Non-ionizing radiation is certainly able to have effects on biological systems, and there is no reason to believe that effects are strictly neutral or positive. Calling these facts 'anti-science' is blatantly asinine.
Most of the time, when you license something under GPLv3, you explicitly allow for later versions of the GPL. The "either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." part was famously removed in the Linux kernel.
This clause is a bit dangerous -- if a bad actor gets control of the FSF and manages to release an official GPL version that is completely bonkers, all current GPL-or-later software can be distributed under that license.
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This has nothing to do with copyleft outbound licensing.
If you have BSD-style outbound licensing and you assume that all inbound copyright is transferred to you, you will wake up in court after you try to change the outbound license conditions of someone else's copyrighted code.
The correct answer is that for any project in which there is no inbound contribution agreement in place, you would have to contact all contributors and seek their permission to relicense.
>It's not just a question of there being a huge pool of money, you can buy a car with loans and car prices haven't skyrocketed.
The obvious difference is that car loans are not Federally issued and defaults are possible. Hence creditors have to issue loans in a prudent manner or else they will incur a loss. Not everyone is able to acquire a car loan, and interest rates can be very high.
These incentives do not exist in the student loan market and thereby subsidizing demand. Students become price inelastic.
The Fed is not focused on the stock market. When they improve the status of the economy through monetary policy, they indirectly improve the value of publically listed companies. This makes sense, because companies are the central entities in the economy. I don't know how the Fed could improve the state of the economy without affecting the prices of shares.
Take a look at December 2018. There was no pandemic. The Fed tried to very slowly reduce its balance sheet. The stock market threw a major tantrum (by dropping 20% or so) and voila, the Fed reversed its course.
The same in 2016, and other times
How can you say they are not focused on the stock market? They are primarily focused on propping up the markets.
If you think they are propping up the stock market, then it doesn't make sense to be worried about inflation. Inflation would devastate the stock market.
They shouldn’t be but this is not true now. What they’ve done has directly propped up asset prices. No question. This isn’t a second order effect. They know what they are doing.
What software do you use to rename PDF files and extract their metadata automatically? I have found this difficult to accomplish, despite trying multiple different tools. PDFs from Arxiv are commonly a problem.
So, renaming is done manually (forces me to look at the PDF). I use preview on OSX, or any viewer other than Acrobat Reader on Windows and Linux (Acrobat Reader locks the file preventing renames). Several Python libraries exist for extracting metadata. I'm trying a couple of different approaches. At the moment I just take the title of the PDF and do a search on Google Scholar using the scholarly python library -- but this is really very suboptimal and I want to replace it with something faster and more robust.
Hi, I'm interested in program execution state and the different ways it can be represented/modelled. The "relational model" you describe sounds very interesting. Do you have a technical whitepaper on this topic, or perhaps some third-party literature that has guided you?
I share the same interest as parent, a white paper or detailed blog describing the vision and how to use it would be amazing. But then it might be a bit 'secret sauce'... At one time or another you need to explain or demonstrate your killer features in a way that people will react : 'hey I've always wanted that but didn't know how to ask for it!'.
Good luck, it seems with all the critics with the copywriting on your landing page, you've piqued the interest of a lot of people. I hope you'll feel encouraged by this.
Alright, I'll add writing blog post about the implementation to my TODO list. And my feeling is closer to exhausted than encouraged, I was just going to bed, after day of 45c heat, when the half-finished landing page hit HN front page, and it's now 7AM :)
Are you talking about the yield curve or credit spreads?
Either way, as far as I understand they are independent variables to the absolute value of federal fund rate -- what matters more is the stage in the business cycle.
I guess I'll explain how the business side of drilling a well works. An operator (think Chevron) will decide where and when the well is drilled. They will then hire a drilling company (say H&P) that owns and operates rigs to drill the well. Even though the drilling company operates the rig, they basically drill it however the operator ask them too.
So to answer your question, any operator requires these services, though most dont know it. A company called Pason is the leading company in the drilling data industry. Their bread and butter is just data measurement and streaming, though they recently have entered the analytics space. Their technology seems pretty promising.
I think labelling one side of this debate as "pro-science" and the other as not, is disingenuous.
Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism.
I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach, especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.).
Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't think is likely.
So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's, dispite such low stakes.
