LogicalBorg
You can get the same result by changing your is_deleted boolean field to a date_deleted date field. Then use a cron to purge all the records with dates older than the configured retention period.
For example:
> Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare. It has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered.
> Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare... Data from VSD and from VAERS indicate that rates of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are highest among males in their late teens and early 20s, usually following the second dose of the vaccine.
> Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) has been rarely observed after J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination and has occurred in approximately 4 cases per one million doses administered.
But lo and behold! Some resilient survivors emerge from the depths of this intellectual wasteland, and they have mastered the art of stringing together random phrases and run-on sentences. It's nothing short of a miracle, really. They have evolved into the epitome of the average Internet commenter, and that, my friend, is the secret behind the genius of GPT. It's essentially a legion of sarcastic, masochistic parrots that somehow, against all odds, made it through the gauntlet of human inanity. So there you have it, GPT is literally a stochastic parrot! And you thought it was just some fancy AI algorithm... (courtesy of GPT4)
The first version seems wrong to me. Time is not a random variable. Either it is really the year 2019 and no such simulations of 2019 exist yet, or it is really the year 2100 and the year 2019 doesn't exist anymore. You can't choose at random between different years since they don't exist at the same time.
The alien version doesn't have that problem but it's also implausible since aliens have not been proven to exist and there is no particular reason for aliens to simulate us.
This discussion reminds me of Elon Musk's interest in traveling to Mars. Imagine you want to go to Mars and are too lazy to build a rocket to go there. So instead you go out to the desert to a place that looks exactly like Mars. Then you say this place in the desert looks exactly like a million places on Mars. You pick a place at random, which means that you inevitably pick a place on Mars. Then you say, "The odds are a million to one that I'm not standing on Mars right now! Because I picked Mars!"
That argument is just as bogus as the simulation argument. Probability isn't a cheap form of space travel and it's not a cheap form of time travel either. If you want to stand on Mars you're going to have to build an actual rocket and go there, not a probability experiment. If you want to experience virtual reality you're going to have to build it. You can't just probability it into existence by wishful thinking.
They are unequal devices. - This is not a design flaw. The screen is just small.
They are not real network clients. - This is not a design flaw. It's the best batteries can do.
They have led to massive centralization. - No, high bandwidth and big data requiring centralized processing is what led to centralization.
They have ruined web design. - This isn't even a critique of smartphones, it's about desktops.
There are no secure smartphones. - Are they really worse than other computers?
They are devices of unclear alignment, or of clear malevolence. - Wait, what? You claim that your phone is not secure, then you want to root it, install arbitrary software, and do your online banking on it? wtf?
1. Enzymes in the fig digest wasp parts so you don't normally find wasps inside your figs. So they really are vegan.
2. The males are flightless and wouldn't have escaped anyway. The females only escape long enough to go lay their eggs in another fig. So it really isn't that dramatic.
Source: https://www.jerseyshoreonline.com/dear-pharmacist/figs-reall...
1. The goods are permanent, otherwise you don't need the history of the blockchain.
2. The goods are valuable, otherwise they aren't worth tracking.
3. The goods are identifiable, otherwise you can't tell that the good you received was the one on the blockchain.
4. The goods came from a trusted third party, otherwise they can receive non-compliant goods and pass them off as their own.
Tracking food on the blockchain fails at all four criteria.
Cryptocurrency passes all four tests. It is permanent, valuable, identifiable, and the third party producer of the coin is trusted because they pass a mathematical test.
Diamonds might also pass the tests, as long as there are trusted third parties in the diamond industry who won't receive bad diamonds.
You were taught to drive manually, not in an Uber self-driving car.
If you can find a video of an Uber driving who is driving as they were instructed to do, they would look exactly like her.
Here's an article that shows the sort of thing she would be looking at, an animation of road conditions: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driverless-car-interior-...
If you actually examine her behavior, in the space of ten seconds, she manages to:
* Look down at the tablet and watch the animation
* Look up at the road
* Scan the lane to the left (she was in the right lane)
* Look forward again
* Look down at the tablet again
* Look up again just as the accident occurs
She is systematically scanning her environment and appears to be alert and engaged.
The problem is that there is only one test driver, who has to divide her attention between the tablet and the road. Often two drivers are used, and then one watches the tablet and the other watches the road.
I think it is unfair to accuse her of inattention when she appears to be doing the job exactly as it is designed.
The reason everyone says "she was looking at her phone!" is because they don't understand the setup of how Uber's self-driving car works. They are only familiar with being bored and looking at their phone while driving. They think the test driver's job is to just stare out of the window all day, which is not correct.
Nothing like that is being collected.
Blockchain:
* Separates your transactions into blocks and hashes the blocks together.
* Uses proof-of-work to add new blocks.
* Is slow (a block has to be filled).
* Is unreliable (your transaction may be rejected).
* Locks transactions at the block level.
* Easy for user to lose unique tokens (coins).
My SQL design for blockchain replacement:
* Take a database table.
* Allow INSERT permission only.
* Hash each record and insert the hash into next record, which chains them together like blockchain.
* Replicate the database.
This is like blockchain, because it hashes the records together, can't be modified, and has backups to ensure it can't be modified.
Unlike blockchain, it:
* Is centralized but still has backups.
* Is cheap (does not require proof of work).
* Is fast (one transaction at a time).
* Is reliable (ACID transactions).
* Locks transactions at the record level.
* User not required to keep track of coins.
So what's so great about blockchain compared to this design? The only thing blockchain does better is that there is no central server, so it's hard to shut down. But for industry use, no one is going to shut down their intranet servers. Only criminals need to worry about being shut down.
According to that table, women's bachelor's degrees in computer science:
* were low in the 1970's, about 15% average
* were higher in the 1980's, about 35% average
* declined in the 1990's to about 25-30%
* steadily declined from 27 to 17% in the 2000's
The Forbes site you reference cites a Quora post, which quotes a Wikipedia article. What the Wikipedia article actually says is that 373,415 out of 1.5 million engineering students in Iran are women, which is 24.9%, not 70%.
This is not that different from the 19-20% of engineering degrees awarded to women in the U.S.