dstyrb

Japan's surrender had absolutely nothing to do with the bomb.

And why does everyone think that without Einstein we would somehow enter a 100 year long dark age?

1.5% inherent * 187% from pills = 2.8% risk of autism.

Risk of having started a course of antidepressants for absolutely no reason = ~0%

Articles with headlines like these seem manufactured to lead the statistically ignorant into bad decisions. Clickbait science.

I'm an experimental physicist who did an undergraduate before my PhD and had to fight tooth and nail for my grades and did all that petty nonsense like going to class and after school tutoring and such. I'm not a rockstar, but I'm not a joke either -- I would give myself a "B" rating -- I definitely don't struggle for fellowships, but I'm not Nobel material.

I know from the inside that _these_ actions are the most probable path to success. If some hot shot high school student reads his note, I can see them deciding that they are "brilliant mind" material and then start pursuing this course of action seriously. In my opinion that is a borderline surefire path to failure. College campus is _the_ place to learn physics: you learn physics from casual bar discussions about the fluid dynamics of beer, telling a pretty girl why stars twinkle and planets don't, explaining to stoners why cigarette smoke is blue off the cig and then grey when you exhale, pre-exam pizza binges, adding strobe settings to your dorm lights, and late night campus laser graffiti with your mates and professors. Not from lone wolfing down a textbook with a blackboard.

It's perfectly possible for him to convey his message without "ordinary", "childish", "noisy", "rudimentary", "tiny portions" etc. And if he's just putting together a guidebook for entertaining your interest in Physics, then that's cool. But saying this is the way to get a Nobel is ridiculous... hence my original comment about dripping sarcasm.

Also my original comment was just getting down voted (and someone asked for clarification) so I expounded.

And no, I got a ride through college.

Basically the entirety of paragraph 3...

"set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" --- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect

"very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. If you are more modest than that" --- I'm not sure if this is actual encouragement or a joke. But the following:

"finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program...

"More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'.

The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general:

"But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?"

Which is a bit humerus considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with:

"solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”"

If it isn't sarcasm, then I have no idea why the author has decided to be so acerbic in his notation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually mean to insult basically the 99% of physicists who don't show up in "Brilliant Mind"-esque movies.

edit: From his CV:

* Gymnasium-Beta, Dalton Lyceum, The Hague, 1964 * Physics and Mathematics, University of Utrecht * Kandidaatsexamen N1, 4 July 1966 * Doctoraal examen Theoretical Physics, 10 October 1969 * Promotie (PhD thesis) on the subject "Renormalization Procedure for Yang-Mills fields", 1 March 1972

i.e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.

I find it strange that no one in this discussion seems to notice the dripping sarcasm...

I wish there was a way to put the text in the middle of my screen.

I think this really depends on your definition of appealing. Machines are already capable of _mimicking the aspects of songs which are currently popular_. I highly doubt that a machine could, say, invent a new genre of music that had widespread appeal.

The usage of machines in music currently leads to a proliferation of basically glammed out pop rock with pitch perfect voices metronome timed beats and wildly predictable song anatomy. The author mentions that Sinatra's voice has been reconstructed and has released new hits... But isn't 90% of Sinatra's appeal the broken, manly _imperfection_ of his voice?

In short, I hypothesize that machines could adequately "fill the void--" ie. play your running music, play your driving music, give you some background tunes to study or code to. But to anyone that actually pays attention to music it will be wildly subpar. Imagine a machine putting off the same lyrical heat as Kendrick Lamar or Ghostface? How can a machine possibly get on a novel level like that when it's basic coding is necessarily to average the means?

Silent Disco?

I, for one, am glad they split that article into two pages; I was getting a bit intimidated by the length.

How esoterically meta.

It's a very interesting project and quite attractive.

However as others mentioned it would be useful to see some sort of scale for the dots, scale for the colors, and specifics on those numbers. For example, I have no idea what "Blue corresponds to levels below the W.H.O. yearly recommendations, light blue is below the W.H.O. daily recommendations etc." means... Does that mean "In one day at a Blue dot you will breathe in a whole year's worth of particulates, while at a light blue dot for one day you will breathe in one day's worth of particulates?"

As it stands, I will stick with aqicn.org for my Chinese pollution forecast simply because it has much more, more specific, information for me -- including intra-city maps. It would be more useful to me if there was perhaps a radio button where I could change between PM2.5 and NO2 for example.

It is very cool to see this on a worldwide scale though. And don't US embassies have public air quality data that you can scrape to fill out things like Africa? Or is that just US embassies in China...?

Anyways, thanks for your efforts.

It would fundamentally change the science case, not just slightly. You have E-ELT and GMT in the southern hemisphere. A major part of the TMT science case is its survey footprint in the north to augment these other 30-meter class projects.

Money is committed on the basis of time -- with the expectation that the telescope will be able to deliver the type of science that your institute wants to do -- so an institute doing astroseismology is probably not going to put in money to a spectroscopy project like 4most or weave.

Money is absolutely committed on the basis of expected performance. And part of TMT performance is its location.

I agree physically the telescope is not that specialized. But TMT the project _is_ that specialized.