Every spam message that goes past the filters takes several seconds out of someone's life -- and not just the "gross" part that includes sleep, commutes, bathing, etc but of the actual productive part of the day (around 1/3 of it). Averaging batch reading of mail at the start of a day vs full context switch, let's take 5s per piece of spam. Let's assume a 95% spam filter effectiveness rate. Now the hardest part -- how big a spam campaign run is? Let's assume 100M delivery attempts (I'm doing a Fermi estimate -- or rather, pure rectal extraction -- on this number).

This means, a single spammer who did just 10 spam campaign runs effectively murdered a person -- in a death of thousand cuts.

Knowing what failed is valuable. Now instead of engineers looking at rockets and/or parachutes, they can concentrate on the panel deployment system. Maybe they overlooked something and it was more easily fouled by dust than they thought.

Scrolled down for this. Walking to school with Mommie was a kindergarden thing for me in the 70s. From 1st grade on, I walked to school or the bus stop all by my ittle bitty sef!

Oh and yes, no cel phone of course. If you were in real trouble you could find some parent who was out in their garden, and ask to use the phone.

And it's that calibration that's problematic here. The brains of men and women are typically very different, making them excel at different types of tasks. The modern IQ calibration manipulates weights for these tasks to give both an average score of 100. The result is politically correct, but makes IQ an even more worthless measure than it was before gender-balance calibration was introduced.

The other problem lies in people assuming that the average for a gender tells you anything about a particular individual. If women are better/worse at task X, this doesn't mean a woman who applied for a position that requires X is better or worse than a man whom you can pick or not over that woman.

The result? Giving preferential treatment to either group is wrong, and will hurt not only the group you discriminate against, but your profits as well. No matter whether your task is a biology researcher, a lumberjack or a kindergarten teacher, the only valid method of choosing is being totally gender- (and race-, and so on)-blind. That woman who applied for that lumberjack job? She probably has a clue what she does, and thus deserves a try at the chainsaw. This kind of self-selection is not free of biases, but it makes comparing averages for men-vs-women (or blacks-vs-whites-vs-polka-dotted) pointless.

Yes, such selection of merits will make your team not represent the diversity ratios of the general population -- that's expected.

The best teachers aren't afraid of students who know something they don't. Teaching teachers all the knowledge is impossible. Teaching teachers humility is possible, though seldom seen.

What I'm saying is very simple. Science is the application of the scientific method. The scientific method is very well defined. Forming a hypothesis and then claiming your statistical model predicts what your hypothesis says is not an application of the scientific method. That misses several key steps.

Feel free to react with further hostility, logical fallacies, and sticking words in my mouth if you like.

Scrolled down for this. Left satisfied.

Nope. It is statistics. Science involves experimentation with a control group. Building statistical models is not science.

Nice, an experiment. So if you could just show me where your control group is. You know, the control group that had no increase in CO2 and no increase in warming? Because, if you don't have one, how do I know some other factor didn't cause the warming you observed?

This is exactly what I pointing out. You feed data into a statistical model and call it science. You haven't conducted an experiment with a control group. You have no scientific proof. You have nothing but a statistical correlation.

And you missed the scientific experiment step. Your assertion that (hypothesis + prediction + observation = science) is wrong.

Don't you want to name your fruit U+1F4A9? (can't write this as a literal because Slashdot)

For storing a single character: UCS-4 (aka UTF-32), and that's without possible combining character decoration. For everything else, UTF-8 internally, no matter what the system locale is.

wchar_t is always damage, it shouldn't be used except in wrappers that do actual I/O: you need such wrappers as standard-compliant functions are buggy to the level of uselessness on Windows and you need SomeWindowsInventedFunctionW() for everything if you want Unicode.

And why UTF-8 not UCS-4 for strings? UTF-8 takes slightly longer code:
while (int l = utf8towc(&c, s))
{
        s += l;
        do_something(c);
}
vs UCS-4's simpler:
for (; *s; s++)
{
        do_something(*s);
}
but UCS-4 blows up most your strings by a factor of 4, and makes viewing stuff in a debugger really cumbersome.

My credentials: I'm the guy who added Unicode support to Dungeon Crawl.

Or ,"go" the language. Utterly ungooglable, and conflicts with at least three other programming languages.

(It's a name that's good for humans but useless for other reasons.)

While I agree with most of your post, what you describe here is not science. That approach turns science on its head. The scientific method begins with a reasoned hypothesis, followed by a prediction based on the hypothesis, and an experiment to prove or disprove this prediction. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.

The most non-science part of Climate "science" is the regular refrain that "There's a consensus, therefore, anthropogenic global warming is proven." If anyone so much as expresses doubt about this form of proof, that person is attacked. I believe this sums up my opinion of that succinctly.

"lo tirsah", if you want to go there. The Wikipedia article I linked to has an in-depth explanation.