Isn't Cami Clark just the classic sleep-their-way-up type? She didn't end up in the Whitehouse unlike a certain other one but her marriage at 20 was to a 64 year old...
Well, no, because she approached Jeffrey Epstein after his release from serving a prison sentence for child prostitution, and proposed (to him!) that they start up a "porn company" together. There are no "classic" explanations for that specific chapter of her biography.
I don't know what to make of this person's life story; she's certainly an extreme statistical outlier.
I think a lot of people associate the lab leak theory with racism because it was most loudly championed by racists who were 100% sure it was a Chinese lab leak and they were not shy about sharing that opinion, well before there was enough evidence to support either claim (lab or wet market).
It seems people who actually looked at the evidence and came to the lab leak conclusion independent of racism got caught up in a 'racist by association' event.
Who gets prosecuted is the correct question since we live under a system of laws. Who is responsible for the failure is a far more difficult question to answer.
I agree with traffic example, however, I don’t think it quite applies to software in the same way. Imagine a world where for some reason our current quality of hardware is locked in place; they can never get better or faster in any way shape or form. Then the big tech race will be optimizing software. I personally think that there would be a 10x to even 100x increase in software speed that is possible through many optimizations. The current software incentive is geared more towards adding more features rather than optimizing performance since software engineers know they can always know hardware will keep getting better which will keep their
slower, less optimize software at similar speeds. This isn’t a critique of software engineers, simply a statement of the incentives under which they operate.
If anything, the transformer style attention architecture and language models have pushed AGI further into the future because the vast majority of finding for AGI research is going into the dead end of transformer style architecture and language models, pulling it away from methods that actually could achieve AGI.
Except 0F being “really cold” and 100F being “really hot” is a personal bias of yours based on where you’ve lived. It’s not true for everyone or everywhere.
And even if it were true, it still wouldn’t work. 100F in a dry environment is nice while, in a humid environment, 100F is awful. Same for 0F, a dry and static 0F is fine while a wet and windy 0F is killer.
Experience 0F wind in central North America or Central Asia vs 0F wind on the coast and tell me it’s not different. Also, it’s killer, not a killer, as in it sucks a lot.
There's still almost no moisture in the air at 0F, no matter if you're on the coast are in the middle of the continent. The air just can't hold that much water at that temp.
When it's warm:
50% humidity @ 40C: 25.43 g/kg (grams of water / kg of air)
90% humidity @ 40C: 45.78 g/kg
You only think it makes sense for humans because it makes sense for you, where you live the same way you feel changing a thermostat by 1F is perfect but 1C is too much: that’s true for you, not universally.
Fahrenheit functionally requires you to be biased in order for it to seem like a good system.
It provides greater granularity in the range of human comfort, without descending into decimals. How is that not more useful for day-to-day human usage?
0F is cold, 100F is hot. I experience both of these temperatures outside where I live every year.
-20C to 40C seems much more arbitrary as a way to measure the zone humans mostly live in.
I would wager that the outdoor and room temperature are an overwhelming majority of human use for temperature. It seems like it would make sense to optimize for how temperature is more commonly used at a population level.
I would say those who see Celsius as a good system are also biased, because they grew up with it and it’s what they’re used to.
> 0F is cold, 100F is hot. I experience both of these temperatures outside where I live every year.
This is just your location, and things like this vary around the world a lot. Hell, they vary in the US. To me, where I live (in the US), 0F and 100F aren't really useful as benchmarks; we don't see either of those temperatures here, ever. The normal range is more like 40F-80F (with extremes maybe down to 25F and up to 90F, but those numbers push credibility a bit).
But ok let's look at averages. Do "most humans" (whatever that means) really live within 0F to 100F? That doesn't really pass the smell test for me; there are lots of humans who live in places where it regularly exceeds 100F. And in those places I doubt it gets anywhere near 0F, with many places never getting down to even 20F. There are also lots of places that get warm, but will never see 100F, and seldom see 90F.
It's all super super arbitrary.
Having said that, I still prefer F over C, but I don't pretend there's any rational reason for it: it's just because I grew up with Fahrenheit, and no matter how hard I try, I just can't feel Celsius the same way. I feel like you maybe don't interact with too many people who grew up with Celsius; you'd probably realize they feel the same way about C as you do about F, and that there's no rational reason for it. It's just what you were trained to think and feel in, and it stuck.
The -40C was a typo, should have been 40C, to mirror the 0F to 100F, rounding a bit to make it less silly. It’s been fixed now.
Millions do experience 0F, and it’s ok to not use the full range. At or around 0F is cold, as you move closer or beyond it, it’s cold. As you move closer to or beyond 100F, it’s hot. Most people would likely prefer to never deal with <0F or >100F.
Millions -- hundreds of millions, even -- regularly experience -10F and 110F as well, but you've arbitrarily picked 0F-100F, so I guess their experience doesn't matter, because you prefer round numbers?
I experienced 3°F in the subtropics and it is probably about 100°F outside right now. Average winter temps of 35° with only 1-7 days of actual frost, usually around christmas. (Dec 25(December 25))
> you feel changing a thermostat by 1F is perfect but 1C is too much: that’s true for you, not universally.
I've noticed that here in Japan all the AC units seem to be adjusted by half a degree Celsius at a time, so I do think 1C is a bit much even for people who never used fahrenheit.
The good thing is that there is nothing preventing anyone from adjusting their thermostat with a decikelvin precision. Or hell, even centikelvin if they’re pushing it.
Living in Australia and India, I have never encountered such a thermostat. But I do vaguely recall encountering a thermostat somewhere at some point that went up by twos in Fahrenheit.
I would guess you would only encounter ½°C steps on units that support both Celsius and Fahrenheit, so that they’re closer to parity. I don’t think any unit that I’ve owned has supported Fahrenheit at all.
reply