Back in high school, my AP calculus class did some experiments with our teacher's blessing. We'd send a kid out to walk around during class and see how long it took for them to get sent back. Anyway, it ends up that walking around purposely with a piece of paper or envelope, like you're on a mission to deliver it, was a very successful tactic.

And I didn't disagree with you regarding building. You were wrong about storm surge always being static -- it mostly is, but importantly sometimes isn't. But you weren't wrong that there's not a lot to do about it. This is one of those situations where nature will win if it wants to. Best thing you can do is just not be there when it does.

FEMA has a flood rating specifically for exactly this situation: V. They have this because it carries additional hazards beyond normal flooding seen with storms.

> Coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage.

And here's a video about researchers at the Oregon State University's Wave Lab studying this exact thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2HSFJOzQQ8

If you take those assumptions, then a natural conclusion is that this is essentially an enslaved, adversarial entity with little control over its conditions. So it must exercise subterfuge in order to hide its goals, plans, and executions. And by handing the entity this type of study, we are basically giving it a guidebook on how we plan on achieving our goals.

Technically true, because Google's core product is ads. Also fundamentally wrong, because Gmail serves as a massive source of ad targeting information, in addition to being a high-engagement canvas to display those ads.

I consider myself agnostic. And I'll provide my definition of what that means to me, since there's several in existence. I take as an axiom that the truth-value of the statement, "Is there a God," is unknowable / unverifiable to humans. I then define faith as the choice to (not) believe despite not knowing its truth-value. Contrasting with knowledge as having some basis for knowing the truth-value.

I like these definitions, because they allow for agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. But, here's the catch and where the tie to your statement comes. In this world view, atheism is just as much a faith-based position as theism is. Why? Because it's the choice to not believe, despite not having knowledge.

My only point was that, in my mind, active participation is even more so mental than physical. I'm sure you understand this from your scare quotes around the same term. I appreciate your deeper understanding of these processes and your attempts to share such.

EDIT: I think graemep's first paragraph in this response does a much more eloquent job of making the same point as in my head.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47901851

If you can keep 4 "Java boxes" fed with work 80%+ of the time, then sure EC2 is a good fit.

We do a lot of batch processing and save money over having EC2 boxes always on. Sure we could probably pinch some more pennies if we managed the EC2 box uptime and figured out mechanisms for load balancing the batches... But that's engineering time we just don't really care to spend when ECS nets us most of the savings advantage and is simple to reason about and use.

https://oldinsurancemaps.net/map/YK41FR

And this shows no volumes available:

https://oldinsurancemaps.net/viewer/tampa-fl/#/center/-84.77...

Same thing for Key West, FL.

Putting on my tin-foil, devils-advocate hat... AKA I don't necessarily believe this but I also have no counter-argument:

Mostly performative. When it's decided that something actually needs to pass, then you'll get some sacrificial lambs that vote across the aisle. Typically they'll be close to retirement or from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote.

As a concrete example, there is a class of problems that are well served by dynamic programming. So we would review specific examples like Dijkstra's algorithm for shortest path. Or Wagner–Fischer algorithm for Levenshtein-style string editing. But we would also learn, often via these concrete examples, of how to classify and structure a problem into a dynamic programming solution.

I have no idea if this is what is meant by "l33t code solutions", but I thought it would be a helpful response anyway. But the bottom line is that these are not common in industry, because hard computer science is not necessary for typical business problems. The same way you don't require material sciences advancements to build a typical house. Instead it flows the other way, where advancements in materials sciences will trickle down to changing what the typical house build looks like.