I love science. I fully support the desire to answer big hard questions that may be answered with this tool. I absolutely am 100% behind spending this money on this telescope.
I, however, do not believe it will ever provide any kind of substantial return beyond possibly helping to answer some esoteric questions about the universe that nobody alive today or in 10000 years will benefit from.
Life isn't an investment, or it's a really terrible one, as the final return is oblivion no matter what. Making all decisions on the basis of "investment" is stupid. Why? We all will eventually die, the planet incinerated, all of this is pointless. Even if the JWST helped lead to interplanetary travel that only changes the timeframe, the heat death of the universe being inevitable. If your only basis for doing something now is some material return in the future then you've totally lost the plot.
So yeah. I think it's a bad investment and I'm glad we spent the money on it.
The heat death of the universe is a theory that has never been observed. Theories like it depend entirely on our understanding on "esoteric" aspects of reality, which contrary to your belief have brought fantastic benefits to nearly everyone alive today, including you and I, right now sharing our thoughts through magical telepathy, the result of some new instrument finding some new "esoteric" phenomenon like radio waves some time ago.
This attitude disturbs me more than any other single aspect of the mass idiocy around adopting AI for critical things. 80% is horribly low accuracy for anything even remotely important.
For example, imagine you went to a store and could tell the cashier any price for anything so long as it was 80% accurate, as in, 80% of the original price. Just a 20% potential discount, nbd.
Or put another way, 80% of your items had to have a perfectly accurate price but you bought 5 items, 1 of them was a PlayStation 5 you priced at $1. It's fine. The rest were accurate!
80% is extremely low accuracy. It's absurd to think that's a good level to cut things off. We should demand systems like these demonstrate 99% or better accuracy. Until then they should be illegal to apply in any scenario where a decision is made about another person.
Uh well, along with others I'll just share how I differentiate them since both are common where I live.
3 Ways
1) if you can get a good look at the tail, think croW = wider/more or less even at the bottom, raVen = V like at the bottom (or diamond as a whole) but it's just a mnemonic and makes more sense if you see this http://naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/images/drawings/ra...
2) Their calls are very distinct, hear one then hear the other and you won't confuse them atall but that requires having heard both and knowing which is which and I won't even bother to try to explain, you can find a million videos/etc. demonstrating if you really care.
3) Beak, ravens have a slightly curved tip usually and crows... don't but it's hard to see this because of the color, so again, depends on what you can observe
Any competent operation is continuously monitoring all available signals for signs of breach. All I read into this is that their systems have not identified any IoCs. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but, if you're relying on something non-automated to make these kinds of determinations, you're already pretty screwed. Forensics is definitely a thing in cases where there's reason to believe a breach happened, but, it's not the thing that will be used to decide something has happened worth investigating.
Thus, it should take approximately zero actual time to conclude what was stated here.
In October 2020 I did a deep analysis on commercially supported and/or hosted Kubernetes distributions and platforms (think Rancher, OpenShift, Tanzu, EKS, GKE, etc.) and after doing most of my analysis, a Gartner report found its way to me. It largely matched my results with some skewing for factors I don't consider as important, but, were clearly explained in the report.
So, while I realize this is a small data point, it is one backed by quite a bit of data/analysis. Their report was well reasoned and accurate given the stated priors.
I would say that their credibility is fine so long as you read the reports fully and not simply glance at their magic quadrant figures.
Interestingly, I originally bought it with this mindset (kickstarter 1/10000 owner here) but, life had other plans and basically it's become a very useful desktop toy playing exclusively breakout... and I couldn't be happier with it?
I do intend to program something for it, sometime, but, just can't spend any spare time on it right now.
If I did have the time, I'd really like to revive some of the past attempts at building games in Rust for the thing.
Haha yeah I also got one and haven't used it yet. My interest in micro controller programming comes and goes and if I have to wait for shipping before I can start my project, I'll be over it before the thing arrives. Breakout does sound like the perfect game for it though.
I share this experience. I come back and check on it every few months. It continues to baffle me what their priorities are. VIM support but extensions can't even BUILD or RUN.
I love the idea of a native macOS IDE, but it seems like this will never be something I can actually use productively or ever recommend to anyone. Would happy to be proven wrong.
SDT's from the 70's, not 2008. However, in 2009 Daniel Pink published a book that seems to basically neatly package up SDT in a much more directly consumable way, maybe that's where your timeframe is coming from? I actually think Pink's take has some insight but it's not very scientifically oriented.
