/Oblg. Futurama Internet Ads
/Oblg. Futurama Internet Ads
You don't need to believe that most of the mistakes are malicious to believe that there are a lot of mistakes. The very idea that their model would be developed and presented as an Excel spreadsheet says to me that they don't have a reasonable mathematical model. Excel was intentionally designed to hide the complexities that are used in a way that inherently makes it difficult to validate. You should never trust ANY model that is implemented in Excel (or any other spreadsheet, as far as I know) until it has been validated extensively. Spreadsheets aren't designed like Mathematica or R or any decent programming language. They are designed to hide your mistakes. They call it "being user friendly". (Perhaps I'm being a touch too cynical, but I may also be cutting them too much slack.)
P.S.: I'd say the same thing about MSAccess, but I haven't as much as looked at it in the last two decades. The last time I used it became the last time when I proved that it was making a simple arithmetic error. I had thought it was one of the periodic code corruption problems that MSAccess was subject to, but it was much worse than that. Perhaps in the last couple of decades they've fixed the thing.
Thanks for the mini review! It's been ~2 years since I've tried the Oculus so interested to hear how it compares with the Google Cardboard.
I'm still waiting to see if VR takes off (it has been that way for 20 years; the main problems are still problems, although less so). I have my doubts if it will get the mass consensus. Hoping, but "wait-and-see."
> but I didn't experience any vertigo.
Hmm, that's interesting. I've been gaming since the early 80's and never get vertigo. I did with the Oculus within the first few minutes. My brain had a hard time trying to decouple the inconsistent and mixed messages that the eyes + hears were sending.
> The $15 Cardboard is good enough on the low end to experience most of what's out there.
That is good to hear !
> I see people using lots of Cardboard for shared VR experiences for the whole family.
I could totally see that. I just wonder if VR won't end up like the 3D glasses though? Sure it is dam cool to experience but there is no "killer app" and lack of content doen't push it over the edge as a "necessity".
> I'll probably also have to upgrade my elderly Geforce 560Ti before then
My last dev + gaming rig (Athlon Phenom II 955BE @ 3.5 GHz), 16 GB, 128 GB SSD, used a GTX 560Ti w/ 448 cores. I upgraded to an i7-4770K + GTX 980 Ti + 32 GB RAM + 256 GB SSD. Playing on Starcraft 2, Elite: Dangerous, and The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, etc. all on Ultra settings at 4K is **awesome.** Save up! Upgrading is totally worth it !!
> Plenty of decent content is already there, and more is always on the way. It's a great time for VR no matter what your equipment.
I guess I should check out some of the newer content. Elite: Dangerous supports the Oculus -- might have to get one earlier rather then later.
How does the quality compare?
Has anyone actually tried this and compared with say the Oculus Rift ?
I know "cheap" VR is giving VR a "bad rep", but what are the actual quantitative differences?
Well, one that was in the news just yesterday is not validating the excel spreadsheet that was used to run the economics model.
Study the iterated prisoner's dilemma. That can easily be mapped onto parts of economics. Cut away the parts that don't work and you have a sound piece of economics.
Just because there are hard problems that can't be solved doesn't mean that no problems can be solved. Unfortunately, in the case of economics it seems to repeately mean that the most important problems can't be solved.
Of course, we don't really know what problems economics could solve if it tried, because politics always gets mixed up in things, and that usually tries to run things for the benefit of a small group of people who maintain power by lying to everyone else. So economic theories are tested not because there's any reason to believe they are good things, but because the benefit those who are selling them, and benefit those who currently hold power. Often the theories that are tried bear little resemblance to the theories that are claimed to be being tried.
That's not clear, but if it both requires a Nobel prize winner to explain, and he's still poor enough that the money in the prize is significant, in that case it probably doesn't work.
But it *is* predictive, about certain things, even though not predictive about others. E.g., it can predict that people will continue to get rich off of get rich quick schemes that don't work.
I suppose you could consider economics to be a sort of blend between statistics and psychology, and it doesn't work where the psychology is fuzzy, and its predictions are statistical in nature.
Mind you, if you consider it this way it become immediately obvious that most of what's sold as economics is a pack of lies. And actual economics is more restricted in domain that this definition implies, so it's not clear that many pure-economic theories *can* work. You don't just buy bread, you buy bread for a reason which is as much, or more, physiological as psychological. But psychology may determine which brand of bread you buy...so that could be economics.
Uh, no. Some native Indians actually _practiced_ it.
The European concept of land ownership was complete nonsense to them.
They viewed themselves as stewards of the earth. As long as one respected nature's gift, and didn't abuse it, she would provide.
Most of the Conservatives whom I've pointed this out to, blame it squarely on the government for being so easily bribed.
Truly First World Problems by these retards.
These people don't understand the adage: "Pick your Battles. You can win a battle but lose the war."
They may be rare, but they have happened to politically destroy individuals. It's generally impossible to prove that the scenario was set up by an opponent. One recent example that I think was probably of this variety was Julian Assange. The evidence is not complete, but is persuasive.
It is often abused even without any sexual overtures.
Let me rephrase that.
The power of graduate advisors over graduate students is extremely often abused in ways that would be illegal in most other circumstances. E.g. demanding unpaid labor for over 40 hours/week.
That is would also be abused in other ways shouldn't surprise anyone.