HN user
i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions.
If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
"i don't know what you'd find in a financial audit that a scientific audit wouldn't tell you"
Financial audits would uncover financial fraud.
"seems like a better deal to audit the results, no?"
Better to audit both.
It won't change until a track record of producing studies that fail to replicate hurts the career of an academic more than not publishing anything at all. As long as publish-or-perish provides a stronger incentive than the negative repercussions of publishing nonsense, this will continue.
This sort of lame duplicitous apologia is little but more of the same rhetoric that got the Bay Area into this predicament in the first place. Here is my summary of the article "Sure it's bad, but actually it's not really all that bad. It's not media hysteria, but actually the media that blowing this out of proportion and you're all caring about the wrong thing. Yes it's bad for upscale shops to be robbed, but actually it's not really that bad and you're probably just a rich yuppie for caring. The police can't stop mob burglaries because the mobs are too violent, but also the mobs are just dumb kids and you shouldn't be worried about it."
He's pretending to give a shit but each time that's just a setup for him to downplay the issue and scold you for not caring about other things instead.
Ironically, though, the larger Firefox's market share, the more Google will pay to be the default search engine in Firefox.
The smaller Firefox's market share, the more Mitchell Baker gets paid.
So, useful adblockers that actually work well won't be allowed.
Does Brave have their own extension repository yet, or are they still leaving that all up to Google? I don't see much value in Brave supporting a feature dropped from Chrome if it only has Chrome extensions and they all drop support for it anyway.
But this is motivated by stereometric reasons – everything on the same latitude is equally distorted
Expanding on this; Mercator is useful for navigation because it's conformal, i.e. it preserves angles. When you're plotting the course of a ship, this is very convenient.
Many maps -especially US maps- enlarged USSR for decades.
Can you provide information or citations for this?
China says "X must be visible at zoom level Y instead of at Y-5".
That's not the claim made in the thread above: "Sometime in 2014 or early 2015, China’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping told members of the Apple Maps team to make the Diaoyu Islands, the objects of a long-running territorial dispute between China and Japan, appear large even when users zoomed out from them." Can you provide any citation to the contrary?
If I remember correctly, this used to happen on historical maps too, the UK and Europe were often made larger than they actually are.
A consequence of the projection chosen, applied uniformly (e.g. Mercator, which also makes Greenland and Alaska ludicrously large)? Or do you mean maps that enlarged Europe specifically? Mercator is dumb (for anything other than navigation), but there is a significant difference here. China is doing the latter.
He meant to write cooling; the moderate (warmer) parts leave, leaving the fanatical 'cold' members. I agree that 'fanatical=cold/moderate=warm' seems a little backwards, but it's that way and not the other because it's an analogy to a real physical process, while evaporative warming doesn't exist.
From 2007: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporativ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooling_(atomic_ph...
All of that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that fiduciary duty does not compel Apple to do business with China. You were peddling a falsehood.
1897... copyright holders have really done a number on you.
How does an app developer test 911 functionality without actually placing a 911 call? I'm sure 911 operators would not be amused by such test calls; do companies have special testing cell networks that don't connect 911 calls through?
You take me for what, a libertarian? Do you think you know me? I never said anything about wanting a "free market cake."
Regardless, nothing you said refutes me. "Fiduciary responsibility" does not legally compel Apple to do business in China. If anything, such misconceptions about fiduciary duty are espoused by libertarians online, not rebuked by them.
*Evaporative cooling
Absolutely. When people have aligned incentives, the appearance of organization may emerge from the system even when nobody has actually conspired or coordinated with anybody else. Manufacturing Consent describes something like this in the context of media and the government, but I think it's broadly applicable:
Institutional critiques such as we present in this book are commonly dismissed by establishment commentators as “conspiracy theories,” but this is merely an evasion. We do not use any kind of “conspiracy” hypothesis to explain massmedia performance. In fact, our treatment is much closer to a “free market” analysis, with the results largely an outcome of the workings of market forces. Most biased choices in the media arise from the preselection of right-thinking people, internalized preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints of ownership, organization, market, and political power. Censorship is largely self-censorship, by reporters and commentators who adjust to the realities of source and media organizational requirements, and by people at higher levels within media organizations who are chosen to implement, and have usually internalized,the constraints imposed by proprietary and other market and governmental centers of power.
There are important actors who do take positive initiatives to define and shape the news and to keep the media in line. It is a “guided market system” that we describe here, with the guidance provided by the government, the leaders of the corporate community, the top media owners and executives, and the assorted individuals and groups who are assigned or allowed to take constructive initiatives. These initiators are sufficiently small in number to be able to act jointly on occasion, as do sellers in markets with few rivals. In most cases, however,media leaders do similar things because they see the world through the same lenses, are subject to similar constraints and incentives, and thus feature stories or maintain silence together in tacit collective action and leader-follower behavior.
Norman Angell thought much the same... in 1909.
In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[4] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.
Partisan fits. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan
1. An adherent to a party or faction. 2. A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
Maybe that word isn't judgemental enough for you, but it fits and I used it carefully.
Apple has an actual fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
That fiduciary responsibility meme needs to die already. The flimsiest business justification is enough to cover company leadership's ass. Instead of "We refuse to do business with China because it's immoral" they need merely say "because we believe it's in the long term strategic interests of the company."
Which agricultural revolution?
Don't take it too literally, his comment is a modified quote from the unabomber's manifesto, which opens with, "The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." It's something of a meme to swap out "industrial" with something else, usually with a tongue-in-cheek intent.
"If someone says doing business with a military is unacceptable"
Thiel hasn't even done that. His position seems to be that American companies should work with the US Military, but shouldn't work with the Chinese military. Such a position is certainly partisan, but it isn't hypocritical.
"the chilling thing"
Your comment implies a singular chilling thing, while his does not.
I doubt it's organized in any large-scale sense, but nevertheless it's very corrupt.
Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.
Without pointing out that it could theoretically be done (that rocket isn't ready yet, and may never be), the assertion that it should be done is seriously devalued.
A new entrant would come in and take up their gaming market.
Miners would probably find a way to use that new entrant's GPUs for mining too.
I think the real threat is that mining could chill the gaming industry as a whole. Either by pricing tons of people out of gaming so they find new hobbies and maybe never come back, or by influencing the direction of game development away from advanced graphics. If most gamers can't afford top-end GPUs anymore, then the perceived value of [Latest Game] having the most photorealistic graphics yet could be flipped into the negative by a change in gamer culture.
Correct, the 'lithosphere' is the Earth's crust.
Not just competence, I think something like the bystander effect is in play as well. If you single out any single congressperson to appeal to, they'll shrug and point to their 534 other congressional colleagues not doing anything as their excuse to not do anything either.
Same reason NASA built the Space Shuttle Endeavour with spare parts left over from the others, instead of building it from scratch. People move on with their lives, and the facilities that manufacture these things do too. Assuming everything was well documented it should be possible to recreate the tooling and train new people, but that's much more expensive than building two in the first place.
I read his point to be something along the lines of 'Hubble is great, I'd love to see it one day.' I guess some people are offended because he suggested spacex might be used to retrieve Hubble instead of letting it become derelict in orbit.