i think you'll find you're wrong about the C standard library being "nothing compared to what's out there". If it seems that way, you probably haven't learned enough about the C standard library. The C standard library provides an API to all your system resources. You can take full control of the hardware with the library. Things you never thought to ask if you could do. Most programmers, in my experience, never get much past the system("rm
The value of Google passed the value of Russia (remember, these are just the publically traded companies - in the US that about half our economy, dunno for Russia). Russia has almost nothing going for it beyond oil, and the Saudis are using oil prices to fuck Iran sideways right now. The current governmental structure of both Russia and Iran are likely to collapse (Putin is pretty savvy - he may emerge as El Presidente for Life without the pretense of democracy he has now, but chaos one way or another). The ruble is almost certain to collapse, so no one's buying ruble-valued anything, (especially debt) and the risk of public companies in Russia getting either nationalized or simply destroyed by unrest is real.
I predict that tomorrow, there will be weather! Yeah, that's not what people mean by predicting the weather. Sure: the 24-hour weather forecast is better than random guessing, but it's still not much better than looking at the sky, and a barometer. And the 5-day forecast? Accuracy isn't in it.
You make and play the kind of game you like, and we'll make an play the kind of games we like, OK? There's room on Steam for lots of games.
get a liberal arts degree
I'd prefer a job instead, but hey: to each his own!
Well, let me know when we actually get to the weather-predicting stage. I look forward to that. But I think we'll get fusion first, and maybe spelling and calendar reform.
or we can act on the best information we have right now with a degree of tentativity reasonable for any such endeavor
Oh ho! A moderate. Are you sure you're on the right site? Surely you meant to say "global warming is a hoax!" or "repent your sins of carbon emission, no economic sacrifice is too great!"
Look, CO2 is like a blanket on the bed. Making it thicker makes you warmer. You wish to deny this?
I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a car analogy.
With respect, the phlogiston theory worked apart from the oxidation of iron. Noticing this shortcoming was one of the things that led to the discovery of oxygen.
Exactly. And aether made a lot of sense. And Freud had to start somewhere. None of that was bad science, that's just what early science looks like. We've just since the late 90s had the technology to seriously contemplate climate modeling, and only really in the past 5-8 years has the vast parallelism needed to do it well been available from more than a couple of research computers.
Again, just as it's a mistake to call it "pseudoscience", it's a mistake to believe than any of these early models in the first generation of a new science are particularly worthwhile. Certainly Climate Science is a field that needs more funding and research for decades to come. But just as certainly, it's not a fucking unfallible font of religious truth, and people who act as if it is are as annoying as the SJWs.
Look at the historical data.
It should jump out at you that the past 10k years of relative climate stability is an anomaly, and that rapid (on geological scales) swings in temperature and CO2 are the norm. That whole system is not well understood, though I believe solar variation is the leading hypothesis right now. On a scale beyond a century, there's just no reason to expect climate stability in the first place.
On a decade by decade scale, there's no evidence of warming in the 17 years of reliable satellite temperature data. The null hypothesis - that average temperatures aren't changing - has actually been the best predictor of climate data since the late 90s, odd as that may sound.
The simple fact is: the atmosphere and oceans are chaotic systems, with a variety of positive and negative feedback loops, quite difficult to model, and you can't talk about climate change in a scientific way without doing so. There are no obvious conclusions to draw, as the system we live in is simply too complex for hand-wavy, back-of-the-envelope calculations to be interesting. We may simply lack the technology today to do this science properly. That's not a reason to stop - we built the LHC, proof we can do some fucking impressive technological advancement to achieve a scientific goal. But it is a reason to avoid arrogance.
Climate science is at the phlogiston / aether / Freud stage right now. That's fine, every science must start that way, and the scientific method works given time. But for goodness sake the lay believers are very much like a religion right now, complete with a list of sins and a Hell to roast in, and that's taking it too far!