"They failed." is incorrect. For several decades the consensus was that they'd succeeded, with a few dissenting voices. It wasn't until Einstein came up with a theory that perfectly explained the precession of Mercury that it became obvious that the observations were bogus. That's the part which should make you cautious, both when believing other people's observations and when making observations yourself.
It's at least true that many people reported seeing it. I think that's the point of calling this a "cautionary tale".
At this late date I would expect most accounts to be written as if it was obvious all along that "Vulcan" wasn't real. It was announced as discovered at one point, so it was not at all obvious at the time.
Remnants of the Precursors resembles Stars!, but Stars! doesn't seem to much resemble Master of Orion 1 or 2. Seems to be convergent evolution. If I recall correctly, there were many similar 4X in space games at the time, and Master of Orion 1 didn't stand out much - it was Master of Orion II that was a big hit, relatively speaking (4X in space were/are a bit niche).
There's one bird on this mural from each of the 243 taxonomic families. That's why there are a lot of unfamiliar species: because taxonomic categories are usually very unbalanced, with a lot which contain only a handful of species, and a few which contain the majority.
The birds on the mural are life-size. The ostrich is about 7.5 feet / 2.3m tall.
There's one bird per taxonomic family. Eagles, Hawks, and Kites are all in a single family, so there's just one: a Black-and-white Hawk-eagle, in Mexico.
"We" here likely refers to Tim and his current coworkers who were present to see this, not every current and future employee of Microsoft / Github. Try not to think of any organization or institution as a person, but as lots of individual people, constantly joining and leaving the group.
Yeah, which is exactly why "We won't do something like this again" has about much value as Kubernetes would have value for HN.
Microsoft (and therefore GitHub) care about money. If decision A means they get more money than decision B, then they'll go with decision A. This is what you can trust about corporations.
Individuals (who constantly join and leave a corporation) can believe and say whatever they want, but ultimately the corporation as a being overrides it all, and tries it's best to leave shareholders better off, regardless of the consequences.
Decisions are made by people in the group, not by a notional single being "the corporation". It's individual people making decisions about whether to go for short-term profit or long-term sustainability. Hold them accountable, don't shift the blame onto a nonexistent entity.
The maximum IQ score anyone can get depends on the total number of people who have taken IQ tests so far. Even if every single person alive today took an IQ test (which is absurd in itself), the maximum IQ achievable would be between 190-197. In practice, I'd guess the maximum is somewhere between 170 and 185 (millions to tens of millions of IQ test results which were recorded).
Even then, you need special tests to distinguish between anyone with IQ higher than about 160 - all those people get the same (perfect) score on regular IQ tests.
So: claiming to have an IQ of 276? Bullshit. The guy whose parents claimed he scored 210 on an IQ test? Also bullshit. To get 210, there would have to have been ~500 billion IQ test results recorded.
The statisticians have a bunch of tricks to transform the formulas into more-easily computable forms, e.g. calculate both the average and the standard deviation in a single pass through the data instead of one pass to calculate the average and a second to calculate the standard deviation. Converting the math in here to efficient code isn't very easy.
The two species share a lot of glue genes, and the properties of their silks differ due to other genes affecting things like the ratios of glue proteins in the silk. Those other genes evolved faster than the glue genes themselves.
The title is technically correct, though misleading.
Nowhere in the paper does it say that individual spiders are varying their silk composition in response to conditions. The selective expression of proteins is a difference between the two species studied, not between individuals within one species.
The title is technically correct: the two species share a lot of glue genes, and the properties of their silks differ due to other genes affecting things like the ratios of glue proteins in the silk, and those genes evolved faster than the glue genes themselves.
Correct, although I'm not sure if they proved that other genes were responsible for the variation, just that the glue genes were essentially the same between them.
reply