Maybe the guy is an IS supporter.
Maybe the guy is an IS supporter.
> The best thing that could happen is for countries that mainly depend on the sale of oil to gradually reform their economy and wean themselves off their oil income
This is hilarious
> It's southernmost city (Munich) has the lattitude
its southernmost city(Freiburg im Breisgau) has the latitude
Over-engineering isn't even the right term. It's certainly underdesigned, and as part of it, it was probably under-prototyped and under-tested. Engineering is good, so over-engineering isn't the issue.
Unfortunately Samsung just churns out stuff while other makers (Apple, and some pockets in HTC) design stuff.
I don't think it was meant as a placeholder of a 2nd rate country. I think it was meant as a leading country of the World, which Portugal was when the New World was discovered. So it was actually a compliment. So your defensive response was a kind of Woosh and you still don't understand. I agree it's not about Portugal but it doesn't mean you interpreted the root post correctly.
I think that despite my and some other responses, you still misunderstand what turkeydance above you probably meant. IMO he clearly referred to Portugal's former glory, because of the temporal reference to the 'race to the New World'. So it's not that anybody 'needs to relax'; it's you who need to understand that there exists another interpretation of what turkeydance wrote, and it'll give you a whole different perspective.
You and those who upvoted you are the ones who 'need to relax', because you interpreted the comparison to Portugal as if it was compared to Romania or something, meaning the US is backwards. But again, I don't think it's the correct interpretation.
> Labour is, typically, a zero sum game. Pay less and the quality of work goes down in one (or more) of many fashions.
IOW it's not a zero-sum game.
Yea, that's almost 2000 persons per letter of the Alphabet.
SpaceX is a company, not a country; also, the USA, even with its flagging space ambition and reduced budget, was home country to the Opportunity rover on the Mars, the New Horizon that gave Pluto a selfie, and private space initiatives, of which, of course, SpaceX is most accomplished. Also, a lot of the fundamental or applied research that space exploration benefits from is coming out of the USA.
Why be defensive when it's not even appropriate? The New World wasn't explored by today's PIIGS Portugal; it was explored by Portugal, the ambitious, sea-faring, colonizing superpower.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, just took issue with what you said earlier: 'nobody knows how neurons work' as it vacates the meaning of 'know'. Using your term, we didn't 'know' how gravity worked even after Newton's and Kepler's work, still we were able to construct accurate ballistics, because we still knew something. So your use of 'know' just represents some possibly unattainable level of knowledge in natural sciences, and with that definition, this word would be meaningless, since we could say 'we don't know how X works' no matter what X is.
Whereas with the more customary meaning of 'know', which I'm also using, we can safely say, that we know to some extent how the neuron works; researchers and medical professionals possess an awful lot of knowledge about how the neuron works. Of course, without picking some metric, we don't know how complete our understanding is when it comes to gravity or other physical phenomena, and similarly we don't know how complete our understanding of a neuron is, and we can safely say our understanding of gravity is very useful for the things we currently envision we can use the gravity model for, while we're not there at all when it comes to neurons.
But we can definitely say that our current knowledge (model) of neurons is useful for a lot of things, i.e. we can't meaningfully say 'we don't know how neurons work'. Maybe you wanted to say, 'we don't know enough about how neurons work to serve the purpose of the goals described in TFA'.
Someone with a medical problem would better rely on the person whose knowledge about neurons, synapses, neurotransmitter reuptake or beta amyloid plaques is infinite relative to that of a cabbie, unless of course he needs to get to the hospital first
For the record, you originally said: 'They're not even simulating neurons, since nobody knows how neurons work.'
> since nobody knows how neurons work
This would just rob the verb 'know' from its meaning for everything other than pockets of mathematics. For it is the case that even physics isn't fully figured out, what with reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics, to name one gap, let alone chemistry, which sits atop of physics, not to mention biology, which sits atop of both.
There is a huge difference between a taxi driver not knowing how the neurons work, and a neuroscientist not knowing how the neurons work. The difference isn't only in some abstract sense; neuroscience actually generates a stream of useful results, e.g. in healthcare.
I'd also guess that when it comes to our lack of understanding about how the brain works, or how consciousness arises, it's more to do with how the neurons are arranged into a network (in terms of structure and plasticity) as opposed to being limited by the knowledge of individual neurons. It would surprise me tremendously if a perfect neuron model led to the understanding of the brain, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if, once the brain's working is better understood, it turned out that a lot of detail about how individual neurons work are inconsequential or somewhat accidental, with much of neuron level complexity simply resulting from the fact that the neuron is of a complex, very large 3D shape with general chemical, electrical and molecular processes, which makes it inherently intractable. Let's not forget that tasks as simple as the three-body movement or laminar flow are still just crudely approximated in software; a single protein folding itself is complex; yet we understand how muscles move etc.
We don't have to know _everything_ in order to know _an awful lot_.
God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein