This, to me, is the apogee of the divergence between kickstarter culture and product-buying culture - wanting to put in the money just to see someone do something interesting or something that you think is worthwhile. I would buy Stellaris and never play it, because I like what that game is doing, but I would steal Deus Ex Mankind Divided and play it to conclusion because I really dislike what that game's doing, ie a soulless rehash of the previous game.

I'm not sure that that necessarily makes for healthy markets.

IF...this releases while CR still owns the company (ie, he doesn't sell the IP to Microsoft or EA like he did Freelancer), it will be an epic disappointment on a scale that will make No Man's Sky look like it was game of the year.

I was hoping for more meat to his presentation, and was disappointed. I feel that he said absolutely nothing to help anyone in the audience understand what quantum computers actually DO or what sort of problems they'll help to solve. They'll absolutely not increase your FPS, as that's not what they're well-suited to do. What they are quite excellent at is taking a problem with many possible solutions and finding the correct (or best) one at an extremely high speed.

One example would be the Traveling Salesman problem. In brief, find the optimum route for traversing a number of points on a map. This is useful for things like scheduling package delivery routes, airline flights, etc. With a classic / current computer we write software that cleverly chugs through the possible solutions, throws out any that prove to be poor, and eventually gets to what appears to be the best or is at least a "good enough" solution. As the number of necessary points to be visited increases this problem scales in complexity quickly, so eventually a current computer would just choke on the problem and at best return an ok-ish solution in a reasonable period of time.

A quantum computer is a totally different beast. If it's "big" enough (IE, is comprised of a sufficient number of qubits), it takes the entire set of all possible solutions to the problem, and rather than iterate through them to find the best one, it checks them all simultaneously and immediately returns the optimum solution. It does this by using properties of quantum mechanics, and I think this is where the speaker was drawing his talk of parallel universes. If there are 3 qubits, they would exist as 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, and 111 simultaneously. The software would then define what the best answer would look like, and the computer returns the answer.

You can hopefully see how this totally breaks encryption. With a current computer and a long enough encryption key, an encoded message would take the fastest machines a huge number of years to decipher. With a quantum computer you hand it a gibberish encrypted message, it loads all possible transformations of that message simultaneously, and it then returns the transformation which looks most like a coherent message.

I'm excited to see what these machines can do for us, but they're going to necessitate some significant structural changes in how we handle sensitive data.

Yep, that puzzled me too. Note that the pipes are covered with ice and snow, and the tie downs are cutting grooves (circumferential) into the pipe you reference but not the lower one on the right hand side, so something "soft" there - I ascribed the marks to perhaps lifting or handling cut into the snow and ice that seems to be stuck fairly well on that joint. Perhaps different cladding, though looking end on before things start to move shows fairly clearly that there is some form of coating on the pipes (why can't everybody just use the same 323 Scotchkote color and keep things simple). If you have a look after the first big shift at 1:05, you can find a clear frame where the end on view of the same pipe doesn't appear to have any layer beyond the assumed coating (ie. no 2x4's) and much of the snow / ice has been shaken off (another clear frame around 1:09). Normally if they're stacking coated pipe, even a full joint, two or three bands of heavy polypropylene rope (1" - 2" diam) with the ends hot melted together to make a single hoop keeps the pipes from scuffing one another in transport. But then again, there's nothing normal about how this load was built, so anything's possible I guess. Cheers.

If you read my other reply two posts up, it's clear that I'm not left leaning.

Your linked slaughter statistics are for the USA alone, and as far as I know GLOBAL warming affects the whole globe....so we should count the global amount of farmed animals.

Your statistics also only count slaughtered animals, and not farmed animals like dairy cows, which there are more of at any one time. Around 9 billion dairy cows in the USA. So already in the US alone we have 13.9 billion farmed animals(4.9b slaughtered + 9b dairy cows). It's not hard to see worldwide that figure reaching 50 billion.
And that's still not counting a bunch of animals (read the small print of your link).

The thing with methane too, it traps over 29 times more heat that co2....and most trees don't absorb methane. So even if we had enough trees to absorb co2 (which we don't) then all of methane from farmed animals would remain up there anyway.


80% of tree's aren't gone, 80 % of forests are gone:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20much%20of%20the%20world%27s%20forests%20have%20been%20destroyed


How much renewable energy tax do you pay BTW? Where I live I pay $0. But the government does give some $4 billion of our tax money to the coal industry. So if anything the big tax scheme is from non-renewable.


EDIT:
Oh I forgot the most important bit. Scientists can tell between natural co2 and man-made co2. They have differing amounts of carbon. So it's actually really easy to tell between how much carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere vs naturally occurring carbon dioxide.


Also lions and bears are going to live in nature regardless of human activity - we've added 50 billion large, methane producing animals to the world that wouldn't be there otherwise. Granted the destruction of habitats might have reduced the lion and bear populations, but not by 50 billion. Perhaps a few million at most.

Agreed all religious books hate gays, subjugate women and worse. But protect your Koran. Just don't ever pretend to be progressive or for equal rights. Not sure what happened to the old bareboards2, guess something changed. And btw, I don't remember everything, but I do remember people and their hearts. That part is so fucking easy I seriously think other people just don't care. I want equality, and that sometimes means people are equally full of shit--ie. religious texts. And also, no fucking way can someone defend it as being "interpreted differently by different people." Maybe a book says kill all the faggots and certain people would say it means kill them with kindness, but only a truly fucking ignorant person would think that about followers of that religion. I couldn't care less about prejudice against a book.

Yet another movie ruined by bad direction.

Is it really so hard to get help from action directors/choreographers who actually know what they're doing? This has been going on for 20 years in Hollywood. Some movies figure it out and manage clean, comprehensible action (ie The Matrix) while others do this garbage close-up after close-up fast-cutting fight scenes which look like absolute shit on screen because they're too lazy to do the action the right way.

I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a big-budget Hollywood film that I truly enjoyed. All the execs and their hand wringing, "Oh why don't we see the returns we used to?"

Because you make shit movies, that's why.

No, you make one fatal error. You are comparing Clinton supporters with Bernie supporters. That is incredibly incorrect and it makes me shudder. You should compare Clinton to Trump supporters---ie., the entire republican party has sided with him, minus a few who will vote third party. Clinton supporters are exactly like that. Bandwagon, that's me! Not to degrade them but put a D in their mouths and they are happy.

On the other hand, Bernie supporters have more integrity and are tired of the funnel-effect of the lesser of two evils bullshit whereby more evil comes to our voting booths.

So yeah, maybe 1% of Clinton supporters will be mad and vote elsewhere (Like Jill) but what, 25% of Sanders will? Yeah...not quite the same.

The UK has done a much better job in handling the situation than the US has, it seems, though it has had more time to do so than the southern US. I don't think they achieved it by implementing systemic racism in the opposite direction, though. And let's be clear, even though we may feel justified in kicking out higher achieving students to replace them with a quota-satisfying minority group, that is systemically racist, the very thing we are trying to abolish. It is a clear example of committing a wrong to hopefully achieve a right. And it will never feel like anything short of racism to the individual student that gets short changed.

So let's say that it works, and black folk begin to integrate more successfully into the encompassing community, and the encompassing communities don't end up resenting them for the racist laws that are helping them to do s . Will we ever be remove these racist rules? Or will we be arguing about an ever small statistical deviation somewhere? Furthermore, all of the people that are unjustly damaged by these new racist rules (ie. Ashley), won't they then be due reparations in the future too? Who would pay those? Where would it end? Would it end?

I just doubt that more racism is the cure for racism.

I'm glad to see that people are now accepting that exercise does very little for weight loss. Eating the right foods is 90% of the weight loss effort. Permanent weight loss also hasn't got anything to do with calorie counting/restriction.

A whole-foods plant based diet is the only sustainable way to lose weight because you never go hungry, and you get all of the nutrients you need. No exercise, no starvation, no calorie counting, no fasting, no salads. Just eat real hearty and satiating foods, and that's it.

You'll lose an average of 2.5kg a month, which within 2 years is 60kg. It's consistent, predictable and permanent.

If you're serious about losing weight here are some resources that I've used to get my BMI back to 23 (from 30):

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shopping/books/starch-solution/

https://www.amazon.com/21-Day-Weight-Loss-Kickstart-Dramatically/dp/0446583820

http://engine2diet.com/recipes/

https://www.amazon.com/Foods-That-Cause-Lose-Weight/dp/0380807971/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51BiLkzcpQL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR95%2C160_&psc=
1&refRID=J9FHP0P469CCPDH0Z613

Of course, exercise is great for your heart and brain health, and to give your body some tone and shape.

That is so fricking awesome, but not at all surprising. Irish sports fans are the best in the world. (I might be biased, but that is an objective fact)
http://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/irish-supporters-in-france-are-being-praised-to-the-skies-by-impressed-locals/82336

Some even more shocking footage
https://www.facebook.com/www.JOE.co.uk/videos/688688267961909/

That is factually incorrect.

There are 4051 pledged delegates available. So to win the pledged delegate count, you only need 2026. Hillary currently has 2203.

You need 2383 INCLUDING the superdelegates (Hillary has 2777).

On both counts, Hillary has won.

It's over. Bernie lost.

I don't like it either, but short of Hillary being unable to accept the nomination for some reason (dying, dropping out, being disqualified somehow), she is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. If Bernie is staying in the race, it's only to gain some leverage (maybe a VP ticket?)

That said, I agree that this is a pretty weak attack on Trump. Everyone already knows he's an asshole, and his supporters clearly give zero fucks about insulting people with disabilities. They probably think it's hilarious.

Here is the story translated (poorly)

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=cs&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cas.sk%2Fclanok%2F407309%2Fkauza-vodica-blokujuceh

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

As a small sidenote, I think it's slightly risky to indicate, even tongue in cheek, that any of us were involved at the start of a movement that began in the 1800s... even if you're kidding, people might get the wrong idea. Third wave feminism, which coincidentally I think you're more opposed to than the first two waves, did begin (I think?) in the US in the 1980's or 90's, but the overall movement was a well-established global phenomenon at that point. None of us were close to being involved in starting it.

As far as your main point goes, I think it's partly a question of whether you define your own vision by the end goal you want to achieve, or the first problem you want to solve. "Black Lives Matter" is not the end goal, it's the first problem we need to solve on the way to a state free of police murder. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, can be the end goal. It doesn't tell me which problem areas you want to address though.

For some feminists, feminism is the end goal - a woman-centric world would be better, more sane, and more sustainable in their view than any other world. For other feminists, feminism is the first problem area to address, ie that we are literally living in a culture of undeniable male supremacy.

The problem with only defining your end goal is that it can become a little unclear what, if any, action you want to take. "You matter" is certainly fine, but I have no idea what you want to change in society, or if you want to change anything. I matter, you matter, and the Koch brothers matter - but we still have very different ideas about what society should be. In a perfect world I might want to join up under the egalitarian banner, but in the current mess we're in, I tend more towards environmentalism, socialism and feminism - because those are the problem areas I want us to address first.