My favorite part of my naivety is when people tell me I don't see what I can plainly see.
Well, first it's of course a situation of diminishing returns. Our eyes aren't getting any better, so there is a limit of where it's "good enough".
And of course there's a difference between SD and HD. It's clear here in PAL-land even though we had significantly better resolution than NTSC from the get go. But when it comes to 1080p I'm not convinced that better resolution is the next useful step. I'd much rather see higher refresh rates (60Hz makes a difference), and less compression. More resolution with more vissible compression artefacts from even more cramming into the available bandwidth, isn't something I'm looking forward to.
P.S. And I know of no married man that's allowed to sit close enough to the TV to take full advantage of 1080p, let alone 2k or 4k. If you buy a bigger set, the sofa get's moved. Every time.
Yepp. The very best people I have ever met where still in university. They never left...
And I worked with some top notch people in industry, people with internationally recognised names. But they were after all, with the odd exception, not quite in the same league as the best in university. They were generally much better, and there were many more of them as well. I guess that's why they gravitate there.
I find it interesting that many pooh-poohers have suddenly switched from no, not true, not happening to nothing can be done. I mean, this is something like the fourth or fifth one in this thread, whereas even a week ago this was an unusual response. Was there a focus group somewhere that said this is more effective? Didn't your marketing people think this message is a bit too dark for the average mark?
No, its simply that everyone is following more or less the same script. But as they're not coordinated completely, they're slightly out of sync.
It's straight from the playbook of the tobacco lobby. Seem like you're having a debate, but it's just a carefully scripted set of talking points designed to give as little ground as possible and only when you have to, while wearing your opponent out. Much like a military "defence in depth" is. It's the same principle.
"Chad Rigetti, the startup's founder and CEO -- who declined to say whether the company is actually earning any revenue yet." who would also decline to say whether the company is doing proper quantum computing yet.
If he knew how much revenue he was getting, he wouldn't know whether the revenue growth rate was growing or shrinking. How the fark is he supposed to get Series A funding at a good valuation like that? Naw, man, he did it right - assume a given momentum sufficient to get the next round of funding, and who cares about the company's actual market position?
How can Britain be getting 2/3 off and still paying more money than every other country bar Germany?
Because it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and currently the fifth largest economy. Also you're not "paying more money than every country bar Germany". In one measure you're third, but correcting for GNI you're in ninth place, after Belgium, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Luxenbourg, and frigging Italy. The latest of which has an economy in shit state.
So you're only paying a large sum, in absolute terms because you're a large country. One would expect a large country to pay more. Corrected for the size of you're economy, you're not in the top five, and just barely squeeze in the top ten.
And yes, the UK rebate is a thing. Most definitely.
I think police should need a warrant to use facial recognition in many cases. I also feel that perhaps searches of electronic devices and online accounts need to strictly limit exactly what is searched for and disallow any evidence of any crimes not listed in the warrant from being used.
The 4th amendment is supposed to make it hard to prosecute certain kinds of crime. In my opinion, the police really have no business going after crime that isn't reported to them anyway, except for a few exceptions like murder.
I have no idea how old you are, but it does not matter. When you were young there were people complaining about the feckless youth of that day. Heck, archeologists have found clay tablets with such rants.
The problem with that argument is that it's always right.
By that token nothing could ever take a turn for the worse, as someone of age will point it out, and your argument will come into play.
OTOH my kids don't learn the rules of the language (not English, but we have a grammar also), they don't learn their multiplication tables, and they don't study long division any more.
As far as I can tell, this is not counter balanced by learning something else it its stead. This is also born out by our slumping ranking in e.g. the Pisa studies. (Or the diagnostic maths test all engineering students have taken at my Alma mater for the last close to forty years.)
So yes, I'm old, and kids today can't do X worth a damn, but in many areas my judgement is supported by international studies and comparisons. Kids today do a lot worse in many respects/subjects than we did. Demonstrably so.
Anyone telling you radio waves are proven safe is a fucking idiot, including you. Radio waves have been studied until recently for health effects, and the studies so far have shown a mix of results. The only people who think it's been "proven" safe.. are fucking idiots, like you.
Bzzt. Nothing is of course ever "proven" safe. You can't in the real world prove the null hypothesis. The best you can do is asymptotically approach it.
Now, "radio waves" are of course many different things, so they can't be "proven safe" anyhow. If you stick your head in the micro wave oven you'll manage to hurt yourself seriously using "radio waves", so of course there is EM-radiation in certain bands with certain power that are unsafe. Goes almost without saying.
What people typically mean though is the question of whether there is any biological effect appart from heating when being exposed to low power radiation in the low GHz range from e.g. cell phones.
And there the science is pretty clear, i.e. there is no "mix of results". Yes there have been single studies that claim to show one thing or another, but that's true in any biological research, when revisited either the protocol is unrealistic, there have been errors or the effect can't be reproduced. So we haven't found any real effect, we don't have any theory or model that could explain it if we found it (i.e. there's no "smoke" to make us go searching for a fire to begin with) and we don't see anything epidemiologically either. And we've being doing these phones for a couple of decades now at a grand scale, so they should have shown up by now.
So while we can't say that it's "safe" we can with some confidence say that if there is an effect its so small as to be completely dominated by other effects, from a risk standpoint that is. Your inattentiveness with increased risk (to take one example) probably completely swamps any risk from EM.
Riches cover a multitude of woes. -- Menander