search results matching tag: threshold

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (35)     Sift Talk (9)     Blogs (0)     Comments (324)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Yesterday, 203 Republicans voted against the bill that Democrats passed in the House which would "amend the 1887 Electoral Count Act to remove any doubt that the vice president's role in counting Electoral College votes is simply ministerial. It would lift the threshold for members of Congress to force a vote on discounting presidential electors from just one member of the House and the Senate each to one-third of both chambers. And it would require governors to send electors to Congress for the candidate who won, based on state law set before Election Day, which cannot be retroactively changed."

Apparently electing the winners of elections is something that Republicans are now unambiguously publicly on the record as being against…which means a majority of your party is purely and undeniably anti democracy.

When will it be too much for you? Ever?


Color video of Albert Einstein actually explaining E=mc2

newtboy says...

Good, then I’m not just being dumb….But you don’t recall at what point it goes from KE= 1/2m V^2 to E= M C^2 …or the equation/function used to determine energy below the speed of light but above the 1/2 threshold?

Somewhere below C (speed of light) it gains up to 1/2 the total system energy, beyond simple kinetic energy…I’ve heard this alluded to as mass becoming energy, but never with any explanation how or even if that’s reality or just a mathematical “trick” to make the equations work…nor an equation describing the process. I only took year one physics….over 25 years ago.

noims said:

Actually, I think I can verify this. I remember in physics going through a derivation of why E=mc^2 and being very disappointed that it was just a specialised case of your second equation.

“Don’t Look Up” in Real Life

newtboy says...

Lol.
Reasontv, the network of the insanity from Stossel, with the stated position that “free market and deregulation is the solution to any and every problem imaginable”. That’s the best you’ve got!?! Then you’ve got NOTHING. You actually complain that CNN isn’t trustworthy, then you post from Reasontv!?! Er mer gerd! 🤦‍♂️ why not just post Beck or Jones?

They completely misrepresent what the report, and climate activists, and politicians have said with bad editing and lies here, no surprise, you posted it, it was guaranteed to be DISHONEST nonsense propaganda.

Land temperatures reached 1.3C above pre industrial norms in 2020. Every prediction made has come true well ahead of schedule. Temperature rise is accelerating, it’s not the flat straight line nor a slowing rate like they showed but an increasing curve. The last 7 years were all in the top 10 hottest ever, the last decade had 9 of the hottest ever, and we are experiencing a global drought never seen by modern man….but according to you, nothing burger, totally normal, chicken little.

https://www.iflscience.com/nine-of-the-top-10-hottest-years-ever-all-occurred-in-the-last-decade-62232

There is one thing I agree with, the “12 years to stop climate disaster” notion (not what the science says btw) is wrong. We have -20 years +-. The CO2 we put in the atmosphere today will effect climate for hundreds to a thousand years, the nitrous oxide for about 120, methane around 10. We have reached the point where natural emissions will soon take over, adding more than humans ever did. Scientists estimate that’s at 1.5C, but every estimate they’ve made public has turned out to be optimistic in the extreme, so 1.5C is almost certainly wishful thinking and 1.25C is more likely the threshold. We can both mitigate the effects and slow the rate of change, but at this point staying below 1.5C is a pipe dream no one is actually even working towards.

I think the reality is that, using current models, assuming no surprises or feedback loops, we have (now 8 ) years before the adding these greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will carry us well beyond 1.5C above “normal” with no additional emissions needed….not that we will definitely hit 1.5 by 2030 but we will be able to coast there even with zero emissions.
I know, math and science together, way too hard, better to just listen to the oil spokesmen who say “it’s a hoax, pay no attention to the cities reaching 130F, the unprecedented heat globally, the rapidly melting (or melted) glaciers that historically provide drinking water for 1.9 BILLION people, or the never before seen by man extreme global droughts, they’re all normal and natural and why are you still talking about it?”.

No surprise, one more undeniable, in your face disaster you simply deny exists….like Covid, Jan 6, Russian election interference, -3.5%gdp, Trump terrorism, etc.
Can we have your name so when the global food supply is insufficient we know who’s family to deny food?

bobknight33 said:

Silly nonsense

1000 Year Heatwave Becoming The Norm

newtboy says...

"Climate scientists are increasingly concerned that global heating will trigger tipping points in Earth’s natural systems, which will lead to widespread and possibly irrevocable disaster, unless action is taken urgently.

The impacts are likely to be much closer than most people realise, a a draft report from the world’s leading climate scientists suggests, and will fundamentally reshape life in the coming decades even if greenhouse gas emissions are brought under some control.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is preparing a landmark report to be published in stages this summer and next year. Most of the report will not be published in time for consideration by policymakers at Cop26, the UN climate talks taking place in November in Glasgow.

A draft of the IPCC report apparently from early this year was leaked to Agence France-Presse, which reported on its findings on Thursday. The draft warns of a series of thresholds beyond which recovery from climate breakdown may become impossible. It warns: “Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems … humans cannot.”"

Reindeer Cyclone

Reindeer Cyclone

Reflections on Trusting Trust - Computerphile

noims says...

I remember reading that paper in the early 00s and loving it. The bombshell for me was that at about 4:47 in the video he says he thinks Ken actually did do what I assumed the paper was joking about, which I'll admit sent a little shiver down my spine.

The only limit would have been Ken's forward thinking on how complex the self-updating aspect would be. Once it passes a certain threshold , iirc, it's essentially unstoppable. Below a certain threshold it would probably already have been found.

"can't take back no hurt"

scheherazade says...

The scale of sensitivity has changed.

Back then, if a white dude beat up a black dude for being black, people would just say some shit about it and move on.

Today, name calling can land you in jail.

What qualifies as terrible has a lower threshold in today's social psyche.

As racism becomes rarer and milder, any remaining form sticks out that much more, and is that much more offensive.

(Same with violence. We're in the safest time in human history, but people are more worried about kidnappings and shootings than ever)

Basically, it's all relative.

I had a coworker that said to me 'this place is really racist', and I asked why. He said 'because nobody says hi to me as I walk down the hall'. My response was 'So? I never say hi to anybody'. So, I started forcing myself to say hi to people, just to maintain appearances. Otherwise, I'd just be going about my day minding my own business, and people could be getting the wrong impression.

-scheherazade

bobknight33 said:

It was wrong then and today.

But pulling up hate from 44 years ago and and trying to imply racism of 50 years ago is the same/ worse today is laughable.

How Your Dog's Nose Knows So Much | Deep Look

SFOGuy says...

Who's a good girl? She's a good girl...

The way I once remember reading about it was: We can easily set a sensory threshold of "sensing" about 2 teaspoons of salt in a cup of water. Easy peasy.

A dog's nose is so sensitive, that it's as if she can tell that there are two teaspoons of salt in a POOL full of water.
Only...with scent.

We Believe: The Best Men Can Be - Gillette Ad

wtfcaniuse says...

I don't understand the mentality that respect equals weakness.

I'm also curious as to whether mechanical skill makes someone more manly. Where do I find the list that ranks manly activities? How do I figure out my manliness quotient and what is the threshold for turning into a soyboy? Is it reversible by eating some red meat or watching rambo?

I would think fishing would be manly but where does fly fishing stand? Surely all that swishing and fucking about is classic soyboyism? May as well be doing rhythmic gymnastics. Does eating a fish caught when fly fishing negate the method of fishing used?

So many questions, why didn't they teach me this in school!?

Why It's Almost Impossible to Run a Two-Hour Marathon

oritteropo says...

You mean apart from the explanation that the speed required to run a marathon is close to a flat-out sprint for most people, and that the maximum speed that you can sustain over two hours depends on the three factors that they explained in the video? It was discussed around 2:10 in the vid.

The handful of people have physiology that gives them unusually high oxygen uptake, lactate thresholds, and running efficiency.

It's slightly clickbaity because Nike... and despite serious cheating their attempt on the sub-2 hour marathon to sell shoes failed by 26 seconds.

p.s. The Grauniad had an article on what the rest of us can learn from these elite runners https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/06/secrets-two-hour-marathon-men-alter-running

dannym3141 said:

At no point in the video was there an explanation that came close to answering why it is almost impossible to run a two hour marathon. Or why only a handful of people could ever come close to it.

In fact, a lot of parts seem like they were created in a rush. At one point he says that mid 60s is "nowhere near" 70 or 80. When the average is 40? Is the scale logarithmic? If so it wasn't mentioned.

I'm very grateful for the information i did learn in the video, it was a nice little bit of info about running and runners. But it fell far short of investigating the 2 hour mile or answering the questions it posed. I wish videosift will not become a home for clickbait.

Why I Left the Left

MilkmanDan says...

I agree with all of that, and there definitely are reasonable limits to completely "free" speech -- like the fire in a crowded theater staple example.

"Harm" seems like a good place to start when defining those limits. It works in the "fire in a theater" base case really well; by making that out of bounds you avoid trample / stampede injuries.

But what about "trauma or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual", as you suggest? I'd agree that cases like that can exist. But to me, the question then becomes "how easily can you avoid those words?"

Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something you see/hear on TV? Very easily solved -- change the channel. Publish "trigger warnings" recommending like-minded individuals also avoid that channel/program/whatever if you like; people who do not agree can also easily avoid those.


Offended / "harmed" (perhaps genuinely) by something your professor said in a University? A bit harder to avoid. Someone in that situation can drop the class and try to take it with a different professor (which may not be possible), avoid taking the class entirely (although it may be a requirement for graduation), or contemplate moving to a different university (which is likely an uneconomical overreaction).

There are arguably better options available for such a person. I'd encourage them to reflect on the phrase "choose your battles wisely", and decide if this particular "harm" (giving all benefit of the doubt that it does actually exist) is worth escalating.


Offended / "harmed" by something your boss says at work? "Choose your battles" still applies, but perhaps also consider asking people who have had a job and who have had to work for a living for advice. When (trigger warning) 99.9% of them say something like "welcome to the real world", maybe -- just maybe -- it is time to look within and re-evaluate your own offense / "harm" threshold.

dubious said:

There are some valid points here, but I think there are multiple interpretations to these issues and it's not so clear cut.
...{snip}
It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense.
{snip}

Human migration, population, empires & events through time

MilkmanDan says...

Awesome.

I would have liked to see it with a somewhat longer timescale (maybe 10 minutes for 1AD - now) and a lower threshold on what qualifies as a "significant event". But, this format is still very cool.

Police Murder Oklahoma Man Terence Crutcher *Graphic Death*

newtboy says...

Very few people want more dead cops, we want fewer dead citizens at the hands of the cops.....WAY fewer.
That said, turnabout is fair play, and in a citizen VS cop death, it's 25 times more likely that the cop kills the citizen than vice versa. Until that statistic is reversed, cops have no reasonable complaint to make.
If any armed citizen can be considered a threat that may be killed for no other reason, what makes cops any different? They are not only all armed, but also aggressive, confrontational, and have proven to be deadly. Any citizen should have the same rights to self defense against them, with a LOWER threshold of threat required, after all, citizens don't have training, backup, bulletproof vests, or prosecutors on their side.

TangledThorns said:

The anti-cop rhetoric will lead to more of them being assassinated like we saw earlier this Summer. BLM dont care about dead cops, do they?

>250000000 Gal. Of Radioactive Water In Fl. Drinking Water

bcglorf says...

Important to have an actual measure of radioactivity. There's a pretty wide spread between banana level and chernobyl level.

I haven't been able to find a number for this exact plant, but the same process in Idaho listed here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734242X05800217

This article states the highest radioactivity concentration from at 1780 Bq/kg primarily from Radon.

For reference, the potassium in Bananas makes them radioactive with a concentration of 82 Bq/Kg. So from that perspective, it's 20 times more radioactive than that same amount of Banana pulp.

I'm not sure how to directly translate, but the American standard for Radon in basements is set as being lower than 150 Bq/m^3. So your typical basement already is deemed acceptable when every 10 m^3 of basement air holds as much radioactive radon as a kg of the waste being discussed. The acceptable basement standard unquestionably takes up a much larger space, but it's mass would drastically less. I'm not an expert, but from that it almost sounds like a coin toss to whether breathing air at the highest threshold or drinking this stuff undiluted is worse for you in the long haul.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon