If you live in a 2-d neighborhood the "four color theorem" proves you only need four codes to not share a code with a neighbor, assuming perfect information.
The wikipedia article for the four color theorm discusses higher dimensional life like being in a 3-d apartment building. If you live in a Klein bottle you got other problems beyond ceiling fans.
All ecosystems are local, and local eradication has been a thing since the first shovel was invented, and nothing too bad has happened.
If there's an abandoned lot and you eradicate the mosquitoes by removing the water filled abandoned car tires, the existing ecosystem does pretty well. In a similar way you can willfully decide to make a livestock pond either a mosquito factory or mosquito free and mosquito free has not resulted in any problems.
Local eradication programs have successfully worked for centuries, at least. What makes this story interesting is its very wide ranging and likely very expensive.
There's a whopper in the middle of the article declaring an outcome "high test scores" is a cause, not a result, of a lack of a wide variety of social ills. The cause and effect ratio is obviously reversed. Its like claiming that playing the violin leads to wealth via some magical process, whereas the reality is only wealthy parents can afford to hire a classical violin tutor for their kid, so sure, the wealthiest neighborhoods have the kids who are the best violin players but it would be pretty clueless to describe violin playing as a vocational skill. Its a luxury skill for people who've already made it, like math is for about 99.9% of the population.
Talking to my kid's friends indirectly and casually, as per above the deck is stacked against them resulting in lower scores in stuff that won't result in a job anyway, no amount of study will improve your DEI scores which are all that matter for hiring anyway, and the jobs you can get with high scores are the ones targeted for elimination via AI.
Despite being pretty young they understand the scam that it doesn't matter if it works or not, the powers that be will ruin your career trying to replace you with AI. Much like outsourcing in their parents and grandparents generation, it literally doesn't matter if it works or not, you're still sitting in the same unemployment line if they make a profit or lose their shirts. They lost their shirts and will lose them again for AI, but that provides little sympathy for those sitting in the unemployment lines.
"Line must go up" meme applies. There exist tests you can make kids take to determine their suitability for labor in the garment industry, fine motor skills, some visuospatial skills, etc. That number is useless because there are few jobs, negative industry growth, and we have a severe supply/demand mismatch already. Increasing "garment industry skill test results" led directly to happy outcomes around the 1850s industrial revolution and flat to negative outcomes in the modern era. So it is with math today. Worship of "line must go up" never made anyone happy or wealthy.
The article somehow avoids all documentation and authorities and instead relies on popular memes and biased "common sense". Its not marked as an editorial, which seems odd.
Not a similar comparison in that one project was to produce a plan to extend the limits and goals of mathematics in general while in the process of answering "Is it true, circle yes or no". The other project circled "yes" but the output is not ... progress toward goals oriented.
Its like using AI to do your homework in the middle of a class. Yes, in the short term, that solves the problem of completing your homework. But it creates an entirely new problem of if you never did the homework how do you intend to pass the rest of the class or the remainder of college curriculum? A lot of cheaters ... don't.
A project has a long term path for permanent progress across an entire field. An oracle answers a question, sometimes cryptically, then progress in the field permanently ceases.
The value of a research project to determine if a Turing Machine halts with a T or a F on the tape is, to some extent, did it get a T or an F on the tape, but much more so the value is the tendrils of the rest of the field of mathematics pushing into the project at the start and then pushing out to enrich the rest of the field of mathematics at the end.
On the other hand if you have a project to run that Turing machine and see if it ever halts with a T or F as the proof, the result is completely sterile and WRT advancement of the rest of the field the actual result is kinda irrelevant. No postdoc is going to take the skills learned and move on to a position somewhere else and apply those new skills toward advancing something else in the field or describing a new goal or new way to look at the world. We'll get a popular science article about "oh it turns out the answer is indeed 'T'" and thats it. Sterile.
Personally I always thought the theorem proving turing machine would indeed terminate with a "T" and indeed it did. That's nice, and I bet the result settled a lot of bar bets. Aside from that, it will have minimal impact on progress in the field compared to the human project that's actually advancing the field.
Possibly people will be able to parse the 13 million lines of whatever into useful progress elsewhere in the field, possibly not. It'll be hard to get funding for it. OTOH its early days. Might end up useful in the end.
One person complaining on Wired about "... says she ... had seen too many colleagues decline to speak up during internal meetings out of fear of retaliation for raising issues or proposing far-out ideas." that is evidence of at least one anecdotal individual personal issue. HOWEVER, the vote being "overwhelming" would seem to indicate they have a severe company culture problem not just one anecdotal issue, its not like she was the only one voting for the union LOL. I've worked at companies with and without unions and the ones that had a union, severely needed the union due to incredibly toxic workplace culture combined with a total lack of management accountability for their responsibility/behavior. Generally people won't bother keeping a union going unless they badly need it, given the enormous resources stacked up against them against forming and operating a union... It has to be a pretty awful workplace if forming a union against all that opposition is somehow still the better path... The quality of management has certainly not improved over generations or decades, so an era of declining union membership is probably not an indication of there being too many unions LOL.
Your specific question is for resources to improve, but there's no royal road to soldering, or geometry, or going to the gym.
The fastest way to make progress is to practice, there is no pill or wiki or video that makes progress faster; if anything those make progress slower.
Soldering is exactly like the gym where attempting to avoid time and sweat invariably results in slower progress than just doing it. Especially if someone is selling something to make it easier, it won't work.
If you've already started as per the post you've likely exceeded the skill level covered by "how to solder electronics.pdf" by the Heathkit company or similar intro level stuff.
The only specific technique I can think of is debugging your own boards. Debugging time is very motivational for avoiding mistakes. You'll find it harder to learn to solder if you repair stuff, easy if you build a kit or two of similar complexity to what you're trying to repair. You'll learn anyway as long as you put in the time and sweat it'll just be more emotionally motivating if you're repairing your own work than repairing someone elses.
Dollywood can hold more people than a football stadium. Probably will.
Its a nice theme park. She bought it because she thought it would be cool to have a really awesome theme park in TN. She was both correct and successful. It's pretty cool.
See also Britney Spears, who's mom ran a small daycare. Taylor Swift's an in between story, middle class financial services parents, hard to say if they were paycheck to paycheck or not...
Its not necessarily the best thing that big companies have a business model of taking advantage of poor, or relatively poorer, people, particularly attractive young women. See our global Epstein class and global Weinstein class.
Calling Swift middle class and that they were possibly paycheck to paycheck is laughable.
Her father had a huge role to play in her success with his business deals and would largely be considered upper middle class if not higher. If anything, Taylor’s story reinforces the idea that families with wealth offer easier paths in life for their children.
I'm from Pennsylvania and a proverbial stone's throw from where Taylor Swift is also from. Trust me when I tell you that there's nothing "middle class" about her. Her parents are wealthy and this gave her a big boost into the entertainment industry, with lots of expensive coaching, music lessons, and trips to Nashville.
IIRC he worked for a large financial services company (Merrill Lynch?) and was able to transfer to the Nashville office so that Taylor could be closer to the music scene.
No offense, but "the idea that families with wealth offer easier paths in life for their children" - like isn't this obviously the case?
The amazing thing about America is that there are paths for those not as wealthy, but of course they are harder, as much as we might not want them to be... no?
The thread is about Taylor Swift, arguably the most successful music entertainer of all time. The parents with upper|middle class gave a boost, but you absolutely cannot buy this level of stardom and hasn't been replicated anywhere that I know of.
America is 100% the place to be rich or poor, if this really is your goal, from Dolly to Jackson or Swift.
Nobody is claiming this or ever should. The claim is that there is real proof of "success" from dirt poor to middle|upper class with these music entertainer examples. Nothing ever will be equal chance, and that shouldn't really be the goal [depending on how it's defined and implemented].
> Its not necessarily the best thing that big companies have a business model of taking advantage of poor, or relatively poorer, people, particularly attractive young women. See our global Epstein class and global Weinstein class.
I agree. But are those kinds of abuse a requirement of a system that raises the voices of poorer people, or is it that we have permitted them?
I don't know if Taylor Swift endured similar hardship in her rise, but if she didn't as other replies have suggested, she's an example of how the system should treat those who are less privileged than she was.
No, and this policy goes back to publication in for-profit newspapers. Not an issue in the USA in general.
With a disclaimer that there's one zillion governmental entities on the planet overall, so its plausible that one requires no fee and no signup required.
"management" is the key word. Early diagnosis might help a lot not just with T1 but also T2.
Early diagnosis would save a lot of pain and suffering... and money.
I worked with an older T1 and apparently a bit less than half of kids diagnosed with T1 are diagnosed unconscious during a DKA event in the ER. "Treatment" cost, or at least requested revenue LOL, is at least $30K for an ER visit like that, and it also costs at least some months (years?) off their expected lifespan.
Figure about 0.5% of the population in the USA is T1, you read stuff like "about two million T1 diabetics" in the USA. So early T1 diagnosis would save the country overall about $30B just in DKA treatment alone at time of initial diagnosis.
If you could screen an entire population for less than $30B total lifetime cost, it would be financially rational to prescreen for T1 rather than waiting for ambulances to present incredibly sick kids. And potentially profitable.
Prescreening the entire population for metabolic disorders is quite plausible as a "tech startup idea" as the alternative is waiting for them to arrive in an ambulance while extremely sick/nearly dead. Lets say it could be done for $10B, leaving $10B for startup profit (charge insurance companies $20B which is not bad....) and $10B in lowered health care costs for the country in general, not to mention less suffering in the population. A win-win scenario.
IF blood sugar related disorders could be pre-screened for less than $10B total cost. A solid "maybe"? Plausibly a startup doing blood sugar prescreening would be a "multibillion dollar company" although not a trillion dollar unicorn. Still a good idea.
The wikipedia article for the four color theorm discusses higher dimensional life like being in a 3-d apartment building. If you live in a Klein bottle you got other problems beyond ceiling fans.
reply