One could easily argue that big whiteboards laden to the brim with integrals and capital sigma (summation) rich equations indicate a data rich problem rather than a theory heavy one, and that the inevitable squashed, disappeared, or exploded melon fits very well into this framework.

Shooting a water melon at several million miles per hour so it hits a small time travel device correctly in all N>3 dimensions is obviously going to make a royal mess quite a few times, as evidenced in many movies!

An irregular structure can be useful for improving earthquake resistance, or sway/vibrations in high wind situations.

In essence, settings and updating amount, rate and velocity ( speed of rate change ) caps on the fly.

Then I can set whatever tight limit I want to, and not worry about burning through too much cash because of some simple coding, or config error.

A bug almost cost us several tens of thousands of BigQuery costs when a dev accidentally repeated a big query every 5 seconds in an automated script, and while we still had budget warnings, it still cost us a fair bit of money. Even after this, I found it tricky to set/catch budgets for single services. I think I had to use stackdriver to be able to get any kind of warning.

It was in the ’blinking lights and sirens’- territory fast!

The sheet itself was placed on an ordinary oven rack somewhere below the middle of the oven.

It seems to align somewhat with their findings. Since the aluminium sheet is only heated by the air, the bottom doesn't get burned, but the slight extra boost of initial heat cooks the bottom about right compared to the top. At least for a bit thicker pizzas as the one I made.

You probably would want maybe an even thicker plate to get a really short cooking times, like the 2min in the article. In any case, you will have to wait for a little bit between each pizza for the plate to reach the appropriate temperature.

With enough free time there wouldn't be much need for a direction. And after a while I would probably figure out something I liked doing more than other things.

Only issue is that in my eyes, enough is probably pretty close to immortality. Largely because I would like to understand the breathd of the human condition, and how language makes us think differently. That probably requires getting to native speaking ability in maybe 100’s of languages, and also the patience to wait for the likely needed cognitive augmentation to be able to do that.

I would also very much like to visit a few stars and nebulae, which could take a while.

If I only had a couple of decades or so, I might take a stab at building tools to make programming the job it should be, but isn't now.

The short version is; A pool that smells strongly of 'clorine' ( chloramine(s) ) is a pool with a high load of contaminants, and whether or not the chlorine concentration is kept at levels enough to cope with the load can't afaik easily be determined, but it's reasonable to a assume a higher load implies a higher risk for insufficient levels.

Or as the report states: >What you smell are actually chemicals that form when chlorine mixes with pee, poop, sweat, and dirt from swimmers’ bodies. Yuck! >These chemicals—not chlorine—can cause your eyes to get red and sting, make your nose run, and make you cough. >Healthy pools, waterparks, hot tubs, splash pads, and spray parks don’t have a strong chemical smell.

One oddity, except the usual insanity that click-through agreements should be valid for anything above, lets say $100, is that it appears the newer ToS explicitly states it doesn't apply retroactively. However, since the arbitration would always occur in the future from the later ToS, it might be a moot point.

If all of this is true, and the law correctly applied. Doesn't it create a situation where any ToS for a service - at least those you actually depend upon - are essentially worthless?

Seems like if a change the ToS to include an arbitration clause is applied this way, your only option would be immediately stop using the service, or the provider would be able to do whatever they wanted hereonafter, even completely ignore the rest of the contract/ToS?

Right now I get the following for most of the graphics on the linked page:

"This embedded plot has reached the maximum allowable views given the owner's current subscription.

Please visit the subscriptions page to learn more about upgrading."

While the end result might be the same, there seems to be a much clearer intent to create addiction in some parts of the game industry, especially where gaming and gambling meet.

Your comment reads almost equally well with two different interpretations. One a restatement of fact, and the other a rather rude response to a misunderstood message.

I think it should be possible to use this to at least limit the space the scoundrels can act within, maybe even limit it enough that the actions they inevitably does take become a net positive.

Would probably need a very tolerant user-base though, especially in the bug fixing phase!

In general, you will be the one in ten, or even a hundred that tend to pick up on these things.

It appears to be better to not call them out in public immediately, but build a trusted base of people who compare notes of their interactions, so that you can clearly expose the lies and all that comes with it. At least that is what has worked out in the few cases of really destructive/power hungry of this particular kind of bent I've heard about.

The way to avoid them seems to point in the direction of having all decisions and all dialogue regarding decisions within an organisation completely open. Not because it necessarily would reveal them, but because it's less fertile ground.

However, rramatically improving rockets might be like trying to improve the carriage to get a much faster personal transport, while keeping the horse.

It seems to be the case, that the cost of launching commercial payloads are still "low" enough compared to the cost of the payloads since there are few big budget ventures that tries to make lifting much cheaper through alternative methods.

I'm not saying that space elevators or other alternative lift devices are feasible, but we tend to get huge investments even into tech that seems absolutely implausible if there is a big market. The lack of these makes investments makes it plausible that the current launch costs are actually acceptable for all current, and expected near future commercial actors.

I've only been on for one cycle, but the pattern is quite clear, even if it might not be completely intentional, the result is the same.

It begins with something like a sunk cost fallacy, and then it just rolls on.

There is a group of people where architecture is a synonym for "too much architecture". But if you know it or not, you are always doing architecture as soon as start doing anything non-trival. Only difference is that if you aren't doing in explicitly, then you are doing it implicitly and subconsciously, and if you are doing something trivial, usually someone else has already done the architecture work for you and embedded it in the tools you use.

Not that I need to tell you this, just venting a bit :)

1) Psychology is harder than almost anyone thought.

2) We are only now starting to have enough data to know just how hard psychology really is.

3) There is too much of an onus to publish, "Publish or perish" in science in general.

4) Negative results are very valuable for the public and all other researchers, but generally negative for the researchers career. Even scientists need food.

5) People will use whatever that can pass for facts to further their own agenda, whatever that may be. Left, right, and center. Incidentally, psychology as a science has now taught us that both through its successes in that area, and through how people outside of psychology believed the authorities of psychology to be implicitly right whenever it fit their point of view.

Psychology is a science, no need for the quotes, it's just happens to be incredibly hard to turn the experimental results into reliable facts in that particular field, so shortcomings of both people and systems become magnified. The high difficulty is probably also why some authorities might have gotten an unusually large role in the social networks underlying any area of research, and the public eye. People want answers, even if there isn't really enough data, and even when researchers says: We really don't know.

Science is always only our best guess, in some areas it pretty darn good, but in others not so much, yet.

It's quite likely that they believe they have to write that way today, or shutter the doors.

They could still care more about good journalism, while mostly having to write in a style that looks like if they don't.

Only way to know for sure is to look at their economy, and how much is driven by per click ads, and how much is subscriptions/other sales.