209 karma · joined February 16, 2008
>Now I can update this blog and push to github, instant deploy !
vs
>I would be delighted to hear from you!
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...
It doesn't really change the significance of the quote, but I can't help but point out that we didn't even have nerve cells more than 0.6 billion of years ago.
The time frame where the Bering land bridge is being looked at for the OP article is a wider 36 to 11 thousand years ago.
That last line of this quote and the first line of this quote sound to me like they contradict each other.
They even invoke "Survival of the Fittest" which often trips up high school kids who think fitness is strength or some other specific quality (like goodness) and you have to correct them that the definition of fitness is "that thing that gives a population survival".
Is there a better way to do it?
How can they say they too many birds cause the later positions to be unstable if this is their model? Don't they just run out of circumference and so they can't really model so many birds because the paddles start to overlap?
I suppose the math models the higher number of birds but they didn't 3d print that math and put it in a fish tank.
I wonder why they call it "ground truth data" instead of just "data". The paper calls it "drilling data" when pointing out where they got which information.
> “We haven’t seen an answer"
Alright.