HN user
I did both in one day and it was very tiring (and I'm in my 20s). Herculaneum is small enough that anyone without mobility issues can do it, but Pompeii is quite large.
I also went to the volcano and the hike is about 3/4 of a mile and moderately steep. If your children are active they should be able to handle it, but the key is to wear shoes with good traction. Also they sell wine at the top, which is nice :)
It looks like the confidence interval is larger in earlier years because there are fewer data points.
Whats interesting to me is how big the spread is until the 1900s where not only is the blossom date trend increasing, but the individual blossom dates are grouping much closer together as well. I wonder if this is an error in measurement or if there is natural explanation for this variance reduction in the last 100 years.
This is a dangerous misconception. Bringing botulism spores to 100 Celsius will not kill them, the spores can survive indefinitely at these temperatures. This is literally the reason pressure canning was invented, to heat the liquid to a higher temperature such that botulism spores are destroyed.
This was brought up in a post below, but the first sentence is hard to decipher. I think "patiently allowed" here implies that they kindly answered his questions even though he was touching the third rail.
In other words he was afraid of being hated on for opening the dialogue, but the people on the Slack channel were fully willing to engage.
"and no sales tax ofcourse wink wink"
Actually in CA, many groceries are not subject to sales tax, just FYI. I'm not sure where the distinction is drawn, but it seems like the less processed the food the less likely it will be taxed.
The fact that a reviewer uses 2 and 4 ratings might not be too meanngful. One reviewer might use 2s and 4s the way another uses 1s and 5s.
There may be reviewers who do not generally fit the bimodal distribution, but if they are the minority, why design your whole rating system around them? Better to optimize your system for the way most of your users behave.
"Being yourself", authenticity, and direct/brutal honesty are roughly orthogonal; you can (or not be) one without affecting the others.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, I find quote does not actually work out in practice.
I have been in many situations (ie around family, coworkers, etc) where the group has a strong opinion about something and I feel the opposite. I would usually not chime in and let the conversation move on, but when people ask your opinion, there is a decision. As far as I can see, the options are basically:
1) Lie: not authentic or direct honesty 2) Avoid/Deflect: maintain authenticity, not direct honesty 3) Fein disinterest: lacking authenticity, not direct honesty 4) Express your dissent: authentic, direct honesty
The only options for maintaining authenticity are to be directly honest, or to not answer, and there is a limit to the extent you can avoid answering direct questions and still maintain freedom and conserve your energy and focus.
So while I agree that you don't have to be brutally honest to be authentic, I would say they are far from orthogonal. Sometimes choices have to be made, especially around people who have a tendency to pry or ask your opinion a lot.
You are bringing up the argument for Welfare, Universal Healthcare, etc., that there is nothing that the schools can do. The problems that these kids are facing stems from the fact that they live in poverty. This leads to issues such as the one mentioned by the author. The only way to solve the problem would be to try to figure out a decent Social Benefits system for the poor, to where poor parents do not feel the need to resort to prostitution, drugs, drinking, etc.
I would assume that it is simply the amount of thought and focus that is required to memorize thousands of streets that would cause these increases. I wish there was a control or a group of people that were studying something besides memorization to see if there was truly a difference. The time frame here is 3 to 4 years.
Agreed, I can only hope if America keeps shifting toward high tech jobs, corporate leader will realize that the most efficient companies will win out; and nothing makes for an efficient company like happy employees. Not everyone is going to be able to make cool building looking out into nature, but employee happiness should be addressed somewhere in the budget.
When they say "fat end of the tail," a Gaussian distribution is not necessarily implied. They are simply saying that when you go to the extreme ends of any distribution, almost any statistical model will begin to fall apart. If you look normalized data and look at a Q-Q plot, you will no doubt see problems at the extremes of the distribution, making those predictions more difficult.
As for the Omori distribution, I do not know anything about it, but I have studies similar distributions for predicting future Olympic running records,tallest human alive, etc, and these types of distributions rarely produce practically feasible results. If this model works well, I will be thoroughly impressed.
The only field that I know which deals with extreme events is Ruin Theory, but it is currently a very limited field. It may be possible for someone to adapt the field to study Macroeconomics, but even that may not be very informative.
At humanities current understanding of economics, I would argue that Black Swan Theory is the only practical way to understand huge economic shifts. Perhaps we will understand economic markets well enough to develop more complicated models, but that seems far in the future.
Q-Q plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-Q_plot Ruin Theory: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/5943/5943_chap01.pdf
I think online pizza ordering is becoming much more popular. In my area, there is a website that allows you to order online from local shops, for a slight fee. I have seen dozens of people use this service, even though they could have called in to save the extra fee. I feel that these people would have a bad experience with Pizza Pizza, and bad experiences usually affect the perception of a product as a whole. This is where you really start to lose money.
Also, this article is using Pizza Pizza as an example. If a large chain is failing so miserably, I am sure other companies are hurting badly from poor web development.
I have to agree with this point. Apple's patent policy seems to be to throw patents against the wall and hope something sticks. At the end of the day, there are a limited number of ways to design a device efficiently, so of course Samsung will take obvious steps like making a rectangular, flat phone. There are also certain types of aesthetics which will be more appealing to customers. Why should Apple hold a monopoly on intelligent design? Did they invent the concept of slimness or simplicity?