sonofgod

The only relevant question is: "Will the investigator use ... information ... obtained through ... manipulations of those individuals or their environment for research purposes?"

which could be idly thought of as "I'm just sending an email, what's wrong with that? That's not manipulating their environment".

But I feel they're wrong.

https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/hs-decision.htm would seem to agree that it's non-exempt (i.e. potentially problematic) human research if "there will be an interaction with subjects for the collection of ... data (including ... observation of behaviour)" and there's not a well-worn path (survey/public observation only/academic setting/subject agrees to study) with additional criteria.

Let's assume that the baby has a perfect ordered ranking of blocks, 3 > 2 > 1, but that the experimenter doesn't know what it is.

There's three scenarios for what the new, third block is: 1, 2 or 3.

If it's 2 or 3, then the rejected block in the first round has a score of 1, and so we'd expect. So we'd only expect the baby to switch in a third of the cases, as opposed to 50% of the cases where the blocks are assumed to be equal.

"However, in the critical test trial that followed, 16 of 21 infants (76.2%) chose the new block (block C; Fig. 1)"

I can't work out the p-value vs. 66% compared to 50%, though...

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." -- Nathan Poe

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/22/21076806/google-janelia-f...

In two dimensions, a vehicle moving North-South and a vehicle moving East-West have to cross into each other's path at some point, and 2.5D solutions (bridges and flyovers) help but require significant investment in resources that simply isn't possible at every junction.

In three dimensions, this simply isn't the case; we can separate different directions of traffic by height, and provision of dedicated corridors for changing route is merely a matter of making regulation rather than infrastructure.

There's a reason why we've had autopilot on planes for significantly longer than on cars.

* Can you expand on Orthogonal Persistence -- is this a "per actor" persistence, or from the references to blockchain is it some sort of shared state between actors?

* How does the internet look/feel/work different once this exists?

In this specific case, it is both a refactor and a breaking change.

For a sense of scale on satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit#/media/File:Or...

Less musical than I expected...

I was, surprisingly, not disappointed.

That's how you sentence someone for 141,078 years... (They served eight.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_prison_sentenc...

If you're going to watch one commentated "tool-assisted" run, this is it.

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/06/the-mario-64-trick-that-ta...

* any mention of funding

* any mention of legal issues with controlled sharing

And I think that's deliberate.

I'm going to read this as "It's OK. We've got this. (But we don't want to say that too explicitly for legal reasons)."

    import requests
    session = requests.session()
    # now use session like you would requests
    session.get("http://httpbin.org/cookies/set/name/value")
    print(session.get("http://httpbin.org/cookies").content)

> KINETIC IMPACT WEAPONS

> 8.5.4 Skip-firing off the ground causes an unacceptable risk of serious injury.

Granted, this is only a snapshot, and preservation is a big problem. And you can't easily preserve gigabytes of data in dead tree format...

Generally the best approach is "Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe" but moves to streaming media and game rental services worry me.

There also needs to be a recognition that what we see is often a very small fraction of what existed... most things won't survive, unless successive generations of people continuously care sufficiently about them. Or they're ubiquitous that we'll find at least one...

And if they don't guess, and move onto the next question, then they're eliminated from the aggregated results.

"good readback" to confirm that the other side has correctly readback the information just sent "go for ..." you have approval to...

but more often speaking relatively normally: they were having some problems with the hardline, at one point Dragon saying:

"that was an improvement but, uh, completely unreadable"

I initally parsed it as "[The] James Webb Telescope ([which is a tele]scope) [team] claim [they can] compress [pictures somehow] using a bitmap".