I remember seeing this posted a few days ago. When I hover over '8 hours ago', it shows '2024-07-22T15:59:19'. That's not 8 hours ago. Why is a post from 4 days ago showing as a recent post? Is it a title change issue?
Regardless. What's the point of the article. We have known for decades that evolution 'can' happen much quicker than darwin thought. From large animals to bacteria. Not only that we know that 'lamarckian' epigentics exists.
How would you defend against an accusation that you seem to prefer the historically accurate version of events that allows for the most white characters?
> The conventional wisdom for getting job leads as a new grad and early career is to go to job fair, have a portfolio and open a LinkedIn account.
Conventional wisdom isn't very wise. For college grads, the best thing is contacts. Is your dad, uncle or anyone in your network or your family's network or your friend's network a 'big shot' anywhere? If no, the second best thing is work experience. Does your college offer internships or work programs of any kind? If so, join it. Nobody I knew who had internship/work/coop/etc experience in college had trouble finding jobs. Most of them had full-time positions secured before graduation.
> Somehow I don't feel that I'm at a point in my career that I can ditch all my online presence and still get job leads.
During your first job build a contact/network list. You can use that to find the next job. Besides, a significant portion of jobs are word of mouth. For every open position, the manager usually goes around asking if his team knows anyone.
Most people I know don't have linkedin. It's only here where people act like linkedin is a job requirement.
Yes I know. 'Local' as in 'localism' aspect of deterministic classical physics which got 'disproven' by bell. It's why modern physics is a nondeterministic quantum physics variety.
It seems like you are disagreeing with me but no 'local hidden variable' is exactly my point. It's obvious you don't even have a basic introductory grasp of the topic at hand and yet you bothered to comment.
> People get hung up on the unfair White advantage in chess, but actually it's not large enough.
It's fairly significant given the 'theoretical' assumption that perfect play always ends in a draw. However, in practice, whites wins significantly more than black.
> In tennis, on every point there's a big advantage to the server. Not because he "gets to go first" but because he gets a second chance in some situations.
Yes. It allows servers to take chances and go all out on their first serve. It's extremely beneficial to power servers. But you don't get 'take backs' in chess. So your analogy doesn't apply. You can't gamble with white and if black knows the opening, then start all over with another opening.
> The point is that chess isn't in need of evening out the first-move advantage.
As long as both players get equal chances to play with white. No player would agree to a tournament where you get black 10 times and your opponents gets white. Just like no tennis player will agree to a tournament where his opponents gets to serve all game.
As you computer chess stats show, it seems like better play leads to more draw. And the assumption that if chess is solved, then perfect chess is always a draw. But that's not how it works in the real world. White has a distinct advantage. Whether it is due to human psychology or something else altogether is up for debate.
The statement still applies even if you found one thing that isn't literally the same. The point wasn't "you can do takebacks in chess so this is exactly the same!!!" but that the advantage for moving first in chess is much smaller than is already accepted in other sports.
> The point wasn't "you can do takebacks in chess so this is exactly the same!!!"
That wasn't my point either. My point is that if chess allowed white takebacks ( as in tennis ), the white advantage would skyrocket to 70%+. The analogy was pointless because it wasn't comparing likes with likes.
> but that the advantage for moving first in chess is much smaller than is already accepted in other sports.
Yes. But in most sports, you get equal or close to equal chances to 'move first'. In tennis, you alternate serves with each game. In football, you take turns playing offense. In chess, it's not necessarily like that. Some tournaments you get to play the same opponent with black and with white in equal amounts. But in many tournaments, that's not the case.
So in tennis, you are pretty much guaranteed an equal game since both sides get to serve. But in chess, even though the first move advantage is less, it's still more significant than in tennis many tournaments don't have equal games of white and black.
> Are hundreds of thousands of people taking Taxis and Ubers?
Probably. Not just the tourists, but business folks. I remember people would regularly take a taxi for a business meeting only a couple blocks away. I guess if the company is paying for it, why not.
> Why do we not do the same to Israeli companies? AIPAC.
When the israeli leader can visit congress at his leisure and nearly everyone in congress claps at the israeli leader like trained seals, do we really have to ask?
Besides, it's illegal to boycott israeli companies in like 38 states.
All the nonsense about russia and china, the biggest threat to american freedom seems to be israel. And yet every politicians seems to be whoring for israel. Strange.
"The first machine was built by the Poles and was a hand operated multiple enigma machine."
There were polish contributors to the general idea of computation. But computation is not the same thing as modern computer. No serious person can view the bomba as a 'modern computer'. It took the discovery of the transistor to give birth to the modern computer.
> but it is very easy to me to imagine a Poland not destroyed by Nazi then communist rule being an innovation center of the world.
Poland doesn't that the population, resources, etc for that. Whatever great innovators poland would have possibly had in your alternate universe would have been siphoned off by germany, russia, britain, france, US, etc. There is a reason why so many renowned poles pre-ww2 made their contributions outside of poland.
> 7 / 2 = 3 is similarly nonsense. It's just more familiar.
It isn't nonsense. 7/2 represents a real number. You can round a real number up or down. So you can round 3.5 to 3. 7/0 doesn't represent a real number. It doesn't even make sense to do anything to an undefined number.
How about a rational number? Why not a complex number? That you especially like the real numbers is particularly unfortunate when they are so poorly represented in essentially all programming languages.
> That you especially like the real numbers is particularly unfortunate
It's not a matter of me liking or disliking real numbers. It's just that the topic at hand is about real numbers.
> when they are so poorly represented in essentially all programming languages.
Not essentially all programming languages. In every single one. It's the nature of real numbers. It's also not just 'programming languages', it's hardware as well.
Regardless. What's the point of the article. We have known for decades that evolution 'can' happen much quicker than darwin thought. From large animals to bacteria. Not only that we know that 'lamarckian' epigentics exists.