To add to this, shamelessly self-promoting, Notebooker (https://github.com/man-group/notebooker) is a neat way of scheduling your Jupyter notebooks as parametrisable reports whose results are presented in a little web GUI (either as static HTML, PDF, or as reveal.js slideshow renders)
Alternative data is non-financial data which can be tied to various securities.
Financial data, for example, would be EUR USD spot prices. Non-financial data (i.e. "alternative data") could be healthcare reports which you could theoretically couple to e.g. pharma stocks.
MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson[1], wrote a tell-all autobiography in which he described an HR relationship between the city banks and MI6 whereby officers were 'retired' into city jobs with few questions about the gaps in their CVs. In return the bankers were given some intelligence tidbits as quid pro quo.
I should point out his departure from MI6 was acrimonious, so he's not an entirely neutral source, but interesting nonetheless.
I have used jupytext (https://github.com/mwouts/jupytext) for this and it seems to work great - it outputs a separate .py file which is easily diff-able.
* They steal the address book of any user who installs their app, collecting private information of people who have given no such consent
* They then proceed to create shadow profiles of all those people that haven't registered, creating the illusion that more people are on LinkedIn than really are (not sure if they still do this)
* They then start spamming all those contacts with multiple emails per day, for several days, asking them to register with LinkedIn. There is no "fuck off and stop emailing me" button, the only way to make it stop is to register for an account
I've blacklisted linkedin.com in my mailservers for this reason. And I would agree with the GP that they are scum and that working there lowers my opinion of a person.
I would assume it is related to their widespread use of dark UI patterns and general attempts to get your to share e-mail-addresses of everyone you've ever communicated with. Constant badgering with new types of notification emails and generally strange user-hostility.
I use the site but I'm deeply skeptical of the way their business tactics appear in my interactions with the site.
Edit: I would probably meet them for an interview to get a feeling for the company and team, but as a company they start on the minus side for me.
I don't know are they really scum, but also for me the platform is mostly clueless headhunter bots offering Ruby positions even without reading my CV. Ok, I know it's nice that we have headhunters banging our doors, but when you like to do things properly yourself, you kind of expect the same from the headhunters.
This has been the differentiator between Netflix and Amazon Prime - very welcome news indeed. I do wonder how limited the number of allowed downloads will be, though...
Well, crap, you had the same thing when RedHat 7 was new. new RedHat 6 installs that went online were getting pwned in just a few minutes. The exploit scripts were open source even then.
Not sure I agree with the terminology of the article (fast rather than quickest accelerating), but I thought this quote was special:
> Speeds like this offer more Gs than Earth, so the rate of acceleration is faster than falling. It can feel difficult to support your head and shoulders if you don’t lean back on the headrest.
"A hard slap on the face may impose hundreds of g-s locally"
"Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-G_training
from the paper(o) in citation 3 from the linked wiki article(i):
> The terms "eyeballs in" "eyeballs out," and "eyeballs down" correspond
to acceleration fields AX, -Ax, and AN, respectively, where AX, -Ax,
and AN refer to the direction of acceleration forces measured in the
conventional airplane body-axis coordinate system.
> AN acceleration factor, ratio of acceleration force to weight,
positive when directed upward along spinal axis (i.e., from
seat to head )
> AX acceleration factor, ratio of acceleration force to weight_
positive when directed forward transverse to spinal axis
(i.e., from back to chest)
At 2.6-sh second mark your car accelerates with more than 9.8m/s^2 to get to 60.
But even lower accelerations will glue you to the seat because gravity acceleration affects every part of your body. Where as the car grabs you by the butt and yanks you forward.
So - I think he has probably some vague idea of Newtonian physics but just didn't manage to produce coherent sentence.
> But even lower accelerations will glue you to the seat because gravity acceleration affects every part of your body. Where as the car grabs you by the butt and yanks you forward.
The feeling of weight we associate with gravity is not distinguishable from elevator-style or car-style acceleration (not counting vibrations; or tiny gradients in the field). You don't feel gravity gluing you to the ground, you feel the ground continuously shoving you skyward to stop the free fall.
I think this is intuitively wrong for a vehicle with a gear wheel locked to geared track: the gears push against each other and acceleration would be possible even in a zero g environment. Now, cars don't have gear wheels, but I assume the same principle applies.
No, it's at least mostly correct. High school friction says
F = mu * W
Where F is the output force, mu is the coefficient of friction, and W is the normal force (typically equal to the weight).
If it's failed you, it's failed in failing to mention that the tire-road interface can have a coefficient of friction greater than one, and in failing to mention that the normal force can be increased with aerodynamic downforce.
Because the coefficient of friction could be greater than 1. And the "sticking" force is proportional to the tire area. And the air pushes you down while you move.
As long as the torque is lower than friction you should be fine.
But downforce isn't appreciable until over 50mph (80kph), short of having stupidly oversized wings (which would drastically slow your acceleration) or active downforce (fans etc).
This is actually why a lot of expensive sports cars have 0-60 times of 2.9 seconds. Unless you design specifically for it, it's difficult to generate much downforce at low speeds.
Related: if you've ever wondered why some drag cars (e.g. Funny cars) have short exhaust pipes angled up and back, now you know.
Imagine the tires were velcro'd to the ground. Or that they had giant spikes stabbing down for traction. Clearly you could go over 1g with that, right?
The same kind of thing (not literally, but analogously) is already happening at the atomic level, giving the tires a coefficient of friction of more than 1.
Indeed. My weak Google-fu indicates that the coefficient of friction of tyres against a dry road surface is something like 0.9, so there must be some improvement in tyre technology here just to make the thing go without creating a thick black smelly line on the road.
A car doesn't drag along the road. The tyres are in relatively static contact (unless you're drifting etc.). Static and dynamic friction are quite different.
As an aside: Spinning-rust hard drives are rated in the hundreds of Gs. While the earth only pulls with 1G, if you drop the drive onto a hard surface, the sudden stop is an acceleration of hundreds of Gs, due to the very short time frame.
Acceleration of more than 1g is probably not possible for 0-60; there isn't much of that speed range that would allow for downforce (downforce would only start have a tangible effect after approximately 50mph (80kph)), and there is no other appreciable way for the car to generate more friction with the road that doesn't scale with vehicle mass.
I suspect what the OP was trying to get at is the vector addition of gravity plus the forward acceleration of the car means that the apparent scalar force feels substantially higher than normal (i.e. 1g downwards); it's just poorly worded.
No they actually mean what they write - 1g gives you 0-60 in 60*1609/3600/9.81 = 2.73 seconds. The way to get that friction is probably to use a particular combination of tires and road. It's equivalent to standing still on a 45 degree slope -- not impossible, but definitely a risk of slipping there.
With rear-wheel drive, acceleration transfers most of the vehicle weight to the rear wheels. That's why funny cars do wheelies. That doesn't work so well for front-wheel drive, so those vehicles can't accelerate as quickly as rear-wheel drive vehicles. With four-wheel drive, weight transfer cuts both ways, but more rubber on the road helps, for sure. Low center of gravity helps too, I think.
With wheels on the bottom of the car acceleration transfers weight to the rear axle. The forward forces on the car body are below the CG so produce a net rearward tilting torque.
None of those people need to go to the Ecuadorian embassy for any reason other than to see Assange. It stands to reason that the meeting was there because he is there.
