Close enough for government work, actually. And it's not just flesh. Lots of things behave approximately like water, which is handy for all sorts of back-of-envelope estimates.
From the abstract:
"The Index captures technical exposure, where AI can perform occupational tasks, not displacement outcomes or adoption timelines." (emphasis mine)
The 11.7% figures is the modeled reduction in "wage value", which appears to be marketplace value of (human) work.
I assume they use N⋅D rather than ND to make it explicit these are 2 different variables. That's not necessary for 6N because variable names don't start with a number by convention.
Well no actually it'd still clear to me that they mean the the multiplication of 3 different variables X, N, and D.
I don't think of it as eliding obvious operators. Rather in mathematics juxtaposition is used as an operator to represent multiplication. You would never elide an addition operator.
So X next to D still means multiplication as long as you can tell that X and D are separate entities.
I would wonder why they switched conventions in the middle of an expression though.
Only cladistically. There's a better argument that there's no such thing as a tree or crab. As far as I understand, at least the common ancestor of all fish was still a fish.
"Only cladistically" is a bit like saying "only in reality" imo. :P
> As far as I understand, at least the common ancestor of all fish was still a fish.
Well.. eel-like probably more I'd guess. But yea.
The issue with "fish" is that people want it to be cladistic (trout and shark are fish) AND function (whales are not fish), and potentially also another anti-function (eels are not fish). You can't have it both/all three ways.
With crabs and trees that's 100% function, and that's fine imo.
> "Only cladistically" is a bit like saying "only in reality" imo.
In the sense that "imo" means "in my opinion, not necessarily in reality".
Clades are just a view on biology. It's not the only one. Otherwise, very few things in biology would exist.
> Well.. eel-like probably more I'd guess.
Still a fish.
The only people who want to see fish cladistically are the ones who don't want fish to be a thing. Fish are obviously a thing, and they are obviously not a clade. It describes function: water, gills, spine.
Mosh is excellent. It lets remote sessions survive (well, automatically and transparently recover from) disruption that reliably kills ssh.
I basically don't use ssh at all any more for interactive sessions, because I'm sick of a few lost packets on wifi or a weak cell signal dropping my connections and forcing me to start over.
Tmux, I used to use and eventually abandoned. I decided I didn't need two keyboard-based window managers (I use Spectacle on Mac) and the one that was only for shells was the one that could go. I have replaced it with nothing, so far, aside from that I just open more Terminal.app windows now (I also used to use iTerm2, for years, until it dawned on me that I was using exactly nothing in it that's not also provided by Terminal.app, and the latter's got better input latency, so I was suffering an extra installed program and slightly less responsive typing for no reason at all)
On mobile so I’m not sure which case OSC52 applies to, but I use mosh+tmux 8-10 hours a day. Both bracketed paste and tmux selection setting local clipboard work fine
Yes. Mosh is a seamless replacement for ssh, and screen is a mostly seamless replacement for tmux. One more level is Mosh+byobu, which is so useful I don't even bother with plain terminals most the time.
Haha I think you have the history backwards here. Tmux was created as a replacement for screen when it was 20 years old! Speaking as someone with ‘set -g prefix c-a’ in their .tmux.conf because my muscle memory is so used to the screen hotkeys.
Hey maybe I do! Great to learn the history here. Regardless, my point is that Byobu is very nice compared to either. That may now be lost due to my careless comment.
My calculations says that moving 1cm up or down earths gravity well (at the surface) changes the acceleration of gravity about 5x more than the acceleration you'd feel from a 100kg mass 1m away.
Assuming my math is correct, it's already affected by nearby human scale masses, for certain values of "near".
Huh, I was thinking that it's accelerated gravitational frames that cause the dilation, and I've encountered a lot of statements that argue the same. This is from wikipedia: "This is because gravitational time dilation is manifested in accelerated frames of reference or, by virtue of the equivalence principle, in the gravitational field of massive objects."
However, according to that logic, an object located in a cavity in the center of earth should experience no more dilation than an object outside the earth's potential well, because the gravitational forces / curvature gradient cancels out, and should be zero. But that isn't the case according to the same sources, for example, Wikipedia says' "Relative to Earth's age in billions of years, Earth's core is in effect 2.5 years younger than its surface."
Something's not right about how we verbalize this story about gravity
It's a very subtle point! The trick here is that you need to be careful when talking about the reference frames.
To an observer at the infinity, a clock at the core of the Earth will tick slower than a clock on the surface of the Earth because the "core clock" is sitting in a more curved space, and that's it.
The difference between the clock on the surface of the Earth and the clock at the core is that the surface clock can't follow the "straight lines" (geodesics) in that curved space. So it experiences acceleration due to the force of inertia. And the thing preventing that movement is the repulsive force between atoms that make up the bulk of the Earth.
If this repulsive force magically disappears, then the Earth's atoms will immediately start moving at the straight lines, in trajectories that will lead them all into a point at the center of the Earth.
To add: the force of inertia due to moving in curved lines instead of geodesics depends on the "steepness" of the curved space. Which decreases as you reach the center of the Earth. So you get essentially the same result as with the classic Newtonian gravity, but through an entirely different path.
Think about gravitational redshift. This is a direct sign that time is running more slowly for the emitter that is at a deeper gravitational potential.
Often, randomness is thought of as something you want to keep hidden, such as when generating passwords or cryptographic keys. However, there are many applications where an independent and public source of randomness is useful. For example, randomizing public audits, selecting candidates for jury duty, or fairly assigning resources through a lottery.
The chance that a positive result is a false positive depends on the false positive rate of your test and on total population statistics.
E.g. imagine your test has a 5% false positive rate for a disease only 1 in 1 million people has. If you test 1 million people you expect 50,000 false positive and 1 true positive. So the chance that one of those positive results is a false positive is 50,000/50,001, not 5/100.
Using a p-value threshold of 0.05 similar to saying: I'm going to use a test that will call a false result positive 5% of the time.
The author said: chance that a positive result is a false positive == the false positive rate.
Everyone forgets what machines are capable of if you actually optimize. This game did everything shown here in real time on phones 14 years ago https://youtu.be/JDvPIhCd8N4
