I am trying to think of a way to prove without a doubt that the earth is not flat. I thought about sending them into space, and having them look through a window at the round earth suspended in the black. But then I almost know what they would say; the window is somehow distorting the true appearance of the earth. If it doesn't conform to their view, they will create reasons as to why. There are so many similar examples of people rejecting new information/evidence within our world now.
What about a system where, if a product gets a certain amount of upvotes, it gets pinned to the top. So maybe there could be 10 or so products that get pinned to the top each day because they hit a threshold of upvotes, with the rest battling for a spot on the pinned list every day
I mean, but that's what the rest of the season is for right? This episode was merely a setup in order to describe the event/scenario, and we can only presume that the next episodes will dive more into detail to dissect the situation. The event already happened, we know what happened start to finish. It is precisely the details of 'why' that this season is after.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure it was daylight the next morning when they spotted him in the desert.
Right, but this conflation comes up with most political arguments and I think it's a straw man. I don't think that people shouldn't have the right to follow Trump, but it's also true that people are free to hate certain types of people. That doesn't mean it isn't scary.
The scary part is that he has gained a large following of people who think he's just saying "what everyone's thinking". There are many, many people in the U.S. who hear what he says, and then think, "Yeah! That's so true!" on their gut instinct without having any background knowledge on the subject. I'm living in the U.S. and it's a scary momentum.
I agree, that's why I wouldn't buy one right now. But future technology is hard to predict. I couldn't have predicted something like the app store. There might be some unforeseen killer feature that smart watches will dominate. Who knows.
I assume smart watches are still way too early in their development life-cycle to analyze whether or not they are useful as a product. Remember the original iPhone? It didn't have the app store. The first day I got my iPhone 6, I didn't have an internet connection and couldn't connect to anything. It felt almost useless. I think the difference with smart watches is that we already have the power/versatility of smart phones, in effect, we have already realized their great potential. We didn't have this standard when getting the first iPhone to compare it to. It's possible watches will have some type of evolution that is as great (but probably less) from the first iPhone to the 6S.
I don't see myself buying a smart watch anytime soon, but I said the same thing about buying a smartphone years ago.
And then you think of the thousands upon thousands of years humans have experienced very special, nuanced moments without any way of reliving them. Sometimes you just have to appreciate experiencing it in the moment.
I was just listening to an Episode of the Nerdist podcast featuring Aziz Ansari today and he talked about the issue of people taking pictures or filming his live material and leaking it to the public. He said he had no issue with people recording material that is already public, but that it really stinks when new material is leaked because it waters down the humor for future attendees of his shows. To combat this, at the beginning of his shows, he asks everyone to take out their phones/cameras and stands there while they take pictures of him. Then he nicely asks them to not use their phones/cameras during the rest of the show. Obviously this doesn't stop everyone but I think it's a pretty low-cost, high reward option.
As a year-deep front end developer, I have recently taken a strong interest in functional programming principles and am trying to learn their use-cases.
Does anyone have ideas for small projects I can complete that will really drive home the importance/benefits of functional programming?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my takeaway is that since the old master did not accept the young warrior's insults, the insults remained with the young warrior, almost as if he was insulting himself.
In relation to the article, those who blame others for their victimization are in fact pointing out their own flaws.
Honestly, I've never had the frayed problem with my macbook chargers, even with 2 years of use. However, I have had to buy 2 chargers since my original one because they will stop working after a couple of years. That's quite frustrating.
I'm curious if anyone knows in what direction a language evolves over time. Does it grow randomly with the addition of words/phrases, or is their a system of 'natural selection'? The American English language is certainly growing as new words become commonplace, but will other words die out completely? The reason for this question is because I wonder if languages become more efficient over time. For instance, what will the American English language be like in 100 years? Will it just be larger, or will it be more precise? It would be interesting if we create more and more precise words over time so that we actually stop using less precise words, making the language ultimately as efficient as possible. I guess it depends on so many things, like dialect/region/age/etc.
I really wish they would have separated sugar and fat into different slices. Grouping them makes them seem equally unhealthy and perpetuates the falsehood that fats are inherently bad. A culture can have a high fat intake, with a low sugar intake and still be healthy. You can't really say the same for the opposite.
I grew up snowboarding Roundtop and it's sister Ski Liberty without having truly experienced real powder. As a kid, it was easy to believe that snow-making was just a part of all ski resorts, and it didn't occur to me that bigger mountains don't need them. Then I went out to Lake Tahoe, and it was nothing short of magical. The night I arrived, the skies blanketed the mountains with two feet of fresh powder. Cruising through the trees that next morning in the real snow is something I'll never forget.
Still, there was something about riding a slow chairlift up my small, local mountains with the freezing wind whipping your numb face, and then getting blasted with icy man-made snow as your chair glides through the path of a snowblower.
I will say too, that as I got older I bit more and more into "Ignorance is bliss" being a true statement. Knowing both good and bad results in many emotional responses. The problem is that emotional responses, when they are negative, are often perceived as bad. However, the past couple of years I've begun to flip that assertion by maintaining the idea that any emotion perceived is beneficial, valuable, and makes you feel alive. Feeling alive, in my opinion, is one of those ultimate gifts that a human can have. My conclusion is that, while ignorance is bliss, I would much rather feel both the power and beauty of the spectrum of emotional responses. They are equally valuable and enlightening.
I had the same revelation when I studied in the Netherlands for 4 months. You think you are going there to learn only about a new country and its people, and you come back having learned equally as much about your own.
I also happened to take a class on the Second Industrial Revolution, which compared Germany, Great Britain and the U.S. and in a class of mostly German students, it was quite an eye-opener and forced me to adjust my perspective.
Travel is invaluable. Well worth whatever debt I accumulated.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice by saying organic is bullshit. Food isn't always about what you put in your body, but is also about how it affects the environment we live in, and in that sense, organic is definitely not "bullshit". However, I will say that the label of "all-natural" posted forefront and proud on products is misleading. All-natural does not equate to healthy, yet it seems many consumers believe this. Anecdotal of course.
Subsidies are not just for services that benefit the public. They are used to both fund capital-intensive industries that our country relies on and to make our energy generation competitive globally. To compare the energy industry to a single company like Twitter, which provides a product that is not needed in any sense is pretty far-reaching. Energy utilities provide regulated returns that are very consistent. Who knows when Twitter won't be cool anymore.
It Follows, along with a handful of others (The Strangers, the Ring, the first Paranormal Activity), was the first well done horror movie I've seen since the BWP. I guess it comes down to what scares you personally. For me, it is much more about the atmosphere that the movie creates, that often borders on weird and uncomfortable, and human. Of course, the Shining is also a great example of this. The slow slip into insanity in a grand, isolated hotel in a blizzard does way more to evoke that weird feeling that lingers after the movie ends.
It confuses that so many directors keep pushing the same style of horror movie out, when they consistently get poor reviews. Are all directors scared by the same exact themes?
According to the FAQs, the pod's internal temperature matches that of its surroundings. So, unfortunately it will still be brutal in the winter, albeit better than exposed directly to the elements.
But more importantly, where do you put this thing? If you were living in NYC without an apartment, I can't imagine you could just plop this down in the middle of Central Park.
This isn't even enough time to significantly increase your strength at a gym, which we know is possible and observable. Why anyone would think this is enough training to produce noticeable effects baffles me.
"Jeremy Blum's home-automation system, which he calls Jarvis, can control lights, curtains and music and can answer questions about anything using a phone, voice commands or this command center."
Implementations like this kind of scare me. It is certainly cool to be 'able' to automate these things, but should we? Are we going to use technology to make our lives lazier, or better? No, they aren't mutually-exclusive, but I can't help but think that making it so you don't have to leave your couch in order to turn off the lights is a movement toward a worse lifestyle. Your health has a much larger contribution to your standard of living than convenience, and to me, this seems like trading off one for the other (in a subtle way). However, maybe I will eventually be convinced of the net benefits. Am I approaching this wrong?
Great. First Musk, now Masten. I'm incredibly hopeful that entrepreneurs will keep challenging the massive, monolithic companies/contractors. Their ability to compete with these companies show that increased size often leads to a lot of waste both within the company and in the bureaucratic decision structure. Large isn't inherently bad, until the only competitors are also large. It then becomes the bigger the better. Now that smaller guys are able to successfully enter the field, it make them reevaluate their structure. In the end, not size, but efficiency is key. Funding still remains the medium to get there.