Or you could just use a more modern language that is expressive like Python, but doesn't require you to use a different language to optimize bottlenecks. Like Julia, or Swift.

Some references to Julia as a ML language, including its GPU and automatic differentiation capabilities:

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

JITing Python is not really a substitute for Julia. Essentially, due to Python's language design, you can't JIT arbitrary code, only a subset, and it won't do dependent compilation (JITting through all your package dependencies to give you a custom-compiled version of user code and all the libraries it depends on).

I have no idea what you're talking about. Julia doesn't isn't any harder learn than Python. The statement that "you can't just pick it up and go" is just bizarre; the syntax is different from Python, but if you're learning Julia from scratch it's not worse than learning Python from scratch. It's true that their threading model is still in flux, but that's not really anything having to do with the language design.

Your complaint seems to boil down to "Python is the 'standard' approach, and therefore anything else is designed wrong and hard to learn".

Actually, Congress did give NOAA more money for a new supercomputer. The computer hasn't materialized because NOAA is locked into a single-source contract with IBM. As TFA mentions, IBM just sold its supercomputer division to a Chinese company (Lenovo). It seems some people are antsy about the implications for a Chinese company providing the computer behind a critical national security capability (weather prediction).

As others have pointed out, the Peace Prize is inherently political in nature. What should be emphasized is that it's also given out by an entirely different committee, in a different country.

Peace Prize: Norwegian Nobel Committee
Physics and Chemistry Prizes: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Physiology or Medicine: Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet (Sweden)
Literature: Swedish Academy

Economics (not really a Nobel): Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Technically, the prize goes to "the person who shall have made the most important 'discovery' or 'invention' within the field of physics". Insofar as 'inventions' are considered engineering, they fall within the scope of the physics prize. The 1912 prize, for example, went to the inventor of an automatic regulator for lighthouses.

That's the death rate. As we both agree, the death toll is about 50% of the infected population.

It's 1.5M infected (not deaths) in Liberia and Sierra Leone, which have a combined population of 10 million. (So far, the death toll is about half the infected population, although that's not accounting for possible misreporting.)

Another cool effort, in SimCity 3000.

Surely you can't be Sirious.

Let me tell you about my mother. [blam!]

You're confused about fundamental vs. derived theories in science. As another poster said, when you start asking questions like why do natural laws exist?, "this is not the realm of science": it's philosophy.

We can explain evolution in terms of more fundamental mechanisms: selection, mutation, etc. With gravity, there is (currently) no underlying theory. And if we found one, you'd just ask why that theory exists. At some point, you hit the bottom, and it doesn't mean you understand the theory "less", it just means you've finally reached something that isn't describable in terms of something else.

Watch Feynman's attempt to explain this in the context of magnetism to understand this better.

And yet, hundreds of millions of people and their supporting cities and other physical infrastructure weren't sitting in coastal zones when that happened.

Your position seems to be "melting ice has never been the biggest source of sea level change from climate change". If so, this is not correct.