In the german wikipedia edition 814 mSv/a is mentioned (based on the linked study) for Ramsar, Iran. To be fair, a comment has been added stating:
"Allerdings dürfte bei etwa 33.000 Einwohnern Ramsars die Kohortengröße von weit unter 5 % für die über 100 mSv/a Exponierten wahrscheinlich zu gering sein, um statistisch signifikante Gesundheitsfolgen festzustellen."
Translated:
The size of the measured cohort of 33.000 inhabitants of Ramsar of less than 5% for >100 mSv/a exposed participants is probably too small to allow to derive statistically significant health-related conclusions.
Nice article. For even more information regarding gravity assists (and related effects like the Oberth effect) I found these articles in my comfort zone between too much detail and too superficial:
Both SSH and SSL base on TLS. The leak in question has a problem
> during or after a TLS 1.3 handshake
Sure, openSSL is not SSH, but it is not unreasonable to assume this leak may affect web servers as well (e.g. by being based on the same underlying TLS implementation).
"SSH != SSL" is a bit short to invalidate the assumption of the OP. I'd not be so sure this problem does not affect "web server X".
We're working on an (at the moment manually curated, rule-based) AI devops solution, generating build definition(s) and deployment scripts automatically. Deployment may be docker based, single-instance test deployments, blue/green, hardware backed production deployments and anything above.
You're picking the environment you deem necessary and affordable, and our solution will automatically create appropriate build + deployment scripts for you. We promise no lock-in, generated scripts are downloadable and executable on-premises.
Our working MVP currently supports Java/Gradle based backends and angular / react based frontends. Supported databases are currently PostgreSQL. Supported cloud platforms are currently AWS, Azure to come next.
Roadmap:
* Azure support
* Google cloud support
* .net core backend support
Our own platform runs using our own product. We're searching for a select few alpha customers (lifetime free, incl. support).
If you're interested post a public comment here. No public details will be provided. The planned public alpha launch date will be around September 2020.
The article is a good read from a design perspective (how typefaces look and behave), from a history perspective (where do these conventions come from) and from an engineering perspective (how does this affect our users?)
A TLDR wouldn't hurt much. The article seems to be circling around students not qualified enough, but still considered qualified due to Covid-19 related circumstances ("Higher education today resembles a massive Ponzi scheme. Colleges desperately recruit ever more marginal students who stand little chance of graduating.")
Also, it seems to focus on non-diversity ("Elsewhere, campus diversocrats enjoyed similarly enviable mobility while the rest of the country was shutting down", "The frenzied desire to boost “diversity” creates the pretext for much of the bureaucratic bloat. Colleges admit so-called underrepresented minorities (URMs) with academic qualifications far below their white and Asian peers.")
So true, and in my point of view one of the, if not the, most relevant aspects of the fake news pandemic: journalists not strictly adhering to known and provable facts.
This opens a flank to bullshitters, and in the matter of bullshit they will outperform anyone else, since that's their ground.
In my view of a non-fake-news world, journalists would always (1) provide a link to independent sources where possible.
(1) if possible, i.e. when it doesn't endanger someones life.
TBH, >95% of the commentators here don't reach the education level of the editor of the article by far in terms of the specific domain, but still this doesn't stop them from criticizing it.
Not meant to be snarky, and in general imho it is good the be critical always - but this should include oneself. The latter part is often lacking, and the amount of lacking very often appears to be proportional to the lack of knowledge of the commentator.
> The latter part is often lacking, and the amount of lacking very often appears to be proportional to the lack of knowledge of the commentator.
Very good: how does your comment fare using that frame?
And since you commented under my comment, what parts of my comment do you agree with and what do you thing you can correct, and based on which sources? I've given mine.
Maybe i misunderstood your comment, if so I like to apologize.
In any case, would you please explain to me how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong. It appears to me as one of the most fundamental questions in physics. The wikipedia article does - from my PoV - a reasonably good try to explain the problem at hand in laymans terms. It touches the relevant aspects of the problem (no absolute time, time/space interdependency) and expands to a more speculative theory (thermal time hypothesis).
I will not at all claim to have even a basic understanding of the covered topics, despite being an avid reader of related bloggers and papers.
I just am astonished how people disregard work of others even without (basic) knowledge of the domain. Maybe I'm wrong, but noone in this thread even tried to show her/his accomplishments in the mentioned domain.
And thanks for replying without simply downvoting.
And please don't think i automatically included you in the perceived group not having "even a basic understanding o the topic". Maybe you have, but since this is even less recognizable than the merits of the wikipedia author it is - from an outside PoV - even less credible.
> how you consider the title "The problem of time" being wrong.
Because as far as I understand it is not commonly accepted name among the physicists for the issues that prevents them developing the "Theory of Everything"
It's just how only a few authors name their articles and books. The title would be OK if it would be a title of the article about the specific book, but not as a title for the "problem" of physics. Because, as far as I know, it's not commonly called as such among the physicists, and that's why even the very support for the whole wikipedia article is a reference to the Quanta article and not some physics textbook, and that is what then confuses readers who don't have "even a basic understanding of the covered topics."
Reducing all the issues about "TOE" to the "problem of time" is not correct, from the perspective of physics. It is probably "fun" for "philosophers" though.
