This field is like a minefield for critical thinkers given the sensitivity around the issue and the difficulty in finding rigorous answers.
In stuff like that I don't trust the mainstream, nor I do trust any publication that is not very thorough. Since just establishing if a publication is thorough takes too much time for me I am content with a lot of question marks.
I accept that I do not know anything about general trends - only some personal stuff about myself and some people around me which may be or may not be representative.
Surprisingly you can still live well after you accept you are not required to have an informed opinion of this issue. You can still spend your time having fun and writing code
Some elegant abstractions are created too. JS modules, for example. Or, in another field, the Language Server Protocol.
But yes, humans are humans and everything that is "simple" will get built upon and then become the backbone of something complex that will engulf and smother it as it evolves.
The church defended a scientific assertion based on theology and used their (absolute) political power to curb other worldviews.
Even assuming that Galileo could not prove beyond reasonable doubt heliocentrism as a physical model, and that the Church accepted that the Ptolemaic model wasn't valid - the Church took an active part in asserting that "heliocentrism is heresy". They could have said it's not their own matter to pontificate about and they instead went after Galileo asserting that he overstepped his boundaries.
It's very possible that Galileo (and the stories about him in later epochs) was not 100% in his assertions and his arguments. And it's important to look at the history from an objective point of view. However if you look at it as a battle for freedom to do experiment-based research, yes, the church was evil at that time.
> the Church accepted that the Ptolemaic model wasn't valid - the Church took an active part in asserting that "heliocentrism is heresy".
It was not that straightforward. The Tychonic model was already accepted and generally the church was quite tolerant (by premodern standards) towards scientific debate and the heresy decision was mainly an outcome of political/personal squables.
The next pope, Urban VIII had no issues with allowing measured debate of heliocentrism. What landed Galileo in house arrest was him writing a book which directly mocked the people (at least everyone thought that it did).
> However if you look at it as a battle for freedom to do experiment-based research, yes, the church was evil at that time.
Which disregards the fact that it didn’t have much issue with other scientists doing that. In fact generally the Catholic church and its affiliated institutions were almost the only places where any scientific research was done at all for quite a while..
In fact gluons have a QCD charge, they just don't have a QED (electric) charge. That QCD charge is basically one color and one anticolor, minus the trace. So there are 8 different basis vectors that define the space for what the charge of a gluon is.
Note that "charge", when used without a qualifier, typically refers to the electric charge (which is the origin of the term). Color charge and weak charge are named "charge" only by analogy - there is no physical mechanism underlying all
quantities named "charge" (though there is a mathematical definition of why a physical property can be considered a charge or not).
Even mass itself can be viewed as a "charge" corresponding to the gravitational field.
In defense of the Remarkable its primary purpose is a very useful use-case. No iPad or Android tablet could get me to ditch paper and notebooks altogether. The Remarkable did it.
And since it is hackable the community made interesting strides in other use cases as well
Their SIMD vectorized instructions are very neat and clean up the horrible mess of x64 ISA (I am not familiar enough with Neon and SVE so I don't know if ARM is a mess too)
I think your comment is misleading. What was "encouraged" during the Cape Town water crisis was not "small scale efforts". There were details like forbidding hand-washing in some places (replaced by hand sanitizers), but there were also important changes. For example, they introduced a punitive water price for big consumers.
Like the OP, I think one should analyze the problem before opting for the "obvious" solution. I did so with water a few years ago. IIRC, for individuals the biggest share is for showers, then toilet. These two account for two thirds of standard use.
If you encourage people to turn off the sink more often, you may gain 20%... of 5% of their average water needs, so 1% overall. If they take fewer showers, each with less water, they easily can halve their consumption, so a gain of more than 20% overall.
A water crisis is almost always a case of using slightly more water than is available, so you can usually address one by putting the burden on whichever consumers are least able to fight back, even if they are least responsible for the crisis.
However, if you combine it with modern image recognition and you know your target it will be probably enough