen. William N. McCasland.
Anyone can send an email to anyone else and make any claims they like. Now please prove to us that the "collaboration" and events described in that email actually took place.
Do you feel threatened by being asked to justify a claim? Perhaps you expect people to take this UFO stuff for granted without skepticism? Sorry... if that's the sort of community you're looking for, /x/ may be more your forte.
>but you may find this interesting
I notice every one of your sources reference TTSA, and this link does as well, and contains more claims from Tom Delonge, but you haven't actually justified your treatment of these claims or sources as factually accurate. You can't prove Tom Delonge is credible with more quotes from Tom Delonge, that's not how proof works.
I’m not threatened at all, I’m just not going to do your research for you that’s all. Either you’re intrigued and you will do look into it, or you’re not and you wont, I don’t come here to convince anyone.
I agree. Note that this is an email from "Tom DeLonge" to "John Podesta". I'd be more impressed if it were an email form "John Podesta" to "Tom DeLonge".
