It's not a sign of insider trading that several people created accounts "around the time" Trump suggested winding down the war. It could have been after he publicly said that. This article is just made up crap fueling the FUD about government secrets being leaked by predictions markets.
Wouldn't the successive measurements contain some information of that uncertainty, if we assume the cooling rate is relatively smooth, locally in time?
A logarithmic fit to their data indicate a standard deviation of 1 ℃ in the residuals. This includes both model error (the logarithmic fit is not that tight) and errors in my transcription from the plot, so the actual uncertainty of the measurements is probably even less.
(The logarithmic fit was lazy. I tried a dual exponential fit and the standard deviation of residuals dropped to 0.45 ℃. Appears that measurement error is very small.)
There could be a consistent bias due to the placement of the thermometer. You can't expect the LLM to assume that the temperature of the water means the temperature in a bottom corner of the cup which I guess is where the thermometer's sensor was. If he had told it how he would place the thermometer, then it could have known that, otherwise, what if it's being clever and finding an average temperature or one that would be measured at some other location? This seems qualitatively consistent with the fact that most models predicted higher temperature than what he measured because of hot water rising and cooling being greatest near the walls of the cup.
This isn't really uncertainty so much as not defining the meaning of "temperature of the water".
This is one of those 'you can just look at it' sorts of datasets, it's really not plausible that the uncertainty in the measurement is affecting anything.
Unless you're one of the bulk of 1x programmers who aren't doing anything novel. I think it will be like most industries that got very helpful technology - the survivors have to do more sophisticated work and the less capable people are excluded. Then we need more education to supply those sophisticated workers but the existing education burden on professionals is already huge and costly. Will they be spending 10 years at university instead of 3-4? Will a greater proportion of the population be excluded from the workforce because there's not enough demand for low-innate-ability or low-educated people?
To add, just keeping up in this industry was already a problem. I don't know of many professions[1] with such demands on time outside of a work day to keep your skills updated. It was perhaps an acceptable compromise when the market was hot and the salaries high. But I am hearing from more and more people who are just leaving the field entirely labeling it as "not worth it anymore".
[1] Medicine may be one example of an industry with poor work-life balance for some, specifically specialists. But job security there is unmatched and compensation is eye-watering.
> I don't know of many professions[1] with such demands on time outside of a work day to keep your skills updated.
This is an extremely miopic view (or maybe trolling).
The vast majority of software developers never study, learn, or write any code outside of their work hours.
In contrast, almost all professional have enormous, _legally-required_ upskilling, retraining, and professional competence maintenance.
If you honestly believe that developers have anywhere near the demands (both in terms of time and cost) in staying up to date that other professions have, you are - as politely as I can - completely out-of-touch.
Sure, but those same professional certifications and development hours also allow them to not need to re-prove their basic competency when interviewing.
Yea na, Fortran is pretty compiler dependent and there are a lot of compilers. Already old Fortran code used all sorts of now-dead proprietary compilers and can take a huge effort to get it to compile on modern compilers or even modern computers. Modern code might use Gfortran which sometimes makes breaking changes so that's not an option. Perhaps if everyone uses the latest shiny new Flang or whatever, then it'll finally last 50 years? Not likely, given the history.
For a standardized language, Fortran isn’t very portable across compilers. GNU Fortran has done a great job supporting legacy features, and I hope that our work in flang-new has made it easy to port to, as well. I basically ignored the zealots who wanted flang-new to be a strict compiler by default. The hobbyist project LFortran is quite the opposite, and will yell at you by default for perfectly conforming variations in keyword spelling. For those who like that sort of thing, that’s exactly the sort of thing that they like.
Sounds like a belief that you can easily profit from in the markets. Are you putting your money where your mouth is or do you just want to believe that so you can feel smug about your beliefs, independent of reality?
My investments already had a focus towards green energy instead of fossil fuels well before the US war on Iran. Why would I need to "feel smug" about somebody's choice of car purchase?
I mean you can incorporate your prediction of the years-long Hormuz death-trap (= closure?) into your investments today. If you're correct, you'll end up better off than continuing with your existing strategy.
War with Iran was inevitable - either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand. And that war was bound to disrupt oil supply. Don't forget their goal is death to America and Death to Israel. That's what they've been arming themselves for for decades. That's what they're trying to build nuclear bombs for. They had to be stopped eventually and that was always going to be uncomfortable for whoever did it, but the sooner the better. Why can't you just celebrate this good thing?
Preventing another country getting nuclear weapons is a very good thing. That's Trump's stated aim for this war. How can all these people replying not see the value in? Two weeks away could turn into "never" if he succeeds. I don't understand this belief that if we just leave the festering wound that is Iran's Islamic Republic alone, it'll never get any worse.
Do you also think that global nuclear disarmament would be a bad thing because the Doomsday clock has been a few minutes from midnight for 40 years so the risk is obviously overblown and nuclear war will never happen?
If the status quo really remains status, then sure, Iran wasn't really directly doing much harm to its neighbors. But the danger of status quo is that it would eventually make nuclear weapons. From your last sentence, it sounds like that's what you want. Is it?
We destroyed the nuclear capability of Iran last year during the 12 day war. Trump said so himself.
Now we're engaged in a full regional conflict to destroy Iran's nuclear capability that was destroyed last year. The same capability the Iranians were willing to give up via negotiations that were ongoing when the US and Israel took out the country's leadership in a decapitation strike which began the war.
Respectfully, this war virtually guarantees Iran will now develop nuclear weapons. The exact thing Trump thought shooting them would stop is going to come to fruition because of these actions. The exact thing that was barred by a fatwa since 2004.
You want Iran to forever be a short step away from completing their project of making of nukes but never quite doing it because of its own internal decision and integrity at keeping its promises? No, that's naïve. They will obviously do it if they think they can get away with it. To be safe, they have to be physically prevented from doing it even if they want to.
Proof you're wrong is that they had a self-imposed 2000km limit on their missiles but when push came to shove, they changed their mind and shot one 4000km.
For the vast majority of entire life Iran has been weeks away from having a nuke. I'm nearly 50. And yet you believe that they're now "two weeks away" because that's what politicians told you. Who's being naive here? How old are you?
> Proof you're wrong is that they had a self-imposed 2000km limit on their missiles but when push came to shove, they changed their mind and shot one 4000km.
The details of this attack are murky, it might not have even occurred. And given the penchant for the Trump administration to lie about this conflict on a daily basis I don't believe it either. Show me some radar tracks, hell, ANY EVIDENCE and I might consider it. Otherwise I'll consider it propaganda.
> either US/Israel starts it or Iran starts it - when they get the upper hand
Iran's modern history doesn't suggest this at all. Quite the opposite - they have been continually invaded. To me, theirs seems like an explicitly defensive stance. They have no airforce, navy, or tanks and such to speak of - just missiles and drones. Not a force suited to invading other countries.
You could argue about their support for regional militia's but I still wouldn't concede that indicates any desire to start a war.
The ruling class of Iran is still in place but more radicalized, global supply of oil is distupted, and nearly 200 schoolgirls are dead. This is a good thing how?
Kids cost time, not money. So the wealthier you are, the more difficult it is because you probably have less free time. You can pay someone else to raise your kids (daycare/etc.) but then you lose a lot of the value of having kids.
This bullshit excuse that somebody can't afford to have kids is proven wrong by the fact that poorer people have more kids than rich people. You can even be unemployed. Gone are the days of destitute single mothers having to give up their child to the church and work in the poorhouse. We have social welfare for that.
Maybe the fact that poor people can have lots of kids has taken away their value as a status symbol for wealth?
Um, wtf is this rambling statement that doesn't seem to be based in any kind of truth at all?
In the past both poor and rich tended to have tons of kids, this is because kids tended to die young regardless of being rich or poor.
Then you're trying to compare massive social changes in the west that occurred around the same time. For example womens suffrage, women being allowed to work, sexual revolutions and birth control.
If you look at countries that tended to develop later, the rate of childbirth tends to drop with accessibility to birth control and education.
Add body weight and the old gear sums to about three percent heavier than the modern gear. I'd say total weight matters more than gear weight alone, doesn't it?
I've done a lot of long hikes (200+km in the sahara, 6000+m mountains in kazakstan), and 2kg extra means a lot, like the difference between carrying extra fuel/food versus just clothing.
Anyway, you can try it yourself, wear a 2kg wax cotton jacket versus a 500gm technical jacket and see how you feel after a day's hiking.
No. Weight x distance from center of mass is the real metric of burden.
Carrying your lunch on a 10-foot pole, keeping it off the ground at all times, versus slipping it into a fanny pack - or eating it and carrying it in your very center of mass.
I noticed while ultralight hiking (full kit without food, fuel, and water under 9 lbs, for multi-day excursions) that how close your backpack was to your back mattered. Unfortunately, if it was tight to your back it overheated you, so a standoff of an inch or so was essential. I considered dividing it front and back, so each was about half as "thick" (far from my body), but there isn't a lot you can carry in front of you without seriously impeding movement.
I keep not learning how corrupt authorship of academic papers is. When I read papers, I imagine all the authors have been working away together in an office somewhere and they all wrote parts of the paper and all read it and all have a feeling of ownership of it and deeply understand the whole thing. But I forget how the only academic paper I ever had published was one that I never read and had no understanding of. All I did was give some technician-like advice to the actual author. It feels dirty and I sometimes regret accepting it but at the same time, the whole science world seems like it doesn't deserve honesty because everyone else is corrupt too.
Not hard to see why. Being an author helps your cv. Allowing you to be an author for tangential or minimal contribs can help keep good relations, especially if there are future options and financial things depending on having good relations. Putting a name on a paper costs nothing and nobody checks how big the contribution was. It's slightly dilutes the subjective authorship fraction of those who did the work, but sometimes the additional person also brings in a nice prestigious affiliation that even has a positive impact on how seriously the paper is taken... It's a game.
reply