It's hard to know what it isn't for certain but there are many other reasons papers list contributors in a flat structure (be it random or alphabetical order). Particularly with large numbers of collaborators.
Not very hard to look people up on LinkedIn and figure out who the core researchers are. I think this is just a very surface-level overview paper that encompasses a bunch of different research projects conducted by different teams, and it would be difficult to order the contributors in any meaningful way.
Considering a large portion of the contributors have names originating in a script and language that has no relationship whatsoever to English’s already arbitrary letter ordering, this list configuration is as good as any.
If I were the CCP this is perhaps the cleverest talking point I could have possibly come up with, propping up TikTok while simultaneously condemning democracy.
But to substantively respond: NO. This is exceptionally naive. Democracy assumes shared fates and aligned incentives among (both voting and communicating) participants. A foreign adversary mainlining their interests into half the population of the US absolutely violates this assumption.
It's unclear why the researchers believe that when a dog doesn't learn the names of a bunch of toys it means that they can't.
There are lots of things people are able to learn today that they "couldn't" a few years ago (programming, math, reading). How are the researchers able to tell that the limitation lies with the dog and not with the trainer/household?
Indeed! The article talks about some kind of rare "genius" trait, but the findings just seem to demonstrate that there exists some dogs that were able to demonstrate a big vocabulary in their tests. Many people with dogs already knew that, but it's a sound finding to have citable anyway (especially since some people still hold weirdly dismissive beliefs about everyday animal intelligence).
But it doesn't say anything scientific about whether this is an inherent trait rather than a contextual outcome, what the frequency of any such trait might be, whether the dogs that failed the tests were incapable rather than indifferent, etc. Of course, the exact same pattern of ovverstatement shows up in human behavioral and psychological research, so we shouldn't be surprised to see it here :)
Required thickness ≈ 39,200,000 Pa / (434 × 10^6 Pa × 2)
Required thickness ≈ 0.045 meters or 1.48 inches
Therefore, at a depth of 4,000 meters, the titanium walls of the submersible sphere with a 10 ft diameter would need to be approximately 1.48 inches thick to resist implosion, assuming a safety factor of 2. Again, please note that this estimation may vary based on the design, shape, and structural considerations of the submersible sphere. Consulting with experts is essential for accurate calculations and safety assessments.
As for amount of titanium required:
First, let's convert the wall thickness to meters. Since 1 inch is approximately 0.0254 meters, the wall thickness of 1.5 inches would be approximately 0.0381 meters.
Now, let's calculate the internal volume of the sphere by subtracting the volume of the inner sphere (10 ft diameter minus 2 times the wall thickness) from the volume of the outer sphere (10 ft diameter):
Finally, we can calculate the mass of titanium using the density of titanium (4,506 kg/m³):
Mass of titanium = Titanium wall volume * Density of titanium
Mass of titanium ≈ 0.125 cubic meters * 4,506 kg/m³
Mass of titanium ≈ 563.25 kg
Therefore, with a wall thickness of 1.5 inches, the approximate amount of titanium required for the walls of the submersible sphere with a 10 ft diameter would be approximately 563.25 kilograms.
Titanium is currently around $6/kg, so ~$3.4k for just the titanium that made up the wall.
SF is rich and unequal. So are dozens of places. Yet I don't know of any other major urban area in a developed country that has the kind of crime we see here.
Yes, let's create great safety nets. As a city with a $9 billion budget (for just 800,000 people; that's $11k for every person living here) they can afford better safety nets than anywhere.
So if it's not the inequality, and it's not lack of funding, what's the cause of all the crime and homelessness?
Why not both? The governance could be horrible because its serving the political philosophy of the resident unequally rich to assuage their guilt over their unequal position in society while keeping their unequal position.
That to me still sounds like inequality. Sure, it can arise because of horrible governance, which just means that money is not spent where it should be.
Money spent by the government is NEVER really spent “where it should be” it’s all mostly a grift and everyone has their hands in the cash drawer. Not much actually makes it to the cause. It goes to the administration, research and pontification that does nothing to help the people in need.
One side is adamantly agains _trickle down economics_ but if you look at their social safety net or programs it’s all trickle down with barely anything hitting the people in need.
Unfortunately, Portland is one. Been living here for the past 6 years and I've watched the city rapidly fall apart in the last couple of years. We've had the most violent years on record. Homelessness has skyrocketed.
I can't say that this is directly caused by reduced police budget (there are a ton of factors), but I can confidently say the city is horribly managed.
The most recent example is the city government's proposal to force homeless folks into designated camps that would cost a minimum of $4k per tent (this number comes from the city's own report). That's more than what many Portlanders live on, and they'd still be living in tents.
Crime in the USA is high compared to most developed nations, that is true, however, this helps your OP's argument, as many attribute this to the USA's stark income disparity, which correlates strongly with crime.
> As a city with a $9 billion budget (for just 800,000 people; that's $11k for every person living here) they can afford better safety nets than anywhere.
Just because the money is there, doesn't mean it's being spent correctly. This seems true for the entire nation: the richest country on earth for some reason still has homeless people. In my opinion this is because the most progressive politician that can managed to be elected in the USA at any level of government would be considered a conservative in most other countries. Therefore the kinds of "safety net" an American politician might try to introduce aren't actual, evidence-based effective solutions. For example, as linked prior, healthcare access likely causes reduced crime. The USA clearly has enough money to provide free healthcare for all citizens, since Americans pay more than anyone on earth for healthcare: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4193322/ . So, it's a good idea for many reasons to simply provide free healthcare for all citizens. Yet we need not discuss here the myriad of reasons such propositions in ANY form are dead on arrival at any level of government in the USA.
This issue seems mirrored in SF. The SF government seems more interested in engaging in performative politics than actual progressivism.
> Chris Sacca tried to give SF free wifi 15 years ago, and they wouldn't accept it.
> During covid, the SF school board decided one of their highest priorities would be to spend 10s of millions to rename their schools
The first sentence of this article is: "The San Francisco Board of Education will ultimately keep the names of dozens of public schools in a case of high-stakes second thoughts."
They didn't end up changing the names so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
> SF made all shoplifting of goods valued less than $950 a misdemeanor.
Which means it's up to the cops whether they want to investigate, and the DA whether they want to prosecute. Not sure who you're trying to blame here, in my experience SF cops are notoriously lazy. Are you suggesting that if we dangle the "carrot" of nuking some kid's life with a felony charge for stealing an expensive bag, the cops will work harder at their job? Misdemeanor charges aren't a good enough motivator for cops? Anyway, not sure how this is dysfunctional, I don't want resources spent on protecting the interests of Balenciaga or whatever, I'd much rather cops focus on, you know, solving murders.
Also, apparently the governor and the mayor both kicked off concerted efforts to target crime rings involved in this kind of shoplifting?
So far every reply making blind jabs at a spectre of "progressive politics" has been like this. It saddens me that so many on this forum are thirsty for simple Hammurabi code style punitive justice systems despite the reams of evidence that it's ineffective.
If you've been privy at all to the conversations founders etc. have been having for the last 48 hours, I don't think they're going to come away from this feeling like "don't worry". There was never a guarantee that the fed would step in, and there won't be a guarantee going forward. Treasury management will be a thing that all VCs worth their salt will insist on going forward.
But the message in this announcement is pretty clear, the put is there and none of that turned out to be necessary and won’t be going forward. It will be financially worse for you to put your money into less liquid things.
No one knows that taxpayers will have to pay anything for any of this. It's possible they'll end up ahead. The assets were/are there to cover depositors. The timing of the asset liquidation/redemption is the problem, and only the "bank of last resort" can help avert contagion from skittish depositors, mass layoffs, and pointless disruption.
As said above: would you prefer to see hundreds or thousands of small companies fail, their employees go on unemployment insurance, etc.?
> No one knows that taxpayers will have to pay anything for any of this. It's possible they'll end up ahead.
Wouldn't SVB have been sold at auction by the FDIC if that were likely to happen?
I don't want to see startups fail or people lose their jobs, but this all feels like a cloaked way of passing the cost of the bailout onto the taxpayers (via raised FDIC fees that will trickle down).
Feel as though it's worth mentioning here that using LTE Direct (https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2014/11/true-or-false-gett...) every phone could become a node in a long-range mesh network in an emergency. This approach takes advantage of both the strong radios in smartphones and the available node density provided by smartphone ubiquity.
The tech has already been proven—carriers just need to be mandated to add it because there's no business reason to do so.
> The tech has already been proven—carriers just need to be mandated to add it because there's no business reason to do so.
People say that but in the decades since it was thought up mesh networks have never actually managed to work, not at any scale. Routing efficiently is extremely complex especially when all the nodes keep moving around. I concede it may be better than nothing in an emergency but I strongly suspect it's just not very useful in general, which is probably why carriers haven't mandated it. After all if it worked you wouldn't need carriers at all, yet here they are...
A route on a mesh network is only as big as the smallest link. Of course as a general substitute for connectivity it holds little promise. Like any technology it has its pluses and minuses.
In situations without access to a fat, centralized link or situations where resilience is more important than bandwidth or latency, mesh networks are a great choice. Emergencies are such situations but remote areas or low power needs are other situations suited for mesh networks.
I've played around with a few different "simple" mesh techs in my time, some of the really cheap/easily available stuff can be really useful. I've seen examples of people sending entire kilobytes-per-second of data over a kilometer with the right antennas and line-of-sight with cheap, sub-£100 kit.
Things like LoRa which I've not had a chance to play with yet look extremely promising too for long range, low bandwidth.
If there was good reason for it, and sufficiently easy to set-up kit, I don't see why more people wouldn't help build out networks by setting up routing nodes in their homes; everyone installs a WiFi router because their ISP tells them to, but what about if people's only choice to get internet was to add a femtocell or similar (and it was legal and cost effective)? People would do it.
The real hold up, I'd say, is not so much effectiveness, but need. Nobody _needs_ to usurp the role of their carrier and build out a community network, so it doesn't happen.
If for example, using that network became so costly, say for example, like electricity recently has in the UK and Europe, that for many, building out their own infrastructure with solar and batteries became cost effective, I could see it happening here too; with frequency band licensing etc likely being the main barrier.
i really don't want to be this person, but Starlink is a mesh network, i have a crap connection to it, and i still routinely get over 200mbit download and 30-50mbit uploads. and a ping 1/3rd of my at&t connection (minimums around 19ms, which i haven't seen since i lived on the west coast)
> After all if it worked you wouldn't need carriers at all, yet here they are...
It'd work fine in more dense areas. Probably not the higher band 5G stuff, but lower bands and 4G. There's no carrier incentive to do this, that's why OP said "mandated".
I'm not sure I'd call it a mesh. If you have both full control over all the nodes and monitoring from a central place, the problem is significantly simpler. Mesh typically implies independent/unpredictable actors and self reorganisation / self healing.
Centrally pushing new routes based on quality/load data is not it.
Are the inter-satellite links actually active yet? Last I heard Starlink satellites all still needed to be in range of a ground station (explaining the lack of ocean coverage for their marine service)
my internet exit point varies. Sometimes it's in TX, but the last time i checked i was exiting in Bellevue, WA. as opposed to any other provider around me which always exits from an F5 in Dallas-Fort Worth, TX.
I'm not sure this proves it, but i can't think of many reasons for that to be the case.
Currently, AFAIK starlink is still Point-to-point, bouncing once to a satellite and back down to fixed ground stations. They intend to add inter-satellite links, but I'm not sure that's the case yet.
Does any handset anywhere actually implement LTE Direct?
My understanding has been that it was specified for Public Safety LTE to have feature parity with TETRA.
Especially the infrastructure-less TETRA DMO Direct Mode Operation for ad-hoc communications with the trunking infrastructure down, out of range or over capacity.
And everybody in the Public Safety radio space seems to always laugh when LTE Direct is brought up. Apparently poorly specified and adopted by no vendors.
If you change into the left lane when there is insufficient room to do so, while standing on the brakes ... you are not pulling over, you are causing a wreck. Hope your insurance is paid up.
IMO cars should be very very good at what they try to do, and not pretend to do anything more. Tesla has way too many flaky features (that customers have to pay for) for a product that can kill people. I'm fine with what Waymo and Cruise are trying to do where the car is expected to never make dangerous mistakes in the circumstances it will run (with consequences for the company), but Tesla's target of doing everything fine most of the time but still doing stupid stuff frequently is not OK.
hazard lights, or turn signal seem missing. You'd generally want to move over to the shoulder. Emergencies definitely do happen but parking, in the fast lane, in the tunnel is _incredibly_ dangerous.
