Although this reference nicely explains the origin of the diffraction pattern on the JWT images, it does not explain why the spikes seems to extend much farther then in the Hubble images. My hunge is that the JWT succeeds much better to gather all the light into a real point which makes the primary diffraction pattern stronger too.
While this is very important for scientific work (easier to see planets!) it is less appealing to the eye. Also note that some JWT images have some faint blue streaks which in effect are diffraction spikes from bright stars outside the field of view.
I agree, I think it's a natural successor to a spreadsheet for something more complex. You can even have a section with tabular data (i.e. an embedded spreadsheet), which is what spreadsheets excel at, but it meshes very well with the classical programming paradigm.
Jupyter notebook is a regression from Excel, at least Excel computes the dependencies between the cells. With Jupyter, you have to be careful in the order you evaluate the cells.
And both falls on the floor the minute you want to use a spreadsheet/notebook as a library of functions, i.e it's not composable.
So, you are re-implementing Altavista, Lycos and other old search engines.
They used the naive approach: you searched for "steak", and they would bring the pages which included the word "steak".
The problem is that people could fool these engines by adding a long sequence like "steak, steak, steak, steak, steak, steak" to their site -- to pretend that they were the most authoritative page about steaks.
Google's big innovation was to count the referrers -- how many pages used the word "steak" to link to that particular page.
> The problem is that people could fool these engines by adding a long sequence like "steak, steak, steak, steak, steak, steak" to their site -- to pretend that they were the most authoritative page about steaks.
I don't see a lot of people investing in SEO to boost their Marginalia results.
> Google's big innovation was to count the referrers -- how many pages used the word "steak" to link to that particular page.
Then people fooled Google into showing the White House as top result when searching for "a miserable failure".
At the moment marginalia's approach of sorting pages into quality buckets based on lack of JS seems to be working extremely well, but of course it will be gamed if it gets popular.
However, I'd rather want SEO-crafting to consider itself with minimizing JS, rather than spamming links into every comment field on every blog across the globe ;-)
Unfortunately, as you've discovered, giraffes are often used by crackpots to try to disprove evolution. Google seems to get around this by heavily boosting known authoritative sources like National Geographic and NIH. But, sadly, those are JS/image heavy sites.
> I can understand where the author is coming from, but this is the cruel reality of the world.
This article was written in 2015, when this kind of dilemma (who would you save) was purely theoretical.
Fast-forward to 2020/2021, and it became real: we had to decide how to allocate scarce, life-saving resources -- COVID-19 vaccines -- and we decided to distribute them to the elder and most vulnerable first.
I hope this decision -- replicated in most countries around the world -- will put an end to this attempt to calculate the value of human lives.
Yeah, sounds encouraging until you realize it was more likely because the elderly have the money and vote the "right way", plus 80%+ of the young adults had mild to no symptoms.
The whole "lockdowns for everybody or grandpa might kick it" became a farce 6 months in, too. Why not just isolate the elderly and vulnerable then?
And there actually were unofficial DNR orders in the NHS, for example, and likely around the world, with people on Reddit supporting them.
That's a fallacy though. If COVID killed the youngest and most able among us equally or more than the most vulnerable, then vaccine distribution would have been different.
Vaccine distribution was given to those most likely to suffer negative effects. If covid struck entirely randomly there's no reason to prioritise it on the elderly and vulnerable, you'd look at maximising QALYS instead.
Differently from most countries in the world, Colombia allowed corporations to buy and distribute vaccines to their employees.
The result?
Hunger Games: Food Delivery Company Giving Vaccines Only to Best Gig Workers
As COVID deaths in Colombia reach an all-time high and a third wave of infections has left hospital systems on the verge of collapse, the massive delivery company Rappi said it would offer vaccines to its employees.
The catch: the delivery workers will have to compete against each other to prove they are the hardest workers to win just a handful of jabs.
Juan Sebastián Rozo, Rappi’s director of public affairs, announced this week during a local radio interview that the company will give vaccines to the five percent of its delivery workers who “deliver the most orders, spend the most time logged into the app and because of that are the most exposed.”
It does. <! reads from a channel that closes in the specified timeout. It is non-blocking. (similar to the away/async JS magic - rewrites the go block to a state machine)
> If this is a good strategy, I have always played it wrong -- because I've always tried to take whole continents.
Its not a great strategy, because it doesn't work. If you are taking only one country a turn and keeping only a small connected corr of reinforced countries with the rest weak, then anyone playing a “grab lots of countries quickly" strategy is going to steamroller your weakly defended territory, and if you are only taking one country per turn, you’ll never recover from that.
A thick shell/thin-core strategy can work (especially if it is “talr Australia, then expand a bubble out in Asia), and otherwise looks a lot like the strategy this recommends, but you just have to accept that if a strategy can work, people are likely to recognize it; you can't reliably avoid balancing feedback unless you are playing against inexperienced players or naive AI.
(Also, contrary to the article, IME while Australia is frequently taken early on, its also a major balancing feedback trigger.)
"Also, contrary to the article, IME while Australia is frequently taken early on, its also a major balancing feedback trigger."
It turns out that in any decent game with decent opponents, players learn what works and adapt. ;-)
At least in my meta, the main reason why Australia tends to get left alone once consolidated is that defending it is comparatively easy that anyone who tries to take it out without first consolidating an overwhelming advantage will be so crippled by the effort that they'll invariably lose the game. So Australia devolves to being this game of "chicken" between the other players.
I think it assumes you have more than 2 people playing, and the other people haven't read this article. Which...doesn't sound like a sound strategy to me.
I often play against bots in yura.net Domination. These bots seem hardcoded to gang up on players (both bots and humans) whenever they manage to take a continent. It doesn't help that continents that are worth holding are usually difficult to defend. I learned quickly to never hold onto continents, especially with increasing cards. When you are strong enough to hold continents, you have pretty much already won the game.
The thing that I don't like about the new images is the abuse of star flare effect. The colors are okay, but the flares... that's simply too much.