Unpopular opinion: there has been a steady decline of standards in the research community in the past decade or two. First reproducibility crisis. Then, some topics becoming political taboo where the unorthodox opinion would get you fired and canceled. The credibility of the science in the West has been falling, and the recent change of administration is predictably axing something that has a perceived strong bias in the opposite direction.
An optimist in me hopes that we can get back to unbiased science, where it doesn't have to agree with the current side, but both sides perceive it as fair and agree to leave it alone for common good. A realist thinks that it will happen in China, and the West has just run out of steam.
> Then, some topics becoming political taboo where the unorthodox opinion would get you fired and canceled
This is garbage.
What you describe might be the case in some social-sciences circles but never has been the case in most STEMs fields.
If you have a (sensical) unorthodox idea that displease a research director, 10 other research directors will be very happy to dig up this exact idea in a slightly different context.
If you know how to get stuff done yourself, start your own company, get stuff done, and enjoy the profits (or losses, depending on how good you are). It's your risk and your reward.
If you are working for someone else, the unwritten rule #1 is that a single employee should not amass too much influence within the company to start dictating their own conditions. So, the management culture averages decisions across multiple people, to make sure the loss of one-two team players won't be noticed.
It can be extremely demotivating if you are smart and capable, but these are the rules of the game. Be nice, get paid, accumulate some savings, make connections with other smart people, learn the market, and eventually start your own game on your own rules. Until then, trying to stand out will get you labelled as a troublemaker, and will hamper your progress in the long run.
good advice, someone should have told me this years ago, when you start, you need to know that this is not your game, work, watch and learn. Don't even think about "this is wrong" "they should do this instead" "they have no idea" "I would do it much better"
I'm very bad at that kind of dishonesty. It's not like I'm some hyper-ethical straight-edge nerd, I'm just really bad at the corporate propaganda stuff.
I have worked and done well at BigCos where they were a little less intellectually dishonest, so I don't actually think it's intrinsic to big companies.
This looks like an additional incentive to channel owners to somehow convince their audience against the ad blocker use. Makes sense, better than trying to win an unwinnable arms race against the blocker maintainers.
I hope by admitting defeat and shifting the blame for the numbers to creators, they also stop this ridiculous fight with adblockers. I'm sure they could allocate the investments in this elsewhere.
They probably got what got left of it in a cashless deal. Basically, the shareholders got to exchange X shares in a fatally wounded company into Y shares in a still-alive startup. The economic sense depends on the ratio between X and Y, but if the board was close to panicking due to recent events, Cognition probably got a good deal.
Space exists around things with mass. Also, above-absolute-zero temperatures cause particles to jump around randomly.
Now if there is "more space" around particle A, particle B will have a slightly higher statistical chance of randomly jumping closer to it, than farther.
>Also, above-absolute-zero temperatures cause particles to jump around randomly.
Does it? A single free particle won't "jump around randomly". Thermal motion is plain Newtonian motion with an extremely high rate of collisions. There's nothing random about it (let's put quantum things aside for now).
This made me think of Norton's Dome[1] and how a particle would choose a direction to move when warmed from absolute zero to above absolute zero. Though I guess, "warming" in this context would mean a collision with another particle and that would determine the initial direction?
My guess would be the answer is right in the part before you quote? If theres more "space" (imagining more space coordinates possible) for me on the left than on the right, me jumping to a random location would statistically move me left.
Repeating results in movement, getting closer to the object intensifies this effect, results in acceleration.
Solid objects are products of electric charge preventing atoms/particles from hitting each other, I dont think that has to have to do anything with gravity in this example?
Isn't this something we already know from the mass–energy equivalence? In the same way that a nuclear reaction that produces heat must cost the object mass (and therefore gravitational pull)
It does, but because you have to divide the energy change by c^2, it is really really hard to detect it, and mostly overwhelmed by other effects of the heating/cooling.
why do the units matter here? Under this theory, will a body at absolute zero have no observable mass? No attractive field around it, no inertia if you try to move it.
I'm only now seeing this a week later, but for E = mc^2, m is the rest mass.
rest mass = all the energies of the mass, not just its thermal energy. So, as it approaches 0 kelvin the thermal energy approaches 0 and the mass approaches its minimal possible energy (its kinetic energy approaches zero), but even at absolute zero, it still has the rest-mass of its fundamental particles (electrons, neutrons and protons) which have mass inherently. In practice, the scale of the mass of the particles massively outweighs the scale of the thermal mass, so while strictly true, it mostly doesn't matter.
So, because the scaling factor is stupid stupid large, changing temperature from anything to absolute zero does lower the mass, which does lower the gravity, but it just doesn't matter.
Actually I think caring for your children is one of the few times where it DOES make sense to set yourself on fire to keep them warm. I get the logic of needing room to get on one’s feet, but those kids still need care. Presumably their other parent is already sacrificing to pick up the slack.
While dramatic, and sometimes necessary to set yourself on fire but most of the times your children will be better off if you push through the storm without burning yourself. They will suffer cold a little longer but watching your parent burn to death will scar them for life.
And that is the problem with child support system. It is ready to burn the father as the first option instead of last resort.
If you added a person to the world you're responsible for them. Especially if you're not putting in the day to day work of raising a kid and someone else is.
Don't want a kid? Use contraceptives. But do not blame it on the government that you now are responsible for another person. Santed a kid but realized the person you have been with isn't for you? Well then it was probably too early to get a kid with them.
Amazing. Has US individualism become so extreme, that it can't even be expected from parents to stand in for their kids, till they are grown up? Yes, metaphorically good parents would set themselves on fire to warm their kids.
If you want to support poor parents the answer isn't "fuck their kids", the answer is "let the rest of us help them".
Taxpayer. First for welfare, then the prison. Maybe that's the point, remove the father from the kids life, subtract enough money he can never fully stand back up, dad is now broke and out the picture and the kid without money or a fatherly role model. More fodder for gangs, the prison system, and exploited manual labor.
The lie generator can very efficiently pull the relevant parts of the documentation and tutorials, and it's not that hard to programmatically ask it for a quote and compare it against the actual tutorial.
Knowing how big corporations usually work, dropping the FreeDOS option completely due to incompatibility would require approvals from 7 layers of corporate management, while shipping a half-assed version that is not usable for any practical purposes only took one nerd from engineering.
>You agree that you will not work around any technical limitations in the software provided to you as part of the Services, or reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits.
Translation from legalese: we will likely throttle the free accounts in some possibly bypassable way, and will ban you if you try to work around it instead of switching to a paid account.
An optimist in me hopes that we can get back to unbiased science, where it doesn't have to agree with the current side, but both sides perceive it as fair and agree to leave it alone for common good. A realist thinks that it will happen in China, and the West has just run out of steam.