Forgive me, but aren't there 12648430 solutions to "build your program without a browser"?
Perhaps you can measure things on a scope, but that doesn't mean the difference is perceptible. It's not my money, so I don't really care what audiophiles do with it - but they also seem to expect me to be impressed, which I am not. I politely nod but honestly think they are just burning their money. I can't take someone seriously who thinks that oxygen makes a perceptible difference in audio, and then think nothing of using stranded wire vs. solid. Even with an oscilloscope, the stranded vs. solid will be a much bigger difference than the 97% vs 99.99% copper. And by "much bigger", I mean "still not perceptible".
I know a guy who does installs. He tells many stories, but I like this one: He ran out of super-expensive speaker wire specified by one customer. He temporarily finished the job with landscaping wire, of all things. It was the proper gauge and everything, but cheap stuff that he uses for outdoor installs (which unbelievable people insist on having fancy cable for! Shut those birds up, would you?). He came back later (when the specified wire came in) and told the customer what he needed to do. They guy, completely oblivious to the "problem", was horrified. Just horrified! He had been quite happy with the new system, but now noted that certain things do indeed sound wrong... the brain is an amazing machine.
ALL of that audiophile stuff sounds good (pun intended).
I've seen nonsense about inductance and capacitance. And then it'll be stranded. Oy.
Most people are using it to make a permanent connection in their homes with stranded wire... so endurance, fatigue, corrosion are all non-issues. I would wager a very high sum of money that double-blind testing would result in no perceptible difference.
They aren't scare quotes - they are there to differentiate people who think they can hear things that they really can't from people who truly chase better sound. If I hear anything about oxygen in your speaker wire, you'll get the quotes.
Even blind testing would be an improvement.
Ah, yes, well I should have said "possibly"
Climate change... [ducks].
This gives you a way to affect RAM outside of a sandbox.
I'm not sure whether I more bothered by "benchmark queens" or people who flame over their subjective opinions. The latter are a lot like "audiophiles", unwilling to believe in blind testing.
Oh, do tell... please name one of these "many models".
I don't want to oversimplify, but it is quite reasonable - and to me not overly "complex" - to postulate that the models do not properly account for ocean dynamics. It is entirely possible that every single model has it all completely wrong - we've been here before with "global cooling". But back then the models weren't very robust, and you actually had competing models with wildly different predictions.
Perhaps I'm more comfortable rolling with the science because the science doesn't threaten my ideology. I fully accept that we are probably warming the planet, but I also don't think that humanity will stop burning easy energy resources. As a result, I'd like to see the models applied to planning for the inevitable instead of a Quotidian quest to stop using fossil fuels. We're going to need to do a cost-benefit on things like seawalls for major coastal cities, flood control, and irrigation systems, and I think the models can provide valuable insight.
As you SHOULD know, you cannot test future accuracy.
I'm sure the points in there are good, but I need to point out that while it is a "peer reviewed journal", you linked to something from the "Opinion & Comment" section. There is quite a bit of work being done to understand where all of the heat is going, but that has been discussed on here before.
If you link to that same editorial one more time, then I'll believe it.
As persuasive a source as an article by a British politician is, I'd like to hear from someone who actually does this for a living.