2,407 karma · joined June 11, 2018
Which surely says something about all these ideological purity tests
Which is then when I realized it was less a piece of software and more so an auth management provider with some vaguely helpful auxillary services.
Someday we'll wonder why we thought it was a good idea to make the need for shelter into an investment vehicle. Until then, I hope people use your properties as they see fit.
I think my favorite part about that place is that there is a vague tradition for scientists to turn over monitoring gear/sensors to Billy. And his house has become a improvised monitoring station much more than the manual measurements he makes every day.
RMBL and Gothic should serve as a prototype for what I wish every ecosystem had. It's deeply integrated with education of students, it allows and educated visitors, and the observations there will continue to serve the scientific community. I wish there was a network of things.
Using your education to feel better than others doesn't serve us to advance as a society. I suggest that if you're as smart as you think you are then you find a way to frame the issue such that you're lifting up those people and not punching down.
I know, very clearly, that many HNetizens won't be using Github either. But piling on the hate train for these companies that at least try to support open source in earnest is doing strange things.
That said, there are clear problems with the political narrative in the film given it's supposed to be artwork. Making a film about redemption without in any way commenting on the evil atrocities you committed is extremely Japanese and morally dubious at best... downright propaganda at worst. Were the Japanese public and military rank and file the real victims of the war? Is it ok to pronounce the moral ambiguity of the top brass without commenting on the Holocaust-level crimes committed?
These things were glaring in the theater. And I know I'm going to get the standard "doesn't matter good film" responses for having an honest appraisal of the conceptual idea. But it's bad in that way. If we want to move into a brighter future we need both redemption and brutal honesty and this was only one of those things. Good popcorn film? Absolutely. Cultural artwork on a new level? Definitely not.
The most fascinating thing about the concept of error in models, including in ensembles, is you can only calculate and propagate error for contributors that you can quantify. There are many unquantifiable sources of error. Imagine a physical process that you are unaware of that propagates as a bias, for example ice nucleation via aerosols. Perhaps you don't even model aerosols. How do you account for error here? What does error even mean?
Ensembles only show you intramodel variability. Which is like error, sort of, but only really represents a combination of "real" variability in initial conditions and how that propagates through your physics/parameterizations.
"models" the HN commentators make for their businesses surely have parallel concepts, but I don't see anyone talking about them. Only discussion about the errors you know when the ugliest errors are the ones that no one knows.
What?! Currently the most watched animator on youtube falls squarely into this category. You don't know about it because you're old. TBF I only heard about it from an elementary school teacher. Here's a summary for the old folks, aka everyone here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K50D_P4kpZM
First video:
But in general everything works much better. Lower CPU usage, no random tearing or glitching or lost windows, hidpi percentage scaling is amazing and a godsend (and the reason I switched originally) and I couldn't be happier.
Thank you to all the devs for the amazing hard work!
Plots often fail to clarify for the precise reason that clarification takes time and effort and those things are lacking in academia in spades. Are people intentionally hiding ugly details, definitely on occasion? But I don't think it's the primary source of such bad figures.
I work on a team that operates ~the only climate research station in Greenland, the fastest melting piece of ice on earth. The total cost of our project is ~10e-7 of the money they lost. You could build, operate, and employ ~10,000,000 scientists at 1,050,000 climate research stations with that kind of money.
Let's just say our forecasts and climate projections would be pretty spot on with that sort of funding.
Those are not equivalent and I wish people would quit pretending that they are equivalent. People "expect" things on the internet to be free because Meta and its ilk are saying they're free and then doing a myriad of shady things on the backend. Not because users are naive and entitled. Saying so does a disservice to the way the entire interaction takes place and the asymmetry that exists.
Money exchanged for goods is a very straightforward and honest thing. This is not.
It's not wanting free stuff. "Meta", and many many web services, literally scream "hey here's a free way to connect with your friends" or whatever their pitch is. And then operate in ways that violate the rights of the people they attract to use their service in the name of "more money" (note, more money because the reality of it is that Meta could easily offer privacy and still operate, just at lower profits). Offering a paid version, in the way that this does, is putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. It's holding you hostage and saying "you can use this the way we intend and we'll violate your privacy or you can pay for that to not happen".
When in reality the proper way to have such an exchange would be to say "Dear Users, the service we provide you costs $200 a year, however if you would like that to be free you can opt in to these incredibly hostile and violating contracts if you would like". But, we all know that no one would join that service because it's too honest about its exploitative nature and so the user-hostile nature of these companies goes on ad nauseam.
Whether you contribute to that or not is your choice.