We have some observational constraints on the speed of light.
11 billion years ago (when the universe was 2 billion years old), the speed of light was about the same as it is now. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.087...
Otherwise, the light crossing certain objects would be different. This result is essentially independent of cosmology.
I guess that the cosmic microwave background also places limits. If the speed of light had been infinite at that time, I suspect the last scattering would be affected. This is ~300.000 years after the big bang.
But at the time of inflation
So you are hung up on reverse last-Thursdayism or a nirvana fallacy. Gravity could stop working any minute, we do not have proof it will work tomorrow. Science can not bring the type of proof you are looking for.
10-15 years ago, when these models where created, they predicted the future. Now that future is here, so we are checking their predictions against real observables.
And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
That's very heart warming, but not proof of the success in predicting even more extreme outcomes. Before I jump on the panic and tax band wagon I'd like to see some real proof, not expectations.
That these models have correctly predicted the future is the proof that they work. Why is that not "real proof"? Not sure if you are hung up on last-Thursdayism or a nirvana fallacy here. Fine, there may be another model or different parameters which are the true ones. So what? The used parameters gave the correct predictions, so we can't be way off. And climate scientist do study and worry about such systematic errors. Do you honestly expect that another parameter will suddenly give a sine curve in temperatures, saving us in 2020 without any action?
Sure scientists discover new effects and you see them in the news, but they are usually minor modifications. The main message and outcome has not changed in decades, i.e. accelerated warming, increasing sea levels, more extreme weather.
You will have to admit though that tablets and smartphones these days feature apps that are easy/intuitive to use and often beat clunky desktop apps with slow development cycles. Bringing such features/approaches to DEs would avoid being stuck with 1990s desktops. Maps, weather, interactive notifications and lessons learned from Mylyn are a good thing for the diversity of Linux desktops.
Climate models contain plenty of physics. And those from 10-15 years ago have successfully predicted the increase observed over the last decade. Not only that but they also predicted the warming in individual locations, the increased weather extremes, etc.
Every model is an approximation of the real world with some degree of accuracy. These ones are useful and give insight into the most important physical mechanisms at work.
Features like "new icons", "new Applications Menu", "panel on top" etc requires hiring a programmer, there's something wrong with your desktop environment. These are all trivial configuration options which any user should be able to make for themselves.
Does the fact that my configuration files differ from the default ones mean that I created a new desktop environment?
You also need to repackage that package, which is not trivial.
The US has better air quality because of fortunate wind conditions, not because it pollutes less, if If I remember the article correctly. Same applies to Europe (and Reading) - where the air is polluted does not necessarily correspond to where the pollution accumulates!
There's your problem right there. How about concentrating on giving us a good *browser* instead, like you used to?
That's exactly what they are doing, they are stopping other projects (Thunderbird, Firefox OS) to concentrate on severe refactorings of their core product, Firefox and the underlying Gecko, to catch up again with Chrome, and deliver a better browser. It is harder to restructure a codebase if you need to maintain several products that depend on it.
As I said above, PEP8 only applies to the Python project, not all projects written in Python. There is no recommendation for Python code other than consistency.
PEP8 only applies to the Python project, not all projects written in Python. There is no recommendation for Python code other than consistency.
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie