I have a bunch of siblings, all of us homeschooled. Between all of us, some are more "socialized" than others. You can't leave out the individual in this discussion.
3,408 karma · joined November 19, 2016
Your data isn't locked up in a format. Just use logseq or something if obsidian disappears.
Those who write the code have the right to control its source code. They aren't "inhumane" or thinking "short-term" just because its not open source.
I think I'm okay with how opinionated this article is because, while I am not qualified to judge, it gives me an incredible sense of the wonder of physics. And I think opinionated intuitions, albeit somewhat wrong or imprecise, are useful for guiding ones understanding.
I'm practice, it seems my life is easier to live with others if I use spaces. But the tab is conceptually simple. It means indent, or something almost like "next-column". Spaces mean separation from words or tokens. So you are creating a new token as a compound of existing tokens when the original token already exists.
And replication can be done by the same party (although an independent party is better), and that may mean many trials.
And do we even set policy based on existence or non-existent of higgs bosons?
I am particularly unhappy with soft sciences in terms of replication.
This sheds some light on it to me. I guess what partly surprises me is that people seem to care more about reputation than just a means for improving the signal to noise ratio in papers or as a estimate on what will give you your biggest bang for your buck.
The other issue I see come up is the idea that if there is no signal to noise filter, then a scientist might "waste their time," either reading the paper or trying to replicate. But to me, it sounds a little bit like trying to avoid actually doing science. And peer reviewed papers don't imply excellent quality either. You should evaluate papers on their merits. It is your job, as a scientist, to evaluate the most productive approaches based on the merits of the science being done, not based on reputation.
On a tangent, this idea of reputation keeps on coming up in this whole discussion and I am burdened by it in a way I don't fully understand. The way people have talked, if this LK-99 doesn't work out, then it is almost as if those who published this did something _morally_ wrong. Well, morally wrong is not quite true, but the way people talk about it tanking their reputation it feels like such a strong statement. Is there some way we can focus on the science and not get bogged down in the very human reputational part of this whole thing? It's almost as if a good chunk of the scientific community don't care about the benefits the science brings but the reputational benefits.
It's a process. Scientists will try to replicate and try to simulate and try to reason theoretically. They are bound to make mistakes but all of this can be critiqued and iterated on.
Again, there's no problem unless you need immediate confirmation or you think chasing this idea is a waste of time.
Enjoy the ride :)
I guess your post highlights how operating systems and hardware developed together, and to innovate outside of what we currently have there is a need to somehow jump outside of this loop.
What are the hardware features are modern operating systems reliant on and the hardware features they aren't reliant on?
But even if you are correct, lotteries and gambling have more of the essence of "take from the hopeful, give to the lucky" than any of the things you described.