Well, technically that is the entire point of some of the major sports in the world, and it would be problematic to say that deliberately causing brain damage for competition is ok in one sport but not in another.

On the other hand, I am not altogether convinced it should be openly encouraged in any sport.

This is a tricky one, because I would also argue that I should have no say in what a person does to their own body for their own reasons, that my firm belief that people should have bodily autonomy when it causes no actual harm to others does not permit me to condemn others for doing stuff to their own body for their own reasons when it does no actual harm to others even if it's a context I don't agree with.

Given that (ethically) I cannot condone wilful irreversable damage but (ethically) cannot condemn personal choises that harm nobody else, the obvious conclusion is that I don't believe such sports should be actively promoted or encouraged, but that what individuals do in the privacy of a private sporting event should not concern those outside until or unless actual harm outside of those events occurs.

Treadmill? That can be optimistic.

One place I worked for, I was hired to do DB and coding. Sped their database up by a factor of 60, and resolved tickets efficiently.

Another place I worked for, I was hired to do QA. Found numerous performance issues and dangerous security holes.

Didn't last in either, because politics are more important than people, and revenue is more important than wages. Once all the factors that seriously impacted profit were removed, keeping me would merely have meant a better product, not more cash. The market is only so big, and once you've taken all the share you're going to, being better won't increase it. Companies don't think beyond the next quarter.

Two other places I worked for, the CEO was using it to scam money off investors and get cheaper healthcare. They never intended to produce a product.

If you're forced to treat employees well, these things will still happen but they'll happen less often. Because the risks are higher, the payoff is lower, and penalties for getting caught are a whole lot worse.

That's how it works in a coupled system.

Agreed. There's deliberate undercounting for the long-term unemployed, and a failure to account for the fact that firing seasoned workers with acquired skills isn't the same as hiring inexperienced yoofs who have no meaningful experience in producing robust, high quality products. Although, to be fair, corporations don't seem keen on producing those.

However, there's another factor to consider. The number of retirees is smaller than the number of people entering work for the first time. Due to Covid, a LOT smaller than usual. This means that the markets are expanding. If the markets are expanding but the numer of people being added is only keeping pace with job circulation and retirement, then the job market (as a percentage of those who can work) must be smaller relative to both the markets and the work that needs to be done.

This is the most misleading part of employment statistics. Whilst total unemployment is important (but only useful if not deliberately undercounted), you also need to know the employment:activity ratio and the employment:expected employment in a fully functional market of that size ratio.

FFT didn't exist for another decade.

On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

On the basis that a woman from the Radiophonics Workshop innovated a technique?

Perhaps you are going to argue Einstein was a moron because Noether figured out the relationships between symmetry and conservation laws.

I know there are some idiots here, but frankly you are one of the worst.

No they aren't "guesses", and nobody goes by what a single model predicts. That's not the way you use models in this sort of simulation.

Climate latency is around 40 years, so if 2025 is when the climate trajectory passed the point of no return, then the actual prediction is that Miami will be in serious trouble by 2065 and that no viable path to Miami recovering will exist, that CO2 won't drop to levels that permit such a recovery within the remaining lifespan of any part of Miami.

Honestly, I don't know if you've been watching too many Penelope Pitstop cartoons or too much CSPAN. It's getting hard to tell the difference.

He was from West Virginia?

Yes, that's perfectly obvious. If you check the Oramics machine from 1958, that's basically what it was.

If you had specialists do so, I'd agree.

This is why programmers do not check every corner case, they hire QA enginers to check every corner case.

You hire generalists to see how interactions between technologies impact things.

Daphne Oram's Oramics machine turned hand-drawn squiggles that were the information-bearing portions of a spectrogram into recognisable audio. And, like I said, that was 1958. A spectrogram, as others have noted, is an image.

The only thing they could possibly be covering up is that they have vast teams of ultra-specialised uber-gurus who have no meaningful cross-domain expertise (which is understandable, you can't be an ultra-specialised uber-guru if you do) but also that they've essentially nothing else and therefore nobody who can red-flag when a skill in one domain allows a person to exploit information that is released by another.

There is nothing wrong, at all, with having ultra-specialised uber-gurus for something like the NTSB, but 100% of their errors throughout history have come from not having additional teams that are cross-domain experts who can identify when accident issues aren't domain-specific (the 737 rudder control jams from a couple of decades ago and the 737-MAX automatic flight systems are examples of issues that was almost unsolvable through lack of cross-domain expertise) or when informational issues aren't domain-specific (as in this case).

You need the specialists, but relying on them alone is a great way to blunder. and the NTSB does not like admitting it blunders, which is why you're not seeing organisational changes, merely ad-hoc communication changes.