Because they can't make money off that position?
Because they can't make money off that position?
Programming high-level languages is the slide rule of the current era. Despite what many people think(cough cough Excel cough), you simply cannot be a scientist or engineer if you can't write decent code in, say R or python or Matlab.
I know lots of EE's and they don't write code, they spec turbine sizes, and transformers, and other such things. Most civil engineers and mechanical engineers don't need any coding knowledge either.
The problem is that all these attempts to interest kids in STEM are so earnest and dull.
What we should be doing is tempting them with mad science. You see? It's not all death rays and monkey testicle implants.
It's important to hook them by middle school, when the all important sense of being misunderstood is its keenest.
About 1/3, according to statisticians.
Well, they're both solutions. But they run afoul of questions. Which users benefit most from each solution? And if someone benefits most from the massive battery with conservative display and processor specs, can you sell it to him?
I'll tell you right here that I'd much prefer LG's approach, but I'm an engineer. I think about my requirements differently than most people.
And your point would be?
If you're a woman in the top 1% by income. If you're a man in the top 1% it's 88.8 years.
If you're middle class you live about 78.3 years if you're a man, which is big step up from 1980, probably because of smoking. If you're a woman you live 79.7 years, a decline of a few months since 1980.
Now if you're a poor your life expectancy has declined since 1980, to 76.1 for men and 78.3 for women.
So here's the picture: if you're rich, medical advances since 1980 have increased your expected lifespan by about seven years. But those advances haven't had any effect on middle class lifespans. If you're poor you apparently are having difficulty paying for medical care at all, which is not surprising because health care costs have consistently outpaced inflation since the mid-70s. If you're a working poor American health care inflation meant you basically screwed by the 2000s: you were too rich for Medicaid, to poor to avoid medical care.
One more thing: US has a GINI coefficient (measure of income disparity) of 45. That's the highest in the industrialized world, and much higher than it's low point of 34 in 1969. Basically all of the income growth sicne 1990 have gone to the top quintile, in fact the lion's share to the top 5%. People at the 80th percentile by income and below have seen basically zero income growth when adjusted for inflation. And since health care inflation rises faster than inflation, it means 80% of the the US has seen a cut in its disposable income.
Why single out one cause, when there's obviously many.
Take food. I live near a supermarket that is probably three times the size of the one my parents went to, but the produce section is smaller, the meat and dairy sections about the same size. The surplus acreage is taken up with cheap, calorie dense, no-preparation convenience food.
Or the fact that Amercians spend more time in cars than they used to, on average over 290 hours a year.
Here's another interesting fact: research shows that the portion size you choose is positively correlated to the size of the package you serve yourself from; this doesn't happen consciously, it's just that a cup of cereal from a 9 ounce box appears like a lot more than a cup of cereal from a 21 oz box.
The huge sizes are driven in part by an attempt to cut down on trips to the grocery store. American home kitchens are the largest in the world, and most of that is needed for storage because we don't do very much food preparation.
So if there's a single root cause it's the pursuit (sometimes failed) of efficiency; we have the wealth to try to reduce labor and time spent doing things, but our bodies are designed to spend time doing things.
Actually the number of Mexicans in the US has been dropping for years. That's because for years US politicians have been intent on turning us into a low-wage, non-industrialized nation run by and for an economic elite.
What's there to choose? They might as well go home.
The problem may be the while Garcina Cambogia causes 30% more weight to be lost, 30% more of zero is still zero.
If that's what happens anyway it's somewhat problematic to use the word causes -- unless it's a different 30% in each case that would have happened otherwise. It's a bit like Woody Allen's the Great Roe: "A mythological beast with the head of a lion and the body of a lion, though not the same lion."
If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Then if you succeed, try try again. Carry on until you have constructed a body of results you can evaluate as a whole.
There is a reproducibility problem for who have a model of the universe that works like this: If A is true, then investigation will uncover evidence supporting A, and no evidence supporting not-A. If this is your world view, then the instant you have any contradictory data you have a worldview crisis.
It is perfectly normal for science to yield contradictory results. That's why when you see a study reported saying taking Garcina Cambogia yields astonishing weight loss results you don't immediately run out to the health food store to buy miracle pills. It's absolutely routine for results like this not to stand up. The problem is that journalists are too ignorant of how science works to understand this.
You are basing your entire argument on guesses. That might allow you to come to comfortable conclusions, but they are not based in reality.
In the time you spent writing that question you could have answered it yourself.
Take it up with NASA and get a medal. Of course, they might tell you that you don't know what you're on about, but then you might just accept that as evidence of just how right you are.
I stated that people either tell the truth, or they lie.
They also spout nonsense.