ximeng

China is a threat to this to the extent they can build up a second independent system that rivals it.

It’s not like he’s getting rich off three dollars a month. He’s providing a free service.

Does Wordle have a link to their inspiration?

I support people being creative, if he wants to earn a few bucks and disrupt the word game market with a new business model, fine by me.

Even if what you’re saying is right about influencers picking and choosing the best videos, it’s clear that there are videos of poor behaviour as well.

With so many videos out there I think it’s pretty clear what you’re getting with FSD regardless of the name. It is glitchy and unreliable and can get random safety issues with software regressions.

At the same time when it works it works pretty well, and it does also seem to be improving rapidly based on the videos that I’ve seen. A long way to go but it’s getting better.

It’s also not clear they’re dead last - they may be but there’s lots of people using it now and showing videos, which is harder to see for other companies.

You might have good points here but I don’t think it’s as black and white as you make out regarding how effective Tesla’s approach is with respect to safety, degree of progress, feasibility with current sensors, feasibility in general, misleading market, and general motivations and morals.

Separately structure your notes and build up your own framework that represents your interests and priorities. This can include setting structured goals if you want but doesn’t need to. You can also track random thoughts you have to identify new interests you might want to spend time on.

Add in more directed reading around topics of interest that you’ve identified through the process of undirected exploration followed by reflection on and structuring of what you discover.

You can make this a fixed framework by allocating time to each of these three activities in a structured way. But it’s also ok to do this more casually if you prefer.

Also good to share with others what you’re finding interesting and to find out what other people you like are interested in to help direct this process. You can also connect this to your work or desired future career if that feels relevant to you.

A. Cable physically consists of:

1. 60/100W power wire pair

2. USB2 speed data wire pair supporting 0.48Mbit/s

3. 2/4 high speed data wire pairs (“high speed lanes”), normally 4

Each high speed lane supports at least 5/10Gbit/s depending on cable length.

4. Separate wire for negotiating power supply and data host and peripheral

5. eMarker cables are required for rapidly changing wattage of power supply (Programmable Power Supplies, PPS)

Note that two DisplayPort cables (not USB-C) could support 50gbps, more than a USB-C maximum of 40gbps.

B. Protocols (all over high speed lanes apart from USB2):

1. USB2

2. USB3 (by default using two high speed lanes at 10gbps, four high speed lanes at 20gbps theoretically possible but rarely supported by hosts)

USB requires negotiation of host and peripheral (upstream and downstream).

3. DisplayPort 1.2 (8.64Gbit/s video data over 2 high speed lanes) / DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 (12.96Gbit/s over 2 high speed lanes, double over 4). MST technology allows splitting the aggregate video data bandwidth across monitors. DisplayPort 1.4 supports video compression, but this is rarely supported by monitors. If using only 2 high speed lanes the other 2 can be used for USB data.

4. ThunderBolt 3/4 (needed for Mac video). ThunderBolt 4 is USB4 with optional features mandatory, however in practise these optional features are likely to always be included so they can be treated as the same.

C. Device support:

1. Power: 5/9/15/20V. Requirements signalled by resistors on the device side if only 5V. More than 5V negotiated between devices: 1. Agree source and sink, by default the data upstream/host is source but this can be negotiated, 2. Source indicates how much power it can provide, either 3A or with a 20V cable optionally 5V. This assumes fixed power, some devices now support PPS.

2. Data bus types: 1. passive (supports USB and DisplayPort) / 2. ThunderBolt 3 (PCI Express and DisplayPort, USB as hot-plug root hub(?)) / 3. ThunderBolt 4 (PCI Express, DisplayPort, USB)

ThunderBolt controllers needed on both sides to support ThunderBolt.

3. Bus bandwidth is maximum 40gbps. If cable is long bandwidth may only be 20gbps. Laptops with one ThunderBolt port typically support DisplayPort 1.2 bandwidth on the bus, laptops with two ThunderBolt ports support two DisplayPort 1.2 bandwidth. (There is some distinction between “full” and “non-full” ThunderBolt that goes away in ThunderBolt4.)

If you randomize your seeds, you do not deliberately bias your model. This does not mean your model is unbiased.

I said here that the pre-1920 period, which is relatively flat (within a variation of around +/-0.5 deg C), represents years with normal temperatures:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29309923

I'd say anything outside of +/-1 deg C from that average would not be "normal", and would need need an explanation. I'm not an expert though, but eyeballing the data that looks reasonable to me. I have already said this though, so not quite sure why you're asking me again.

I also don't see this as misleading ("intentionally misleading communication") - are you saying there is not an "anomaly"? That there is no climate change? Or that any climate change is within normal variation, that is, not affected by industrial emissions?

The example you give of summer and winter having different temperatures is obviously not relevant to climate change as presented here. The "little ice age" has a scale and speed of change not comparable to what is presented here, as I've already mentioned.

Given all this I don't understand how you can think there is no anomaly. It is even less clear to me how you would conclude this was intentionally misleading when it seems totally reasonable to label this an anomaly based on the data and the science behind it, which you seem to be ignoring or disagreeing with.

I mean... they even have a chart of average temperatures going back to 1850, so it's not like they're hiding their data.

I guess you might be arguing that by calling it an "anomaly" they are making an assumption on the science that isn't justified by the chart. But the whole existence of this site is clearly premised on climate change being an issue, so the causality is the other way round. The site provides a simplified visualisation of data that shows what people have concluded through exhaustive scientific analysis.

The exhaustive scientific analysis provides the justification for the anomaly, this site shows this data in a way that's easy to digest. You shouldn't be looking at this data in isolation and saying there is man-made climate change, you should be looking at this site as a starting point to review more research and understand why this data that looks concerning is in actual fact really concerning.

If the scientific literature was in any was non-conclusive about whether there is genuine anthropogenic climate change, I'd have more sympathy to your point on whether using the word anomaly is appropriate or misleading. But you're not arguing the science, not even arguing the data, you're only arguing the word "anomaly", and for me that's such a long way from proving this to be propaganda that I don't feel you're arguing in good faith.

I am not at all concerned with the use of the word anomaly because I already am concerned about climate change. I'm assuming you're concerned about the use of this word because you're not concerned about climate change.

Propaganda is a pejorative term that you're not justifying the usage of, and I certainly don't agree with your usage here.

I don't know the etymology of anomaly, but I think it's a perfectly sensible usage.

You are avoiding the question of whether you think there is an anomaly, probably for the good reason that there clearly is one in the colloquial and scientific senses of the word.

The data and science are clear, and I don't think your professed confusion at the use of the word anomaly is in good faith.

If you don't think there's a problem to be addressed, then it's on you to show the data doesn't show an issue. Just making accusations of propaganda is not good enough.

I would suggest don’t worry too much about your sleep, and try to focus more on being kind to yourself. Be aware of your pressures and accept that you’re doing your best. Try to reduce your stress by taking on less. Focus on what really matters to you and say no to things that are less important.

You might find even with better sleep your efficiency and opportunities won’t be much better, so don’t worry about it all that much. Be kind to yourself and don’t expect yourself to be a machine.

I don't think you're confused about the data. I don't think I'm confused about the data. I don't think anyone is confused about the data.

To me the important thing is the data, I don't care if they call it "burning hot death" in the chart. You're focusing on a word that I don't care about, and that is used in accordance with its technical meaning. And you're ignoring the data and distracting from the issue it represents.

To convince me I'm wrong on the usage of the word anomaly - please find the etymology of this word as used here - I had a look and couldn't, but don't really think it matters enough to search for why this word was used in the first place.

But really, I think you're deliberately trying to detract from what the data shows by focusing on something irrelevant.

Anomaly is used because this is a new phenomenon due to human actions. You have no apparent concern about this but are just worrying about word usage.

Why do you think that the word temperature anomaly is used in climate science? The important issue is the global risk not your carping about the terminology.

By saying it is not chance I mean that the word "anomaly" is used because there is an anomaly. That's what appears to be confusing you, that you feel this word is being picked to imply something about the science, when in fact the causality is the other way around. The science has shown there to be an anomaly and the word has been used because there is an anomaly. The fact that it is less relevant pre-1920 is not important because people care about climate risks now when there is a clear anomaly shown in the data. You're focusing on something utterly unimportant.

Are you trying to say that it's not an anomaly at the beginning of the period in the chart when the delta is negative? I already granted that point but it doesn't matter because everybody already knows there is an actual anomaly due to industrial emissions! The "implication" that the 10 years were "normal" is not questionable because the temperature was normal before! This case doesn't need to be made here because it's been made by a global coalition of governments and scientists in exhaustive detail.

From Wikipedia on mini ice age:

"...a multi-centennial period of relatively low temperature beginning around the 15th century, with GMST averaging –0.03 [–0.30 to 0.06] °C between 1450 and 1850 relative to 1850–1900."

This is within the annual variation I was suggesting and is not comparable to what we see today. It's irrelevant.

If they'd used the word "deviation" would you have been happy? Or is your real objection to the use of the word "anomaly" to describe temperature deviations in science generally?

Your concern seems to be (1) that there is some negative connotation to the word "anomaly", (2) that the chart labels small differences anomalies rather than just large differences, despite small differences being possibly within a natural range of variation, and (3) that a baseline has been arbitrarily and improperly chosen.

These are all non-issues. The word "anomaly" as used here is clearly defined, and means deviation from a baseline. It is not being used in a pejorative or leading sense. In any case, the data is clear - there is a larger deviation towards higher temperatures, over many years, without historic precedent.

What you call an arbitrary average is not arbitrary. It is chosen for a clear reason - the temperature rise is due to industrial emissions which did not exist prior to the period covered by this chart, and at that point global temperatures were more stable than they are now by around an order of magnitude.

Nobody should be confused or misled by the use of the word anomaly here. The context is obvious to anyone paying attention to the science. I doubt you're confused by the data as presented, so I really don't understand why you're concerned about the title.

If it helps, think of the chart as showing which years actually are "anomalies". You seem to have a vague definition of an "anomaly" as something like a significantly large change from a specific average - presumably the temperatures over the last 1000 years would be sufficient.

I feel like you're expecting this chart to show more than it does, it's really very simple, and in no way misleading.

https://xkcd.com/1732/ Suggests the fastest temperature change in last 20k years is around 1 deg c in a 1000 years. The graph linked here shows 1 deg c in around 50 years.

Annual variation is up to 0.3 deg c, mostly less, from eyeballing the graph data. If you’re suggesting that there is a reason we shouldn’t call a 1 deg c plus change an anomaly, you should really just say what that is, just like you have for winter and summer which nobody would call an anomaly.

What is the Yearly Average Temperature Anomaly?

It is the difference between the average yearly global surface temperature and its pre-industrial baseline. The pre-industrial baseline is calculated as the average temperature from 1850 till 1900. The value for the current year is actually the average for the last 12 months, for example in June we include values since the previous July.

I really don't understand what your issue is with the terminology. Are you suggesting there is no change from the norm? Propaganda as in there is a political agenda to presenting this data? Would that be that the data is wrong, if so on what basis? Or that the data is irrelevant and it is being presented as relevant?

Global temperature changes seems very relevant to me. This site is also just presenting data, the language is pretty neutral and in line with the common use of anomaly ("something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected") given the baseline they have stated, as well as the wikipedia article you link. The main issue I see from the wikipedia article is that these are not "standardised anomalies" - but the site is not claiming to provide these.

If your argument were that they should provide more data I could see that, although it's marked as version 0.1 so perhaps that's a bit harsh. If it's just that they're using the wrong word, then that's not very compelling to me.

This suggests that when the ice melts the darker water absorbs more energy from the light, and then warmer water freezes less resulting in a permanently warmer arctic.

It wouldn't exactly show that women "recover better" versus men, which was your original wording, but that is not perhaps the most important point - I'm more trying to tease out nuance than argue against you.

One factor confusing the issue is that a number of reasons mentioned in the thread, such as cancer, remarriage, and access to children, are not particularly relevant to your argument.

The original post of this thread said divorce was lose-lose and that men are the biggest losers. My point, perhaps clumsily made, was that it is possible that some men take advantage of a relatively strong position in a bad marriage. So even though they lose from the divorce itself more, the increased initiation from women may partly represent a relative weakness within the marriage leading to women losing more in a bad marriage prior to initiating divorce (and men gambling that they won't divorce due to the costs involved).

That still feels clumsily expressed, but I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Again it's an attempt to add a little more nuance to the overall analysis here.

We can assume overall these tend to impact men and women differently, with for example women tending to get more access to kids but losing income as they spend time on childcare, and men tending to pay more to their ex-wives and losing time with the kids.

You argue that women gain more from divorce than men overall as women are the ones who file for divorce in the majority of cases.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that women do relatively better out of divorces all things considered. The explanation for this could be good post-divorce outcomes for women, which are the factors above such as ease of remarrying or custody. This is what I see as the core of your argument.

An alternative explanation might be that in a bad marriage, women are in a particularly vulnerable position relative to men. In that case even with worse outcomes from divorce for women, it might still make sense for women to file for divorce more often.

I think it would be hard to find convincing evidence either way. But it's plausible the tension may just be apparent and there is another explanation.

https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=6140

Scenario 1

The woman and the man expect their happiness in marriage to stay around 5/10.

After five years of divorce they have recovered a bit, but the woman recovers more and is now 6/10 but the man is 4/10.

Scenario 2

An alternative is that even though they are both 5/10 in happiness to start with, the woman's expected future happiness in the marriage after five years is only 3/10 while the man's is still 5/10.

Suppose they divorce and both recover the same to 4/10 after five years.

Analysis

In both scenarios after five years the woman will be happier if she divorces, and it may make sense for her to file for divorce depending on her risk tolerance.

Woman filing for divorce more could be evidence for scenario 1, which is my interpretation of your post. It could also be evidence for scenario 2, which is incompatible with your interpretation. It is not so simple to say that more filing is evidence for a better recovery for women.