...Maybe? It would absolutely annihilate at something like chess, or Go. I have a hard time imaging a good use case for having it actually run a video game, but I'm guessing few people working on early traditional computers could've envisioned any of the delightful diversions we now take as a given. Probably when I'm 80 kids will be playing quantum Minecraft in a layered omniverse of worlds, where removing a block in one world has consequences in nearby dimensions, with chaos theory realistically modeled and incorporated.

Some complex tasks a QC would absolutely rock at however. Feed it a long list of employees, hours of availability, and coverage requirements, and it should spit out a 100% optimum schedule immediately. Air traffic controllers (particularly at large hub airports) would likely find it helpful in coordinating flight plans. Logistics for manufacturing, shipping, etc. The downside is that encryption will likely be utterly fucked for a while, as a quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits could try all possible options at once. So it'll be interesting, but we're still 10+ years from any sort of commercial products, and they'll be like the computers of the 60s: huge and expensive, big iron for custom purposes. Or at least that's my semi-informed guess, I ain't no technoprophet.

Someone who really wants to get involved in bleeding-edge tech would do well to dive into this field. Writing the algorithms needed to run a task on a QC requires a completely different mindset than programming a traditional computer. I don't think people with years of experience with current programming methodologies would adapt well. At best they'd be nearly starting from scratch, at worst they'd have to work to un-learn what they already know.

"there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership."

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding white supremacist killings and violence, and classing right/left and tada the left is less violent is something I don't agree on.

Now I don't say that to disagree with any particular fact you present, I just reject the methodology of creating 2 categories(left/right) and lumping everyone into one or the other and drawing conclusions. I think it oversimplifies things to the point of being a problem of it's own. It makes it easy to be apathetic(clearly the problem is the 'other' guys) and even dehumanizing("they" are clearly evil or in bed with evil).

The two camps thing is way too easy to get pulled into(I'm imperfect staying out of it too), but it just ends in horrible divisive garbage like refusing to vote Democrat because they are "left" and antifa is left, so can't promote them...

the "good cop v. bad cop" argument is always a red herring. the problem with police isn't what percent is good or what percent is bad. the management and oversight is broken from the top down and nothing is going to change without policy, management, and motivational changes first. the system is set up so good cops are incentivized to be bad cops and bad cops largely thrive. bigotry, violence, corruption, etc, is built into the whole methodology of policing in the US.

I'm not suggesting you do it for your own benefit, but rather to see if the methodology in the study works, as I figured this would be much more productive than splitting hairs about the study details :-)

I think you may have also misunderstood the methodology, as it doesn't require non-exercise, it just says it doesn't play an important part of the weight loss. If you were to try this for a few weeks, you could still exercise, and you should still see your results mirror those of the study.

There's also nothing restrictive about it, you can eat any cuisine you want, it's just a matter of replacing a couple of ingredients to minimize the processed ingredients and animal foods.

E.g. beef burrito turns into a bean burrito. All the flavours are still there :-)

Yeah, the bad thing about the entire situation is it seems the facts vary wildly depending on who you go with. I guess just like any statistic analysis with such a charged subject, people probably alter the methodology of getting the information to support their viewpoint. I found super low stats and higher ones, so I tried to go with the ones that seemed to have the least reason to alter the stats. Maybe they are wrong, I can't say.

Same for Dr. Ford, I can only go off my personal take on it. She seemed credible until I read the letter from her Ex, but maybe he lied or was a plant by the Republicans. I certainly can't go by her polygraph since I agree with everyone so far that they are pretty much junk science as you said. I'm torn, but like I mentioned, I am still leaning towards her account being false. I might be totally wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

The worst thing is that no one here really won except Kavanaugh. The Republicans are going to take a hit in years of coming elections, the Democrats are stuck with a conservative majority court, Dr. Ford is going to be praised or vilified depending on individual opinion, and we as a nation look like we are ready to basically go to war with one another over our political split. We look dumber than ever to the rest of the world and I don't see a quick resolution in sight.

It's far more honest and honorable that outright stealing a nomination, neglecting their constitutional obligations for pure partisan gains, degrading and abusing our system of government. Wanting a full vetting of a lifetime appointment to the highest court is the norm, making these appointments pure political spectacle and obstructing procedure is 100% the methodology of Republicans....you're just pissed the Democrats are finally learning to play the game republicans have been playing for decades. I can only hope they continue that MO when the Democrats seize congress next month.

Republicans are now insisting on an FBI investigation or they'll vote no. We will have a new justice, but it may not be Kavanaugh....it might not be a right winger.

I believe there's a question about who to believe. I believe that question disqualifies the nominee. Justices should be above reproach and their morality unquestionable, he fails on both counts. If you have just a reasonable doubt about his innocence, and no reasonable person wouldn't at this point, that's enough to disqualify any nominee.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Those professions you mentioned require extensive knowledge of multiple disciplines and an ability to interact with other professionals, not a singular ability to preform one singular act. The criteria are varied and there is no one way to determine future performance based on any single test of abilities. Edit : Temperment, perceived social standing, manners, vocabulary, intelligence, education across the board, etc all matter in those professions, but not in basketball.

Yep, agreed, just pointing out that sports are not immune.

Those people are deluded. We don't live in a vacuum. People consider race, if only subconsciously, pretending we don't is just dishonest, and more often than not just an excuse to discriminate against others, if only by ignoring the extra obstacles they overcome to be equal.

MY policy would examine a person's entire situation, financial, local, familial, social, educational, employment, extra curricular activities, etc. and take it all into account when determining what kind of hard working student to admit. If admissions tests included all those and more in their decision, not just a single biased test result, race could be excluded unless diversity is required. Because diversity is required, both morally and legally, it would be good to start there and examine the results, then maybe race/gender could still be ignored, maybe not. We don't do that, so we can't know, but we do know the tests we use like SAT tests are biased and don't measure achievement, only specific wrote knowledge, which is a piss poor measure of a student's potential.

I think I understand your position, I do think it's important to not swing the pendulum of injustice harder in the other direction and instead work to stop it in the middle, I just disagree with your theories, your methodology, and I think you ignore many major factors and the desired/required result in order to stand immovable in your position.

If your description of the events and reporting are accurate, that's awful.

I must note, however, there is a method used by the right in the U.S. where they claim something outrageous is being ignored by the left, or worse, hidden. Any investigation into those claims has consistently shown that 1) they usually exaggerate the outrageousness of what happened or leave out salient facts that make something normal seem nefarious and 2) completely ignore that it was covered by non right wing news outlets, just wasn't focused on through red colored glasses enough to satisfy them.

I'm not accusing you of doing that, I don't know enough to have an opinion in this case or about Canadian media, I'm just saying that the methodology, used here in the U.S. constantly, has made me fairly suspicious of similar claims like the one you've made above.

As promised, the most promising results when polling google scholar:

"Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample"

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_Bailey2/publication/12572213_Genetics_and_Environmental_Influences_on_Sexual_Orientation_and_Its_Correlates_in_
an_Australian_Twin_Sample/links/0deec518bc0435c0cd000000.pdf

Probably one of the better studies, it breaks down orientation to a scale versus straight binary, though the results are then statistical correlations and my stats classes are too long ago for me to work that back into something resembling my claims above.

"Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample
of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs"
http://ioa126.medsch.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/47.pdf

19 identical twins in the study with at least one twin with non-hetro orientation, within those 19 pairs, 6 showed concordance. So 6 of 19 identical twins sharing orientation, 13 of 19 not. This supports my statement above that in studies identical twins more often than not don't share homosexual orientation. This study also lists the statistical correlation of this result as 0.68, the previous studies statistical correlation was lower at 0.51(1.0 would be perfect correlation). If I'm reading the statistics remotely right, the above study then is similarly in keeping with my statement.

"Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets"
http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

Smaller sample size and different polling methodology, specifically sought out respondents of non hetro orientation. Shows a higher correlation, 25 of 38 identical twins being concordant. That's 66% concordance so opposite of my claim that more often than not they are discordant.


Running out of time here to post results. If you keep digging though it's more of the same, identical twins don't come close to showing 100% correlation, highest study of the samples I've pulled is 66%, and it's by far the highest. This is in contrast to race and gender, where you fully expect 100/100 identical twins to match.

Back when she started them, perhaps, but it still seems odd to me for HER to perpetuate the separate and unequal methodology that had worked so hard against her....different times....and I'm weird.

Today, as the article mentioned, there's not really good reason besides "girl power-female empowerment", which I find as distasteful as the idea of male only "boy power" races, which don't exist as far as I see outside of Iran.
Conversely, if little girls might need girl only racing to feel comfortable, why can't little boys feel the same and so get boy only races? Being ridiculed by girls for being a slow or odd runner hurts boys the same as the reverse hurts girls, no?
Most marathon finishers are women, they've proven they can and will run with men anywhere, but still today often men can't run with them.

Why does no one ever seem to want the pendulum of inequality to stop in the middle?

Alrighty, so when challenged with an obvious flaw in your original post (ie. posting in a video about how the alt right trolls while using the exact same methodology), you change up the terms on engagement rather than answer the original criticism...

1. Short quip about how said boxed people are insane.
2. Go on about why said boxed people are mentally deficient, then crap on about Trump.
3. Get in to a pedantic explanation about the 50% figure and whether or not it was entirely accurate.

None of which addresses my original criticism and further goes to show that you are doing exactly what this video is talking about.

I don't give a fuck about Trump or his supporters, and while I do agree there are likely some racists/crazy people in the mix, I theorise that they mostly voted for him because he was different. Which is neither here nor there, the video is a smug left winger pointing out what a bunch of pointy headed gits alt right trolls are and you prove that the left is equally capable of being smug, pointy headed and trollish gits... = \

I don't disagree with your discontent re: the parlous state of affairs in the US at the moment, and I have a great deal of sympathy for American's who don't want that orangutan representing them. But if you (collective left, not you personally) want to try and occupy a high ground and dismiss the alt right, you need to actually live up to the standards you use to castigate people like Bk33.

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

It sounds a lot like "tomatometer" methodology gives a result closer to a median than a mean. But both are useful, given both numbers you get an idea of the variability in scores, I'd love to see review aggregation sites express variability in some clear way.

For now, if you just want a site filtered by average, use Metacritic.

While I agree with the principal of the video, I find their methodology flawed.
It would be better to go outside of facebook/twitter/reddit altogether as these sites encourage echo-chambers as part of their functioanality.

I don't know why they didn't go thru the proper red tape to enter America legally. But then again, what does someone living on the streets and off the kindness of strangers in cities off the grid know about proper first world nation entry methodology?

I don't know what it feels like to struggle with illegal immigrantion, but I do know what my favorite cartoon illegal immigrant, Stitch, would say,

"Ohana means family, and family means never saying goodbye."

I consider Mexico part of our Ohana -- and some of those people are struggling to get here to meet their literal ohana. Maybe Amurica means fuck you, and fuck you means goodbye.

Anyway, I'm just an average American citizen that's doing alright in life, not perfect, but I certainly don't blame Mexicans for my problems... Idiots do though. Similar to how idiots take a few bible verses against homosexuality and weigh that sin as greater than all others, these other idiots similarly equate Mexican immigration as a higher, more serious issue than it actually is.

In psychology that's called "compensation", where you pretty much ignore your incompetence and inadequacies, and redirect your efforts into improving something else to put your mind at ease. This wall is compensation for America's actual problems.