These two statements are wrong.

This cannot be true. Accuracy is the fraction of correct predictions. It must lie between 0 and 1. Thus it cannot scale linearly with input data which is unbounded.

Furthermore, it is empirically not true. Look at scientific papers for measurements of input data quantity versus accuracy for a variety of tasks. Those measurements do not show a linear relationship.

This is a misleading statement that can only confuse non-experts. There is no clear way to interprete multiplicative factors of improvement in accuracy. A factor of 2 improvement when accuracy rate is 0.01 is very different from the same improvement when the rate is 0.5. Scientific papers do not measure progress like this.

The problem with this model is that there is no consideration of unknown factors.

This model depends on four factors: amount of water, amount of time, reactions per second per kg and probability of a "life" event per reaction. Let's call this set of factors { M_1, M_2, ..., M_n } with n = 4.

We don't know everything about genesis so there must be some unknown factors. Let's call these factors U = { M_{n+1}, M_{n+2}, ..., M_k} for some unknown k.

The model predicts

predicted # events = \Pi_{i=1}^n M_i.

Whereas,

true # events = \Pi_{i=1}^k M_i.

The prediction is meaningful if we can say the absolute or relative error with respect to the true number of events is bounded. The bounded absolute error is

| \Pi_{i=1}^n (M_i) - \Pi_{i=1}^k (M_i) | < c_1.

The bounded relative error is

\frac{| \Pi_{i=1}^n (M_i) - \Pi_{i=1}^k (M_i) |}{\Pi_{i=1}^k M_i} < 1 + c_2.

What can we say about c_1 and c_2? Not much. Consider that if a single element of U is unbounded or zero then c_1 and c_2 are, respectively, unbounded. If we have bounds on the elements of U then they must be fairly tight (| u - 1 | < \epsilon \forall u \in U) otherwise the equation will rapidly explode or vanish.

These models have little value until we can put bounds on the elements of U. In the physical sciences we can rarely achieve that with any rigor. Instead, we first acquire an overwhelming quantity and variety of measurements then we become confident that U has little impact (i.e., all elements of U are near 1 for the observed cases).

The Drake Equation is the same kind of model and it, also, is useless until we have more observations and a better understanding of genesis.

I can save you a lot of time. If you feel the need to discuss whether or not you want to support diversity then the answer is clearly no.

There are only two meaningful answers to a question like this: yes or no.

If your answer is yes then it won't change anything. A discussion like this can only occur after support for diversity has already been lost. People will not change their opinion because you release a press statement. Trust is regained through action.

If your answer is no then it will not change anything because you have already stopped supporting diversity. The only effect is to act as a psychological barrier to any future attempts to support diversity.

Given the outcomes above there is no reason for anyone who supports diversity to want to have a discussion about diversity. At best there will be no effect. At worst, the opportunity for institutional change will be lost forever. On the other hand, if you are against diversity then these outcomes are very good for you.

My advice is to abandon this high-level discussion and return to the concrete problem. Do you want to merge this package or not?

Someone used my email address to register a Disney+ account. Disney+ does not validate the email address. So, it is easy for an unauthorized user to use anyone's email address for the sake of receiving a free trial. Disney+ failed at designing a secure registration process. This is evidence that Disney+ does not take security seriously.

WhatsApp doesn't kill people; people kill people.

No. 1200 miles is 6.4e-3 light-seconds. Also, this topic is about LEO satellites which can be closer than 1200 miles. Furthermore, the minimum added latency due to speed-of-light signal propagation is a small part of the measured delay in previously deployed space-based Internet systems so there's not much intuition to be gained from studying this number in isolation.

In Los Angeles it sometimes becomes necessary to stop traffic on a freeway because there is an accident ahead. The way this happens is that a police vehicle swerves back and forth across all lanes of the freeway.

I have personally witnessed this twice (in 10 years of living in LA). The first time I had no idea what was happening. My typical response to a vehicle exhibiting an unusual driving pattern is to get away from it. Since it wasn't safe to pass I was forced to slow down. Everyone else did the same and the entire freeway went from 70+ MPH to a complete stop in a gradual and safe manner. It was cool. I wonder what self-driving vehicles will do in this situation. I can imagine them continuously trying to pass the police vehicle.

This is bad advice. Do not interact with an unknown account opened with your email address.

A successful login from your IP address may be construed as assuming ownership of the account. They might try to collect money from you. Or, the account may have been used for illegal activities which are now linked to your IP address.

Never assume ownership of an unknown account. All communications (if any) with the account management should clearly state that you are not the account holder and are not responsible for the account. In particular, do not ask for the account to be closed. Asking the company to take action on the account may also be construed as assuming ownership of the account.

At best you can send an email stating you are not the account holder. Then put them on your block list. Do not get more involved than that.

Actually, trading is a negative-sum game because the broker collects a commission.

Every mission advances the state-of-the-art in space exploration in some way.

For example, Pathfinder (1996) landed a 10 kg rover on Mars. Next, MER (2003) landed two 180 kg rovers. Most recently, MSL (2011) landed a 900 kg rover.

Another example, Giotto (1986) approached a comet within 590 km. NEAR (1996) orbited an asteroid within 35 km. Finally, Deep Impact (2005) collided with a comet. There are now proposals for a rendezvous with an asteroid (i.e., land on it).

I believe you answered your own question. Space exploration is making incremental improvements, constantly bringing humanity closer to the stars. It's happening, and "You're welcome."

The link you posted does not indicate a 17% growth of M3. Read the chart more carefully. Annual change is the blue line which is 7.5%.

I would suggest that you actually take a course before you make any judgement based on it. For the past year I have been experiencing a surprising trend where people who have never taken a MOOC, publicly laud them. I find this to be very irresponsible. In order to properly evaluate MOOCs we need opinions based on experience, not optimistic guesses. Please actually take one of these courses before you tell other people how great they are.

You will also need to tell the compiler that every element of list is a unique object.

A = bunny()
list = [A, A]
for bunny in list:
    bunny.hop()

ArenaNet has now taught people, if you see something that is too good to be true, it probably is and should be reported.

The players have been taught to fear ArenaNet. They should put that on the box. I've never seen a game with "fear us" as a unique selling point.

The basic idea of buy low, sell high has been a staple of gaming for as long as I can remember. In fact, there are many games where the primary mechanic is to buy and sell items for a profit from NPC vendors (as early as Taipei and, most recently, Port Royale 3).

So the people that did this knew that something was possibly wrong (or greatly in their favor) and abused to get ahead in the game.

I'll try to remember to never do anything that is greatly in my favor when I play an ArenaNet game.

I really don't care what I do in a game. It's a game. I've murdered people that never did anything to me (pretty much every CRPG ever made). I've razed entire villages just to loot their bent copper pieces and loaves of bread (Morrowind). Every MMO game I have ever played (with the exception of ATITD) has treated me as a hired killer, "no questions asked", and I've never had a problem with that. Buying items on the cheap from an NPC vendor isn't even on my morality meter. Hell, in multiple games I have slaughted every NPC vendor in town and took everything they had as soon as their corpses hit the ground (Ultima I, II and III and nethack).

Spreads of 1/2 twenty years ago actually sounds pretty small. I did a lot of daytrading in 1997 and lots of stocks had spreads of a point or more. Large stocks typically had a spread of 1/8, expanding to a 1/2 during high volume. Today, HFT has driven spreads down to one cent. I agree with your facts, but I don't agree with the picture you paint.

In my opinion, the two major events that shaped the US daily markets are: the introduction of SOES trading in 1988 and the introduction of 1 cent increments in 2001.

SOES basically created daytraders. Daytrading reduced spreads from 1 to 2 points down to 1/8 or a 1/16. It wasn't feasible to get below 1/16 because the markets didn't allow arbitrary increments (you could get 1/32 but everyone hated that). By the time I quit, markets were toying with introducing 1 cent increments.

One cent increments created HFT. Now we have tons of liquidity and spreads are typically a few cents. However, this hasn't done squat for investors. Daytrading produced plenty of liquidity for any reasonable investor. If you're worried over a 1/16 spread then you're not making an informed investment decision.

As I was writing this post I just closed out a short-term trade (not even an investment). I put in my sell order at 67.90 and got filled at 67.91. 1 cent on a point trade. I don't give a shit. That kind of liquidity serves no purpose. Paying $5 less commission or saving a few cents on the spread is nice for me, but these piddling items are not going to affect anybody's investment decisions.

SOES gave us small spreads; HFT is giving us market instability.