Re: spot the difference
... but if all you do is you keep checking the new result against the old one, isn't that really just like going round in circles?
1054 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
I use two.
Slackware for both "real work" and day-to-day.
Debian (w xfce desktop) as the second-boot option for laptops; it is slightly more likely to "just work", and for the basics (mainly web, ms teams, and some ad hoc games stuff; not my full suite), it is much easier to install & use without thinking.
There isn't much duplication because the way I use Debian requires very little effort at all.
Correct, but that's only talking about half the problem. So:
Would a Severn barrage cause more environmental problems than it would solve? (e.g. by replacing fossil burning)?
Mind you, it is not at all clear to me how you might balance and/or compare the two different impacts.
I think a lot of the problem is that - having just written it - it is transparently obvious what it does, and why, and so it is difficult to actually work out what might need to be explained about something so (apparently) straightforward.
Really, I suppose, you should instead show it to someone else, and ask them to explain it ... at which time the relevant point to document might become clearer.
Some years back the Independent published an april fools story claiming that scientists had discovered an eighth colour in the rainbow. Most amusing.
But as it happened, such a thing had indeed been discovered. By William Herschel, no less, way back in 1800. :-)
DOI: 10.1098/rstl.1800.0015
(open access, and well worth a read, imo)
I think here the point of stating "by assuming good faith" is *not* because you actually believe there is good faith; it is rather to make it harder for the target to reject your arguments by characterising you as hostile.
Instead they have to actually engage in a discussion about how any claim to "good faith" they might make can be demonstrated; so, to an extent, *you* have set out the ground on which to debate the issue.
And if the target then tries to shift the focus of the debate away from "good faith", they can end up looking as if (or perhaps demonstrating that) they lack it.
Irrespective of which way one might like to attribute fault or responsibility, the so-called "safety driver" was *not* the actual _driver_, because she was *not* doing the actual _driving_. They were employed to watch the car drive itself, in the hope that they might be able to intervene in time should something go amiss. Perhaps a better job title might be "drive supervisor" or something.
I think there is scope for something a bit more nuanced here. At a simple level, the "big industry" result includes making available robust (we hope) components or tools which might be combined in new ways to open up some new kind of "adventure".
But perhaps the main message might be that there is probably some benefit in working out how to promote ways of thinking thinking that looks to construct such new "adventures" by looking to use & combine the new (and old) industry-made tools that are available.
Hmm. I wonder what might happen if they were taught by both methods; or perhaps even by non-remote experts.
Since different students tend to learn best in different ways, a range of approaches can give better overall results.
"... you use your computer plugged into a display at work, then fold it up and put it in your bag to take home. At home, you unfold it and plug the single wire into another display and Robert is your mother's brother."
I've got one exactly like that. That is - my old laptop with the dead screen...
I think multi-user editing is fine at an /early/ stage, so that the multi-tude can throw in remarks, add paragraphs, subsections, or whatever according to their own interests or responsibilities. The ghastly -- but hopefully fairly complete -- soup could then be cleaned up by one chosen author, with comments (but not editting) by the others.
Although now sometime in the past, I'm still scarred by the time both I and my phd supervisor made significant, in parallel, and notationally incompatible changes to a reasonably advanced latex document. The resulting manual merging process was not very fun. So now, apart from any early "soup" stages that might arise from using (eg) overleaf, I tend to either take control of a manuscript, or stand back and make comments while someone else does.
I'm very picky who I might send any latex files to. I use a system of line breaks and indents to keep it readable (especially for equations), and allow useful diffs between versions. This is frequently mangled by the editors of others, which usually either insist on re-formatting lines so they have similar lengths, or turn each paragraph into one long unbroken line.
As someone who has been changing the fore- and background colors in command prompts, xterms, window handles, menus, and the like for more decades than I care to admit, I should really be baffled by all the "dark mode" nonsense. "What sort of crippled software gets foisted on people so as to make this an interesting thing to even mention?", I should be thinking.
But, sadly, it happens too often to cause genuine bafflement any more.
I mean, really. I probably could have tweaked one of my unimpressive programs on something 8bit to have a "dark mode" and a "light mode" if I wanted.
Edit: no, wait. I think they were already "dark mode" -like. I'd have had to code a "light mode" instead.
I tend to agree ... but also not agree.
Early internet "social media" were (at least in my experience) just that, /social/ media: e.g. usenet was based on groups, irc had channels, etc. You might have thrown your ego about in such forums, and some were admins or moderators, but essentially the forum was about the group or social interest of those who turned up and posted/talked there. Like these ElReg forums, mostly.
In contrast, what is now called "social media" tend to be explicitly about ego: e.g. /my/ twitter feed, /my/ facebook page, /my/ blogcast, &etc. So I'd rather call it "Ego media" rather than "social media", but my one vote counts for little, especially since I don't have a twittr account or whatever. So these forums don't really fir into "social media" in the contemporary sense.
Hang on, I've got an idea. Maybe I should start up a blogcast (whatever that is :) entitled "Clog Blast", since that sounds superficially amusing. But what should it be about? [1]
-
[1] Well, about *me*, obviously :-) ... and ...er... clogs?
Until you explained what your personal definition of the "actual internet" was, no, I didn't know what you meant by the "actual internet"; and, clearly neither did that other commentard.
And I as far as I might understand now what you meant, I think "actual internet" is not a good descriptor of it; and I think your phrasing is quite likely to give rise to similar confusions rather frequently.
ZHC's can be, also, extremely unpleasant for those who need regular income, but can only get a ZHC; especially if the ZHC makes it impossible to have other work at the same time (perhaps by some stipulation that you must *always* be available at no notice).
The task therefore, for regulation, is to somehow balance the benefits and costs of a situation with two extremes. It might be, for example, that the positive side of ZHC's are more socially significant than the costs; or it might not.
Well, to improve the salaries the Universities will need more money.
So most likely one of (a) more taxes for increased direct government funding, (b) higher student fees & costs, (c) increased costings for research grants (often sourced from government or charities), (d) capture & subsequent distortion of priorities by well funded industrial (or other) interests.
Sounds like a simple problem to solve. :-/
Presumably the main trick is to transfer momentum to the target; and to get an impactor with a defined momentum doesn't require a large mass, but merely some mass, going fast enough. Since p=mv, you could get the same momentum from something with half the mass but twice the speed.
A small mass going fast might presumably get there sooner, which sounds helpful; but I suppose it is possible that a larger mass might have some advantages in whatever horribly nonlinear collision process it is that takes place on impact.