RhysU

Source paper is https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2213815120.

The paper, which looks quite good, amounts to (stationary baseline + climate drift) explaining burning more than (stationary baseline) alone.

From the paper...

> Their respective uncertainty bands overlap for most of the time periods considered; however, starting in 2018, there is a complete separation between CMIP6-ALL and CMIP6-NAT scaling factor distributions suggesting a complete dominance of anthropogenic over natural forcing.

...or incorrect models or uncertainty bands. The paper looks good but like it presumed to find the desired results from the research outset.

Beware anything done with simulations that provides 3 significant digits (172% increase!). I don't doubt the influence of climate but I do doubt the certainty of these authors.

Going back to the GP, I still want to know how wet years, dry years, and winds are outside of reasonable expectations in SoCal. These are part of the (stationary baseline) the paper should include. From a quick pass on the paper, it's not clear to me that the paper captures hysteresis due to intermittent wet/dry periods. Or that they considered any additive non-stationarity, in (stationary baseline + climate drift), they wouldn't deem anthropogenic.

Not denying here. Just enjoying throwing rocks at a paper adjacent to a past life. I have published on uncertainty quantification for computational fluid dynamics that employed explicit slow/fast timescale decompositions.

Which of those named weather events was outside of historical experience in the area?

From the outside, wet years and dry years and desert winds seem very much like the expected climate for SoCal.

Occasionally throw in a surprising ending.

A friend infrequently would end lackluster stories, those where he'd lost the conversational baton, with "...and then I found $20."

Anyone who had never heard the trick immediately perked up and refocused their attention on him. He'd say, "No, not really" then briefly contribute something more to the conversation before yielding.

Everyone who knew the trick knew to wait for the ending, because one could never assume his story endings anymore.

My kid was bumped recently, by a similarly unobservant driver. Fortunately unharmed. I don't think the solution is reducing traffic density in my town, however, through taxation. Rather, encouraging accountability and discouraging distraction.

Apologies. I revised my comment after you replied. I did not notice the reply.

I have some agency. I can drive faster or slower, more or less aggressively, choose a vehicle based on safety, not drive in bad weather or when the bars let out, drive more or less frequently.

I can't control if some batshit crazy tries to set me on fire, aside from riding the subway less.

I do ride the subway, BTW. But I definitely do not habitually walk as close to the platform edge as I used to given how public safety has slide the last handful of years. I blame, of course, de Blasio.

Well, hell, let's think about everyone who choked to death in New York. Krazy Kat should levy a masticulation tax below 60th street. It'll be easier to get a table! Think of all the environmental benefits of not eating fancy foods!

Calling it "pure propaganda" is itself pure propaganda.

Counterpoint, this poor soul who was literally burned to death: https://nypost.com/2024/12/31/us-news/mystery-woman-torched-...

The subway is worse than it was pre-Covid. Congestion pricing will not address that.

"Suck it up cowards" is hardly good public policy.

Curiosity, what do you mean by "Southern Pennsylvania"?

I am from Pennsylvania, attended Penn State, and I have lived in many different towns throughout the state including south-central ones. I've befriended yinzers and yousers. But I have never heard "Southern Pennsylvania" before.

My mind boggles. Is this some variation on "Little Washington"? Is this a Philadelphian way to simplify "Southeastern" and to therefore ignore, "SEPTA" notwithstanding, the hundreds of miles west of Philly? Are you near Chambersburg? Is this some way to describe commuting suburbs into northern Maryland? Is this some play on the Mason-Dixon line and you are actually in Maryland?

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Pennsylvania

FWIW, if you'd said "Northern Pennsylvania" it wouldn't prompt similar boggling. I go north of I-80 only when westbound and pulling off for gas. ;)

Location: The New Jersey suburbs west of New York City.

Remote: Yes but also in-person in NJ or NYC.

Willing to relocate: No.

Technologies: Generalist developer/researcher in the quantitative space. Most recently Python but have breathed Java/C/C++/Fortran in past work. I like floating point numbers. http://github.com/RhysU has academic (ar, ESIO, suzerain); tooling (c99sh, jobserver); and fun (droll, tuna, war) code.

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rhysulerich/ with full resume upon request.

Email: rhys dot ulerich at gmail dotcom

I enjoy quantitative problems at the intersection of math, programming, and engineering where the nature of the application demands attention to correctness. Graduate education in interdisciplinary computational science, engineering, and mathematics in HPC settings. Presently sitting out a non-compete for quantitative finance.

> Fundamentally, there is just way too much supply of music for it to be a well-compensated endeavor for most.

This has been true for at least half a century. Probably many centuries.

I hope not re: pedestrians.

An adult running onto the highway is very different than a young kid doing the same.

All else equal, I would not preserve the adult's life over that of drivers. I would preserve the kid's life over that of drivers.

Why? The adult is presumed to be responsible for the repercussions of its actions. The drivers did not create the problem. The family of the drivers could hold others accountable for any unreasonable systemic danger leading to the death of the drivers.

The Trolley Problem! Kill the skateboarder who fell or the driver in adjacent car. Establish a situation where hard breaking is not safely possible. Make the AI choose. Not jokingly, the choices in such scenarios should be disclosed.

The government is the only entity that is responsible for the loopholes and that can close the loopholes.

If we want fewer loopholes then we should prioritize that when selecting our government.

The law does not define ethics. Ethics does not define the law. It is folly to pretend there is more than a tenuous bidirectional link.

For example, any father ethically owes his children more than child support. And any child ethically owes his father more than refraining from stealing from or killing him.

The law defines that which is owed the government.

No man owes the government more than the government demands.

Ethics has no place in the discussion aside from being a consideration in setting what the government demands.

Nx0, 0xN, and 0x0 matrices are great edge cases.

0-length vectors, too.

Then, do the same with Nx1, 1xN, and 1x1 matrices.

Start simpler.

Check expected behavior of...

Nan, +0, -0, +1, -1, +Inf, -Inf, +Eps, -Eps, +1+Eps, +1-Eps, -1+Eps, -1-Eps

...on each coordinate when supplying a sensible constant for the other coordinates.

Check the outer product of the above list taken across all coordinates.

Check that you get the same answer when you call the function twice in each of these outer product cases.

This approach works for any floating point function. You will be surprised how many mistakes these tests will catch, inclusive of later maintenance on the code under test.

Multiple independent systems cooperating to provide operational robustness is modern.

The Founders got this one right.

So then use $variables for evil syntactic tricks? That works everywhere. Functions where hygiene counts? Aliases never?

Why use an alias in a script? Or in general? Functions work everywhere.

> If you only need an engineer, numerical approximation is good enough.

Fluid dynamics enters the chat.

And whaddya mean "only" need an engineer?

Thank you.

Thank you for the extensive response.

Paraphrasing, "That's not the name it's just the title and used repeatedly therein" seems to cause more than a little confusion.

The extensive response confirms that the words are awfully overloaded in subtle ways, and that using "namespace" as an adjective was a poor choice.

As for your example, thank you. I forget the specific edge case that trips me up here. But, rest assured, I will re-encounter it.

> For example, Python can import an entire package hierarchy from a zip file.

As could Python's contemporaries back in the day, JAR extensions notwithstanding. That fact does not justify bad design.

Agreed.

Fie on "Implicit namespace package". If only because making "implicit" explicit is linguistically pointless in that 3-word phrase.

Either "namespace" or "package" is also pointless linguistically. Noun-noun names ("namespace package") in programming are always a smell. Meh, it's a job career that pays the bills rent.

Maybe "namespace" (no dunder init) vs "package" (dunder init) would have saved countless person-years of confusion? Packages and "implicit namespace packages" are not substitutes for one another (fscking parent relative imports!) so there's no reason they need the same nouns.

The idea that entertainment could be all engrossing and some forms of entertainment addictively destructive to our well-being? That we could have cameras in video conferences but would want them effectively off? It was delightfully/scarily prescient in some ways.

Read a physical copy. Use two bookmarks, one for the footnotes. Read until the toothbrush photo before thinking about putting it down.

The hedge lions!

The judge is there to interpret and to apply the law. If there's a hole, there's a hole. And the incentives would be immense to find a legally defensible hole. Think bug bounty on an unfathomable scale.

IANAL, but https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-20 suggests there are structures that would be permissible.

For example, something like a pooled company that exists to provide this service for dozens of corporations thereby meeting ownership dilution requirements to avoid triggering circular ownership statutes.

Corporate tax lawyers are bright (a well-deserved compliment). Someone would figure out how to hack it. And then the well-intended hypothetical law would just put money into the pockets of lawyers and accountants at the expense of shareholders. It'd sound great on a campaign trail but be stupid in practice.