For those wondering why there is zig zag in the plot after 1958. The data source changed at that date [1].
* 1000 - 1958: Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores
* 1958 - Today: in situ air measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii.
Hawaii does month by month measurement and the seasons have vastly different CO2 levels due to plant activity. Going back further was just a rough yearly average.
The zig zags are a reasonably smooth yearly wave if you zoom into them.
The bureaucracy is a well-oiled machine on its own. It has a self-perpetuating nature, following its own set of survival rules, just like the principles of evolution by Darwin.
There's a classic book called "The Bureaucratic Phenomenon" that delves into this very phenomenon. Interestingly, middle management doesn't exactly boost the value of the products or outputs, but it keeps growing to cater to its internal demands and desires.
Although this will benefit my work, I'm disappointed to find only three results for it. :(
I attempted searching through the YC directory, but it seems that the only way I can make any headway is by making a drastic assumption that any company which has altered its name may have completely shifted to a new concept. A rather extreme generalization indeed. :(
Also there seem to be no public datasets available for this.
but is astonishing how expensive is the connectivity in other countries.
>>> Verizon Gateway sitting on top of the rack. I get pretty good signal here and get the rated speed, of around 300Mb/s down and 20Mb/s up. This costs $50/mo.
There are offers [0] in the EU of 10Gbps / 25 Euros/mo.
I've started work on a book/blog (still haven't decided on the target medium) about how to apply the scientific method to everyday life. It's still very drafty, but if you want a sneak preview of the current state of things you can find it here:
This is part of a more overarching effort to try to move the needle on climate change. I think one of the reasons it's such an intractable problem is that there is too much scientific ignorance out there, which supports an unjustified level of techno-optimism with regards to CO2 emissions.
I'm also thinking about turning TIKN into a YouTube channel because that seems to be what the cool kids are doing nowadays. But I'd want to do this with a collaborator because maintaining a YT channel is a fucking boatload of work. If you know anyone who might be interested please send them my way.
Not entirely unrelated (in fact, the reason I know how hard it is to make a good video)... something I did about 15 years ago that I'm still proud of despite the fact that it never got any traction is make a documentary film about homeless people:
I use it for data transformation, cleanup and enrichment. (TXT, CSV, Json, XML, database) to (TXT, CSV, JSON, XML, database).
Speed up of 30x - 40x. The highest speedup on those that require logic in the transformation. (lot of function calls, numerical operations and dictionary lookups).
This article reveals how Scientific American has declined over time.
It has become a mere shadow of its former self, resorting to sensationalism for online engagement.
I understand the need for the magazine to cater to an audience, but how was this article even approved? It lacks specifics, relies on common knowledge, lacks relevant studies or investigations. It's nothing but clickbait.
If it's accurate and has higher readership, what's the harm? I found it useful.
Re topics, it is a shame for the regular readers if they have limited themselves to the short list of high SEO performing topics. But it would be hypocritical to complain about it from a link aggregator site where the article has only reached the front page due to this choice of a popular interest topic. When did you cancel your subscription?
> If it's accurate and has higher readership, what's the harm?
The other commenter argued that it relies on common knowledge as opposed to scientific knowledge. That's the harm. Especially for a journal claiming to be scientific.
Unless they actually paid for Scientific American when it was "good", they have little standing to complain if it is still producing accurate and informative content.
Any sufficiently complicated library management system contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, inconsistent implementation of half of the Dewey System [2].
I think you're being unfair. There's nothing bug ridden or inconsistent here, just a simple categorization system that looks like it would be pretty decent for small to medium sized projects.
It's also not informally specified. The shared link is literally the specification document. It's written in a kinds of informal style, sure, but that's a different kind of informal - Greenspun's informal means "not written down at all".
"While the White House order isn’t currently stifling startups and open source, it seems to be a step in that direction"