He didn't use 20C as the temperature of space. He used the OP's example of comparing the radiative cooling effectiveness of a heat SOURCE at 90C (chosen to characterize a data center environment) and 20C (chosen to characterize the ISS/human habitable space craft).
I only looked at the study about the open/free font. Two things I noticed were that the experiment design seemed to use lists of words, instead of reading in sentences or paragraphs, and that the base performance of (for example the correct letter rate) the traditional fonts were also very high (basically already 100%).
It's possible that the test used does not generalize to other reading contexts and populations.
When I feel deeply cynical about the quality of our modern life, I imagine that one of the reasons it's so easy for us to "settle" for the "good enough" output of AI in certain areas, especially around corporate copywriting, art, and yes perhaps even code is that these areas already fundamentally suck.
I believe that good skillful writing, drawing, or coding, by a human who actually understands and believes in what they're doing can really elevate the merely "good" to excellent.
However, when I think about the reality of most corporate output, we're not talking about "good" as a baseline level that we are trying to elevate. We're usually talking about "just barely not crap" in the best case, to straight up garbage in maybe a more common case.
Everyone understands this, from the consumer to the "artist" (perhaps programmer), to the manager, to the business owner. And this is why using AI slop is so easy to embrace in so many areas. The human touch was previously being used in barely successful attempts to put a coat of paint over some obvious turds. They were barely succeeding anyways, the crap stunk through. May as well let AI pretend to try, and we'll keep trying until the wheels finally fall off.
We can't observe these ancient snakes or sharks actually living, so we can only make assumptions based on their morphology. And morphology certainly constraints and suggests behavior, and so we can make some assumptions here.
That being said if the question is "why have we not seen significant morphological changes" - there are a few ways to think about this.
First is that we would be blind to many types of morphological evolution. For example, if an isolated sub population of snakes or sharks started shrinking due to isolated environmental pressures, we would be unlikely to see this, but also if we fixate on the "largest anaconda", then we would filter out all "smaller snakes".
Second, the way we talk about "not evolving", especially for sharks is probably misleading. When we say sharks haven't changed, we mean to say that the shark body plan hasn't significantly changed. And this makes sense - they have a very efficient body plan for being a hunter in the see. We have "proof" of the suitable-ness since dolphins and other whales have converged onto a very similar body plan. Conversely, there are plenty of extinct sharks with body features that seem totally bizarre (https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/four-fossil-sharks-are-cool...).
Finally, especially in the context of "the largest" - the largest animals that can exist in a given environment is.... environmentally constrained, especially for land animals. The largest anaconda is likely near the largest sizes that the local environment to support, and so something larger appear is unlikely, without drastic environmental changes.
C&C RA (1996) and RA2 (2000) both had significant naval units. RA3 (2008) went.. maybe a little overboard with naval units as well. That said, all other C&C games (Tiberium and Generals) both avoided naval units.
Yeah, 9 patches for the original game, then the Battle.net Edition in 1999 (which added support for TCP/IP networking and Battle.net matchmaking), and at least one downloadable patch for that.
I totally get that it’s an understandable political strategy. I just think it’s in defensible as anything but a political strategy, and that it will ultimately make life worse for more people versus simply treating assets as assets, including homes. If homeowners do not wish their homes to be treated as assets, then they could simply forgo the right to profits, but I suspect they will not do that.
While I don’t disagree, I think it’s worth noting that the Netherlands has a pretty good level of social housing. Not perfect, but I think it’s 26% based on the stats link in the parent.
Also rent controls. Although these also tend to reward people who have been in the system longer (which _might_ be by design, but that’s just like my opinion)
Social housing and rent controls are not a substitute for basic tax fairness. Of course, as a political tactic, it’s a great way to distract from tilting the entire tax system toward those who already have the most rather than trying to at least try to achieve some sort of a level playing field.
I think in more general usage if you asked people what assets "taxing unrealized capital gains" would cover, you could get a basket if things like shares, real property, businesses, etc.
The article indicates that the Dutch government has decided to treat startups and real estate under the bucket "capital gains", and stuff under "capital growth".
So for an more informal standpoint, the title is a reasonable way to summarize what's happening to the layish person.
It depends on whether the ELAC is an LRU (line-replaceable unit, i.e. a box with ports that can be swapped at an airport) and whether a software update can be uploaded into a unit that is installed (not all aircraft have a "firmware update via cable or floppy", so to speak)
In this context, they feed timing updates to the GPS operators https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-N...
reply