In your answer you mix a space elevator with rockets, a space elevator is not a rocket.
But people have invented many other designs that are not rockets, there is a huge page on Wikipedia about them:
How do I mix them? I said the alternatives to rockets are nukes or a space elevator, both of which, for Earth to space launch, are beyond current feasibility. Ditto with most of the ideas on that Wikipedia page. Air breathing only gets you 10% of the way and the others are limited by our materials.
> It's chemical rockets, nukes or a space elevator. At least given known physics.
He's giving a series of 3 things that he's asserting are viable given known physics, so the second two are alternatives to the first. Would it make more sense to you with an Oxford comma? E.g.
> It's chemical rockets, nukes, or a space elevator. At least given known physics.
Are you interpreting the nukes/elevator as sub types of chemical rockets? That might be written (counterfactually) as
> It's chemical rockets: nukes or a space elevator. At least given known physics.
> He's giving a series of 3 things that he's asserting are viable given known physics, so the second two are alternatives to the first.
To be clear, the meaning of the construction used is that, given known physics, the only alternatives are the list elements (chemical rockets, nukes, or a space elevator). This is completely conventional American English.
I have two questions. First which claim? I think I see at least two separate claims in memkpos post (that cognitive differences exist and that they don't matter). Second, what experiments are you referring to that disprove memkpos claim? I ask only to clarify.
What percentage of programming performance is visualizing rotations of 3d objects in your head?
The parent's post is based on a reasonable heuristic: Programming is an activity with challenges that require a broad set of skills both technical and social. If such work requires a sufficient diversity of skills to be done effectively, differences in individual skills are less important than the proficiency of the group as a whole.
Heuristics are the only thing that can guide here. How many studies are there that bridge the gap between basic cognitive tasks and something as complex as creating software at a company?
You don't have to. I sometimes feel similarly to you. I dropped out of college and am so happy I did. In high school my parents pushed me so hard. In college I was doing honors going for a 4.0. But now I just do freelance coding and live on very little. Sometimes I do coding for other people, but I have a lot of free time to code my own projects. I keep it that way on purpose
If your gonna live in society, you are completely dependent on other people. Without them giving you food, a place to live you would die. So just do some freelancing to get some money and then you can do what you want in the rest of the time.
You probably don't hate interacting with people that much. It's probably just that your interactions are out of control and on overload in the office. You'd probably be happier freelancing so your interactions would be far fewer and more structured.
A lot of it is probably defensive. If they don't Microsoft will and they'll just have to pay Microsoft. It's not their fault. It's the patent systems fault. I don't think you should be able to patent an algorithm, but that's just me
The point is that when novice investors finally know about it and get in, all the good investors have already been in for a while. At that point, there is no one left to buy. If there is no one left to buy, the stock quits going up. Of course then people will start selling, the smart ones first.
If it was always at equilibrium, price would always be the same. A crash occurs when there are no buyers. To generate demand people offer their shares at very low prices. Then hopefully someone will buy. But if no one does, the offer their shares at even lower prices, and that's how the tumble works.
Look, the vast majority of a galaxy is empty space. A living creature is obviously not empty space, so all that space would have to be filled with the creature's matter. Well, if you put that much matter so close together, it will all collapse on itself and create a black hole.
So no, you could not have a living creature as big as a galaxy.
Brackets is pretty good and it's very fast for a hybrid. I don't use it much these days though except when I just want to use a different editor for a change.
Yeah, but judges are no better at interpreting the law many times. If you don't believe me, go read some of the decisions by americas Supreme Court. For example they said a man was black therefore no a man therefor he had no right to sue in court, which basically means no rights at all. How they missed the part about due process I don't know.
