p-values that are not in the physics ranges are ridiculous.
It's a shame everyone started copying physics but decided for higher acceptance/rejection values.
I was a little bit disappointed when I realized that a bunch of valid modern science is just proper experiment design and number crunching. If it's not physics, there's no models of why things work, there's just a p-value on the correlation or some other comparison function.
Medicine has turned into a field where you can't know a thing.
> There is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions(chiropractic intervention) provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with [lower back pain] when compared to other interventions.
Depends on how many. Flying airplanes is around 1-2% of our total CO2 footprint. Of course, for an individual, doing 1 intercontinental flight with a full plane is equivalent to months if not a year of driving a car to work every day, but in total, not many people fly.
Depending on the efficiency of the rocket and the reduced number of people doing this, the numbers shouldn't be that much higher.
So, they are actually very efficient transportation for long trips. Absolute worst case flying around the world is 24,901 mi which uses the same fuel per person as a 35 MPG car commuting 26 miles each way for one year.
PS: You can double check this by considering ~1/3 of the cost of a seat as being spent on fuel.
Fuel economy improves at first due to reduced overhead of taxiing, takeoff, and ascent, but as you go farther the fuel consumption increases due to the need to actually carry the fuel.
Efficiency is one way to increase range. Wingtip devices can reduce drag by inhibiting vortex formation, however they increase weight so there is a minimum flight distance before they are a net gain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device
There is a tradeoff of needing carry more fuel over a portion of the flight, but the aircraft also spends a higher percentage of it's fuel on flying vs taxiing etc.
What is not the case? 1-2% of total CO2 footprint? That flying a full plane is equivalent to months if not a year of driving a nontrivial distance every day?
I'm not saying cars are more efficient. It's just that the distance travelled is huge when one uses an airplane.
Many people use more fuel in a month getting to and from work than a round trip NYC to London flight. It comes down to both distance and fuel economy with some commuters putting in over 1000 miles a week. The range for commuting fuel uses vs transatlantic flight is much wider than 10x months to year.
Use a canvas and render the component directly? You’re rendering a circular progress bar, that should be easily doable in microseconds if not nanoseconds. There’s no need to use the overly bloated DOM for everything.
I suggest taking a look at Android’s views or even Flutter.
Yeah, more than likely the only problematic part is the transition animation. The main problem was another component breaking the performance in the examples page, not the component itself. Should be fixed now :)
The thing is, people don't really care about animals. Especially not the kind, calm and docile ones.
A holocaust is happening currently, 60 billion most docile and mostly female cows and fowls are eliminated every year. No one gives a damn.
Heck, even I don't. I drink my milk and eat my chicken. I consider those things mine and don't care if the milk is a product of forced selection that created a monster of a species, or that chicken is a flesh of an innocent animal.
I do not even care about what it does to the environment.
I'm voting with my money to have this practice continue.
The whole system is built for meat and milk to work. Yeah, it's some wierd suboptimal local minimum but that's what it is. I live in a meat culture and don't care if I can survive eating only plants.
Man is not killing earth, man is killing man and there will be casualties along the way, but earth will continue without man. Species go extinct all the time, and homo sapiens shall join the list in turn.
I straight up started to taste grass when drinking milk. Then later I realized how bland meat is. I can cook much more flavor and texture into a plant based meal than ever achievable with traditional animal products. Low sodium,cholesterol free, etc etc.
Iirc beef tasted similarly “grassy”. Essentially my tastebuds changed. Food suddenly had different tastes than I remembered. Could be age changing my taste buds, could be focusing my diet on healthier choices changed my tastebuds, etc.
Its common for people who closely monitor their salt intake to be unable to eat many packaged food items - as they suddenly taste all the added salt.
> I can cook much more flavor and texture into a plant based meal than ever achievable with traditional animal products.
That's a bit of a strange way to put the comparison, as non-vegan meals can include all of those plant based options (just with meat in addition to them). And whether you like meat flavour and texture or not, there is a lot of unique variety in meat flavour and texture that's distinct from what's in plant-based options.
People care enough to pay extra for cage-free chicken eggs at the supermarket. My local Safeway has about as many cage-free offerings as not. So people do care, and enough that catering to it is profitable. The question is whether they care enough to pay enough extra to significantly affect treatment of animals.
And who knows what the limit is as we grow wealthy enough to willingly pay extra to salve our souls. With enough wealth and wokeness, could we someday provide our livestock with an actually good, and perhaps even idyllic life ... before we kill and eat them?
Because of how confusing all those labels are, here in Seattle some grocery stores display a cheatsheet explaining the difference between them and even some info about the certifications.
But you and I do pay extra even for that small improvement, to buy eggs with a little less self imposed shame. We'd probably pay a bit more for a bit more improvement. It'll never be as cheap to raise animals without cruelty. But we could become wealthy and horrified enough to be willing to pay the difference.
>could we someday provide our livestock with an actually good, and perhaps even idyllic life ... before we kill and eat them?
I would say yes. It's certainly not a new concept, if unfamiliar with Judiasm, part of the Jewish dietary laws knows as Kashrut (where the term kosher is derived) address this.
I have an old book somewhere that said the dairy cow is the most efficient way to convert the grass on a rocky hillside into human-usable protein.
Meat is rather inefficient. Temple Grandin is an autistic woman who designed more humane slaughterhouse systems. A quote in the HBO movie about her sticks with me: "Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be."
Switzerland/France. I've seen farmers take their mobile milk-carts up mountains to milk them in-situ. Not sure whether they do the same thing with calves or not though.
So called "Mutterkuh-Haltung", where the calves are kept with the mother, is increasingly popular. This occasionally causes problems, as hiking paths often intersect grazing ranges, and cows will defend their calves aggressively from perceived threats.
" The thing is, people don't really care about animals. Especially not the kind, calm and docile ones."
That's the beauty of our modern society. Most of us never see the dirty stuff that's going on. We only get a very sterilized image of the world. Just go into a chicken or pig farm and see how horrific the conditions really are. But we get protected from having to see this and get our meat with nice clean pictures on it.
Some years ago I saw a video some journalists that got in a "surgical" airstrike. Same thing. We only see clean images from above but their footage showed had terrible such a strike is. Cut off limbs everywhere, people screaming, badly burned children. This took my excitement for modern weaponry down a lot.
We are now as cruel or probably more cruel than people in that past. We just don't have to see it anymore because only a few people will do the dirty work.
I do have an addition to offer to your first sentence. The thing is, people don't care about almost anything that affects others (or even themselves). Most people act or react based on their habits and what's convenient for them. If most people were rational, then things would be a lot better for humans and non-humans.
Since you yourself referred to it as "a holocaust", and seem to know more, you could still make changes, however small they may seem to anyone else (or even to you).
Jeez. You do know that Israel had it's 70th birthday only a couple of days ago and you sit here and, basically, relativize the Holocaust. Please don't do that. Thanks.
> I did not call the non-human animal holocaust as The Holocaust (committed by the nazis).
Maybe this is because (at least in Germany and France) any kind of Holocaust comparison is widely deemed offensive. It may be seen as OK in the US sphere, but not in Europe. We actually have a word for this in German ("Holocaustrelativierung"), and organizations like PETA which routinely use Holocaust comparisons when talking about e.g. chick sexing, regularly get flamed for it.
The AfD are far more frightening a right-wing group, and have far more power, than e.g. UKIP in Britain. I believe that because Germans refuse to see the Holocaust as anything other than a singular event they are now at risk of repeating it all over again. Their inability to relativise it (if that can be taken to mean to put it in a historical continuum in which other events of comparable atrocity are committed) means it's snugly in the past. I think this leads to a false sense of security.
Cows and other animals involving factory farming are the least endangered species on the planet. There is literally zero effort to eliminate cows from the gene pool, except by activists who want to see these animals fend hilariously ineffectively for themselves in the wild. Their predators and their reliance on humans would ensure the genocide you speak of would actually happen.
The parent post wasn't claiming extinction or genocide in their post, they were using Holocaust in the sense of a continuous, horrific mass slaughter.
Most animal rights activists I know know that cattle mostly exist due to animal agriculture. They would rather the cows not exist at all then to suffer corralled, forcefully bred, fed and slaughtered in a short brutal life. The human diet does not require animal protein to live.
I'm confused that Tesla did not hire these experts. I see Munro & Associates dropping criticism, and am baffled, given so much expert knowledge available that no one hired these guys or their competition.
Not dissing Munro & Associates, they seem highly competent - but i was amused that they literally have the conjoined triangle of success as their logo.
Why would you hire a bunch of critics? “Experts” are stuck in the past. It’s hard to find experts willing or able to let go of their baggage and apply their expertise to a current situation.
If you're trying to diagnose and fix problems, aren't critics exactly the kinds of people you want to to hire? Having a bunch of uncritical yes-men won't help you improve. When I watched the Munroe video, there's only one or two of their criticisms that I think a reasonable person would disagree with. Janky weatherstripping and doors that rub against the body of the car are bad regardless of any personal baggage.
I think C++ compiles down to a pure functional language that is then optimized into an efficient beast. So I'm not sure that pure code is hard to optimize.
SSA is quite different from a pure FP; for example it doesn’t do anything about effects, it only gets rid of local imperative assignments that don’t really interfere with purity anyways.
Most imperative languages have an intermediate language in which local variables are immutable. However, purity is about more than immutability. For example, in C++
x = doSomething(x) + 1
Can be written to not overwrite x
int x2 = doSomething(x) + 1
This is equivalent in some ways to Haskell
let x' = doSomething x + 1
However, I know that in Haskell, evaluating 'doSomething x' will not turn off the computer, display anything to the user, or launch missiles. I have no idea what evaluating 'doSomething(x)' does in C++. It may add things to caches, exit the program, etc.
Ton of CO2 is generated by christmas lights. It trumps BTC or is very close.
Yes, producing a lot of cheap energy is an opportunity to use more of it.
There's a bunch of stupid things people do with energy and increase their CO2 impact. Bitcoin is just one.
I'm pretty sure abstaining from flying planes throughout all your life is more CO2 not emitted than building a small mining operation and mining for life.
I'm pretty sure if we summed up the CO2 impact of increased dietary requirements of athletes and body builders and similar would get to huge numbers.
And no A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze & Guattari, in spite of having an impact on the anti-globalization movement over the last two decades-plus that is hard to overestimate. Plus, that work isn’t just relevant for contemporary political disputes or the perennial question of how to organize human societies; Deleuze and Guattari’s epistemology is a major contribution to human thought in general.
The CO2 impact of your car driving is much less than impact from heating-cooling, and probably also from your diet. Cars are efficient machines. Houses are rarely built well, especially in the US, and the production of common US diet ingredients is ridiculously inefficient but heavily subsidized.
The overall consuming emissions contribution of the transport sector is at around 20%. The building sector (hvac) seems to be similar.
Cars are not efficient machines. The engine is limited to around 50% efficiency, the heat is wasted. And you're typically propelling 1600+kg of mass which is almost purely overhead.
Heating and cooling trumps the transport sector with 30%+. Globally, stuff does skew a lot from our first worldly habits.
If you do the calculations similar to those done in http://withouthotair.com/ you'd see your first worldly habits put your heating and cooling at the top, and probably your diet at the second place.
Energy use is not the same as CO2 production. Cars produce a lot of CO2 in the oil extraction, transport, and refining stages. Heating and AC use wind, solar, electric, nuclear, etc not just fossil fuels.
It's a shame everyone started copying physics but decided for higher acceptance/rejection values.
I was a little bit disappointed when I realized that a bunch of valid modern science is just proper experiment design and number crunching. If it's not physics, there's no models of why things work, there's just a p-value on the correlation or some other comparison function.
Medicine has turned into a field where you can't know a thing.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD005427/BACK_combined-chiropractic-...
I love reading reports like the above:
> There is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions(chiropractic intervention) provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with [lower back pain] when compared to other interventions.
p-values really do not help that much.