jsmcgd

Glorious. I've been waiting for this a long time.

For people who don't have an EE background, like myself, it would be great if for each animation you could add a small explanation for the layman. Looks very cool.

> It’s true that birth rates must eventually flatten out and become sigmoid

All positive growth eventually flattens out and becomes sigmoid, but a lot of phenomena experience negative growth and nose dive. No gentle curve, but a hard kink and perfect flat line at zero. Forever. I think it would be a stretch to categorize that pattern as sigmoid. Predicting a sigmoid pattern for negative growth implies some sort of a soft landing (depending on your definition of soft).

We can think of many populations that are no longer with us. So just a caution about over applying this reasoning in the negative case.

People put up with what they have to put up with. Many millions of people have lived and suffered under totalitarian regimes with basically zero options to do anything about it. I think that's where we're headed and by the time a sufficient amount of people realise how bad their situation is, the moment to do anything about it will have long since passed. There will be no cavalry riding to the rescue this time.

Instead of discounting some of the results, can we alternate the value of the coin each toss? So on the first flip, heads is 0 and tails is 1, then on the next flip, heads is 1 and tails is 0.

Humanoid robot workers are going to have a massive impact on industries like this. 'cheap labor' will no longer be isolated to certain regions.

I feel I've seen this movie before.

I think that this proves that dividing by zero produces the set of all numbers, which is what it looks like to me when you graph this problem (y=1/x) using increasingly small positive and negative values for x. Smaller positive x values tend to positive infinity, smaller negative x values tend to negative infinity. When the x value reaches zero you have a vertical line from positive to negative infinity. ie dividing by zero corresponds to all numbers. That's how it appears to me. So 0/0=2 and it equals 3 etc. I admit this doesn't seem that useful.

I'm not so sure that the Dark Triad model is that useful. Reading about narcissistic personality disorder and anti social personality disorder will probably yield a better understanding of these cluster B types. Both are low in empathy and high in selfish behaviour, but they have very different aims and produce very different results. The narcissist main goal is to acquire narcissistic supply and is willing to feast on those closest to them to get it. Psychopaths main goal can be sex, money, power, control and they usually do not care at all for the admiration and opinions of others (with the obvious exception of narcissistic psychopaths).

Thoughts?

Can anyone comment on the design of the cell, specifically why it is long and thin, which would work against the square cube law. Is a large surface to volume chosen for thermal reasons?

Very cool. Would love to GoldenEye 007

Why do the debate organisers tolerate this? If the debate is X versus Y, why allow someone to say we should really be discussing Z? Imagine this in any other competitive arena like sport where during a match some team starts playing another sport entirely. There's nothing wrong with debating critical theory but not if that's not what's being debated. It should be an automatic fail, just as it would be if you're supposed to debating in a certain language and you refuse to do so. This just seems like deliberate sabotage/propaganda masquerading as sincere communication. As much fault lies with the organisers as with those who wish to deliberately pervert the debate.

I wonder if something similar might explain the recent aggressive behaviour of orcas.