bainsfather

You have to shoot them in the head, just aft of the eyes. About a 1 inch diameter target. That always kills them.

But if you miss, either by poor shooting or because they bob their head just as you shoot, then they often run off and you never find them. I reckon I get >> 90% kill rate, but that still means a few get away and suffer from the wound.

I've been considering reading this book - can you tell me what I might get from it in addition to what I learned in undergraduate maths/physics courses?

I found these courses allowed me to do calculations (e.g. contour integrals, conformal transformations) that were useful but always felt like black magic. I don't have an intuitive feel for the subject. I am wondering if this book will help me with that?

2 years in prison, as I understand it.

I read the Quanta article because I am interested in optimisations for deep neural nets.

Am I right in concluding that your work doesn't apply to that area, as it is looking at a much 'easier' case?

None of our animals' waste is any hazard to you, unless you slip on it!

You are right that it can be done badly, as can many other things. I'd say you are actually arguing against badly regulated animal farming (especially since you mention the US), rather than animal farming per se.

I have learned something new today (re manure from dovecotes).

However, I think this is another example of something that is 'just too small to matter' in terms of feeding the world's population today. Often I see 'nice' stories about e.g. using human waste to fertilise fields, that quite frankly do not (usually) scale at all well. We (UK) use tractors to shovel and spread manure - 10s, 100s of tons of the stuff - a dovecote or 10 really isn't going to help, and certainly won't be economic.

It seems a bit like someone telling me I should use an abacus to increase my compute power - 'they were a good idea in the past, why aren't you using them now?'

A bit after halfway, following: "In this case, .. , and we have", I think you need a "-" sign rather than a "+" in your equation?

Thanks. I see it for sale for £4 second hand, so maybe I should buy it for the novelty value alone. I presume I shouldn't try to refresh my java from it though.

Is it still good? I see it was published in 1997.

I like the style of these books, and might read this one - I'm just worried that Java has changed quite a bit since then. Is it still, say, 90% OK?

Yes, this is true.

If we knew that this pandemic came from a lab, that would have massive implications for how tightly we control this type of lab research - both in terms of whether we do the gof research, and also in how we run and regulate the labs. Surely you can imagine the reaction if, hypothetically, the world knew that this coronavirus was made in a lab and then escaped?

I'm amazed that you think otherwise - it's one of the nice things about hn that I occasionally encounter views that are so different from my own.

Can anyone recommend a 'friendly' overview of the 'calculus approach'?

The paper linked in the article from 2003/2008 has been split up into 3 rather technical articles - I was hoping for something easier that just gave me a flavour of the method.

I bought myself a 2nd hand slide rule on uk ebay last year. Price was something like £5-£10 including postage, for a rather battered and 'cheap' example.

I really liked learning about it, seeing how it worked, etc. Such an ingenious idea!

So if nothing else, it might be worth putting them on ebay - there seems to be a market for them.

Thanks! And that is from the "Construction Project Manager’s Pocket Book (Routledge Pocket Books)"? Presumably it has been added to the 2nd edition, because I cannot find that passage in my (1st edition) copy.

(edit - yes it is from the 2nd edition, thanks for your help)

I did a text search of your reference [0] and it doesn't seem to contain information on bribery. (I searched for "bribe", and also "ethics" - which does exist but not in reference to bribery.)

Could you provide a(nother) reference to e.g. your 40% figure, as it is a topic that interests me? Thankyou.

Consider a different case ...

One can make a good case that Britain's guarantee to Poland in 1939 was done badly. Britain failed to convince Hitler that she was serious, and that invasion of Poland would lead to war.

We can agree that the 'blame' falls on Hitler. But one can also reflect on whether Britain's actions could have been better thought out, and maybe learn some lessons for the future.

In the case of Putin's Russia, NATO is dealing with a major nuclear power. Saying that Putin is at fault is fine. I very much dislike Putin. But we have to co-exist with Russia whether we like it or not. I am interested in reading some 'realpolitik' on this topic. In particular, I'd like to understand Putin's and Russia's motives, fears, ambitions, etc.