thaumasiotes
...is that something you'd ever want? In general, it is, but the way it's handled is by having those trains stop on separate tracks.
Running multiple trains through the same station track in under 60 seconds means that all passengers must embark and disembark in under 30 seconds. That's very tight. I would venture to say it's too tight and meeting this goal would make the trains worse.
(And if passengers aren't getting on or off the train, then the train isn't stopping at a station.)
I was interested to find a discussion of the trolley problem in a book of out-of-copyright Norwegian-region folk tales (in English translation) that Amazon recommended.
The last time I looked into someone's complaint on HN about Chinese companies setting themselves up on Amazon with nonsense data and no way to contact them nor any theoretical method of holding them to account for misbehavior, I went to the product link the complaining comment provided and discovered that it was offered by a company whose registered place of business (listed on Amazon!) was obviously the poor owner's personal home address.
> From 2001 to 2008, within the vicinity of the reef, the amount of marine food per square foot has increased 400 times.
> The site has become so popular that fishermen steal from each other, and other states apply for the next subway cars to be dumped in their waters.
I guess the biggest problem in the ocean is the inability to stay in place. There was an interesting discussion of something similar on Twitter a couple years ago: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1760058156632142058.html
> Hyenas can strip a dead elephant clean in less than 48 hours.
> But in the ocean, whale carcasses drift around for months before they eventually sink.
> Land animals have gravity privilege. Any random stray dog can tear into a dead cow, even if the cow is a lot larger.
> But when bunch of sharks come up on the floating whale carcass, it's essentially a game of bobbing for pumpkins... it's not really possible to hold on to it or tear it open.
...how did you come to this conclusion?
>> 但你确实做过的，而且白纸黑字的放在你面前，那就不要抵赖。
If it's something you did, and they put it in front of you in black and white, don't deny it.
Is 领导 not an incredibly subservient way to address someone? How do people normally address police officers in China?
This is clearly untrue; they're called "social media" because they developed inside other things that were already called "social media".
Note that mathlib currently includes duplicates of many theorems; I believe deduplication is an active goal (if not one seeing much labor right now).
Basically equivalent at parties; much less fun for everyone involved in storing and transporting the hydrogen.
What happened here? Does the European Space Agency not have anyone who can proofread an English document? Why are they publishing in English?
Any helium we have comes from underground, which is why you can see discussion of "mining" helium upthread.
I get that it might be weird to talk about producing "tons" of a gas that will float away into space if not contained, but it must still be better than talking about the amount of volume of gas being produced.
How much helium is in one cubic foot? That's up to you.
The comics have dedicated sites; the artists' website is https://hazelbell.ca/ . None of those sites appear to have any problems.
You should be aware, if you weren't already, that you can find the websites associated with artworks or people by searching for them; it isn't necessary to follow links that may or may not appear on an unaffiliated website.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50050097
>> Logging a few hundred hectares was not a problem. Google could have done that without additional permits, if their intention was to plant a new forest afterwards. Environmental impact assessment was only necessary, because they intended to replace the forest with something else.
>> The key question is whether Google can comply with the law after the fact. If they complete the assessment and the government finds nothing that would prevent the construction of the data centers, the project can go on. Maybe there will be some minor sanctions, as well as some delays, as they didn't do things properly the first time. And even if there is something that prevents construction, Google can still probably comply by planting a new forest.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50051670
>> Either way, you need to complete the EIA [environmental impact assessment]. It'd probably show that this was, indeed, a good location for a DC [data center]. Not doing the assessment before starting to chop down the trees is the problem here, not that the forest is particularly ecologically valuable.
>>> Finn here. Not really. You're allowed to log if you resow.
>>> So this seems to be a calculated move: When permits pass, prep is done. Worth paying minor fines for jumping the gun. Permits don't pass, just resow. That's a well informed expected value calculation.
>>> That's a bad calculation, if the risk model failed to account for a political scandal in a small country that's very proud of their tree plantations and deeply suspicious of megacaps [sic]. But even with that tail risk realizing the likely outcome is that permits pass and prep is done.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50062379
>> I found a source [0] claiming that some areas that are important for biodiversity were first spared and then cut down, but this does not mean that they were old growth and the Muhos county official Mikko Kari states "[The areas] are not legally mandated to be protected."
---
The takeaway appears to be that LVV hasn't actually stated what they think the problem is, but they want to do an investigation, and that cutting down the trees poses no legal problems. At least, according to local regulators. If doing some earthwork between logging and sowing is a problem, there seems to be no mention of the fact anywhere, including in statements by the agency that wants to stop the development.
It turns out there's something much weirder going on.
Here's an earlier article by Agence France-Presse ("AFP is one of the world's three major news agencies, and the only European one."): https://web.archive.org/web/20261004152900/https://www.afp.c...
And look at this:
>> "In our view, operations at this construction site should be suspended until it is clarified whether the project is in compliance with the law," Hanna Halmeenpaa, chair of the board of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, who filed the request with the agency, told AFP at the edge of the deforested area.
>> "From the satellite images, we've seen that nature sites which should be preserved have also been logged," she added, explaining that the size of the clear-cut area was comparable to 420 football fields.
I just can't bring myself to believe that a Finnish bureaucrat, speaking to a French news agency, explained that the area in question was comparable in size to 420 football fields.
And in fact the numbers don't seem to work. The area is estimated at "more than 300 hectares". 420 football fields is more like 224 hectares.
On the other hand, 420 soccer pitches would total 299.9 hectares. This tells us some interesting things:
1. The area in question may be "more than 300 hectares", but it's also less than 307 hectares (which could fit 430 soccer pitches). Or, alternatively, zero effort was made to express the actual cleared area in terms of soccer pitches, and it was first rounded to 300 hectares and then the rounded figure was converted to soccer pitches. (Which I have to assume was done by AFP and not by the Finnish government.)
2. Either the "global audience" that TechSpot serves doesn't include the United States, or they copied a French agency's English-language press release without bothering to consider whether any of the numbers in it made sense.
I think you're on to something, but it isn't quite what you think it is.
Corrections are largely a cost issue. But not because singers are so expensive.
The costs being saved are related to the rarity of finding someone who is a great singer at the same time that they're also a great dancer and stunningly attractive. It's much easier to find someone who's an outlier on one dimension than someone who's an outlier on two. If you want someone who is extreme on three dimensions (that you specify in advance), you probably won't be able to find that person at all.
Corrections in production mean that you can achieve something like this:
- Beauty: extreme natural talent, plus help from consultants, stylists, makeup artists, etc
- Dance: about what an average person can achieve through intensive training
- Vocals: extreme machine-supplied talent
at low cost. There are other possible approaches. You could look for a great singer who's willing to have tons of plastic surgery. You could look for a great dancer who's willing to have their singing and physical appearance 'corrected' for a trifecta. I don't actually think either of those would make for a cultural improvement - to the extent that we aren't already doing them - compared to what we have now.
Does it bother you that the drumline consists of two bars recorded on a synthesizer and then repeated over and over again with inhuman, flawless precision for the entire duration of the song?
This came up on HN just a few days ago. We learned there that the logging is completely legal as long as new trees are planted afterwards.
So the timeline looks like this:
1. Google applies for construction permits. These would make it legal to log the trees and then not plant new trees.
2. Google logs the trees.
--- present day ---
3(a). Google receives construction permits, and doesn't plant new trees; or
3(b). Google doesn't receive construction permits, and plants new trees.
There is no potential future that would put them in violation of the law. What was the problem?
Those two things are not alike. Nobody can view themselves as sufficient authority to be cited as their own source.
(The late Victor Mair was an exception; he was happy to "support" his own claims by citing wikipedia articles that cited unsourced claims from him.)
The surprise is that Britain is a local backwater and the United States isn't. You can't throw your weight around if you don't have any weight.
Why is that sad? What other conclusion could you draw from the facts?
Why do you think so? It's a completely standard usage. For example, we can ask MathWorld:
> In logic, a term is a variable ['a', 'f'], constant ['1', '"hello"'], or the result of acting on variables and constants by function symbols ['1+2', 'f(a)'].
(I've added the bracketed material, which provides examples of the senses that MathWorld gives. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Term.html )
In particular, note that by this wording, if you're looking at '1+2', the "term" is not the string '"1+2"' but the result of adding '1' to '2', which is '3'.
You can talk about 'terms' in the context of how a compiler views source code. Or you can talk about 'terms' in the context of how type theory applies to some computation. They'll be called 'terms' either way; you seem to have staked out the position that the compiler context is obligatory and the type theory context is somehow in error.
This seems to make a pretty dramatic change to the election protocol, no?
Consider example A': You vote for candidate A, but later realize that you hate candidate A. You repudiate your recorded vote for candidate A.
What should happen?