As a few other people have mentioned, I find R to be the easiest tool for this job, specifically the forecast package [0]. I had to use this package for an applied econometrics course in college a few years ago, and I have been using it ever since. I find the syntax to be more straightforward than comparable libraries in Python. I also assume that this library (and other libraries in R) offer higher quality models and results than their counterparts in Python, but this is just an assumption.
McMaster-Carr is your friend here. I used it use it a lot for robotics club in high school. It has a clear interface that makes it easy to find the exact parts you need
Does this not imply that they are satisfied with their work for largely social, extrinsic reasons (as opposed to intrinsic ones)? Cal seems to argue that people can only be most satisfied if they are better than everyone else at some niche task. I wonder how this is any different than winning at the "rat race" that so many people seem to harp against? Is Cal then in support of the "rat race" ?
Even outside of work, don't you find it satisfying to do something you're really good at? A dumb example: I love skiing, and the better I get at it, the more fun I have doing it. It's not because I enjoy showing up the people around me -- using my skills just becomes more enjoyable the better I get.
From the linked article: The idea for a ship made of ice impressed the United States and Canada enough that a 60-foot (18 m)-long, 1,000-ton ship was built in one month on Patricia Lake in the Canadian Rockies.
Not joking. I like the dream big, what can I say :)
More specifically, imagine ships sailing around the Arctic circle just before the water freezes in winter, dropping sawdust (or newspaper for "super Pykrete") in their wake.
Since sawdust comes from trees, it's sequestered carbon. Once you put it in the water, it's not going to burn down and release its carbon like a tree in Australia or California might.
Since it floats, it should stay near the top of the water until the water freezes. Pack ice with sawdust frozen in it will last longer and reflect the sun's light back for a longer period of the year. There's a risk of the albedo being affected negatively--perhaps using light-colored wood for the sawdust would help with this.
Hopefully, even after the Pykrete melted, the sawdust would stay in the ocean near the surface, and re-freeze next year so you get Pykrete every year. (A potential downside here is that the sawdust could be difficult to remove if we ever realized this plan was backfiring somehow. Maybe we'd prefer some sort of sawdust which eventually sinks for that reason.)
Another idea is to bioengineer some kind of organism which reproduces in the Arctic ocean and changes the consistency of the water so that when it freezes it behaves more like Pykrete. Perhaps some kind of algal bloom (apparently you can trigger algal blooms by seeding water with iron?) To be safe, before releasing this organism into the environment, we could bioengineer some other organism which feeds on this and nothing else, so we have a way to reverse the experiment if it goes wrong.
Hey, I don't think it is much more harebrained than other geoengineering ideas I have seen floated :)
That's fair, but why stop there? The example that comes to mind is "Courier 12pt is the only font ever for screenplays". It's required to convey a screenplay, to my mind, like using Fraktur is required in the math space.
Despite what it may seem like, I'm really not trying to mis-parse the reasons here, I'm honestly trying to figure out where the line is, and why it's there.
> why stop there? The example that comes to mind is "Courier 12pt is the only font ever for screenplays". It's required to convey a screenplay, to my mind, like using Fraktur is required in the math space.
The screenplay is still being written in letters. Mathematical ℝ is more accurately thought of as an ideogram than a letter. If you were to write "let r be a member of ℝ", the "ℝ" would be structurally parallel to the full word "member", not to the "r" within it.
Courier for screenplays is a choice you make at the document level; blackboard bold for mathematical entities is not. ℝ is always ℝ no matter what styles apply to your document.
I really don't know, but my guess would be that in mathematics particular symbols denote particular meanings depending on the shape of / decorations on the character. Big g is different from little g which is different from bold g which is different from italic g which is different from Fraktur g. Because Fraktur g is different in meaning from just g, Fraktur gets a spot in the Unicode specs. Courier, while it is standard for screenplays, does not affect the meaning of the text of the screenplay as opposed to the use of another font.
Historically, a few were included in the Letterlike Symbols block¹ because they were present in some pre-Unicode character set. Much later it was argued that since a few were present, they all should be present.
Also note that these selective ones were part of the basic multilingual plane, where space was always a bit at a premium. They were assigned before Unicode expanded to have 17 complete 16-bit planes and space stopped being a problem.
You mix the Fraktur and Roman letters in the same mathematical manuscript, the way you mix Greek and Roman letters in the same mathematical manuscript.
Fractur is more than a font difference as it has a few ligatures (e.g. tz) that are not found in the Roman alphabet as used in modern German (ß is the only one that made the transition). And these “ligatures” aren’t really true ligatures in the sense of, say, the “fi” ligature in some fonts; they are glyphs that are close to being fully fledged letters, as, say, ö, which is an accented (umlautened) letter in Germany is a fully-fledged letter in Swedish, or how W became a freestanding letter in English.
The introduction of the Fraktur font introduces different meaning. 'R' in Fraktur would mean something different than R in another font in the same text.
I think you could argue the same for typewriter (monospace serif) fonts. Plenty of texts use them to denote the name of a variable or function in-line, much as we would use backticks to talk about `leftPad` here.
This is actually what started me down this path a while ago. I had to do a full text search feature for some text of questionable sources, and some users had taken to using the full width characters for emphasis (I think, they clearly had rules in their head for whey they'd use it, but I didn't know what the rules were). There are libraries that can handle the official Unicode normalization rules, but users don't exactly always pay attention to the official rules, so I get to start finding all sorts of weird little corners of Unicode.
Though, as I understand it, the full-width characters are there not for any modern use cases, but for historical reasons having to deal with older character sets.
I don't think there's much call for fullwidth Latin characters for that purpose. Ordinary use means typing with whatever your input method gives you. This is generally not fullwidth characters.
A clean grid would be desirable in formal use, but formal use means trying to avoid Latin characters as much as possible. It's generally possible. Plaques and the like are much more likely to say e.g. 二〇二〇年 than to say 2020年.
Grids are not just for formal use, they're useful any time you want to have aligned text, e.g. if you want to write a markdown table mixing Latin and CJK characters.
And I doubt you'd want to eliminate all formal uses of Latin characters. E.g. a plaque about a person would likely want to use their preferred name, which might be in Latin characters.
I think the full adoption of different alphabet styles as independent unicode glyphs is, overall, a conceptual mistake.
But, note that the identical process, much earlier, is how we got separate capital and lowercase forms. Writing systems never do that when they're developed.
Spacing was used for emphasis in blackletter, and consequently persisted in roman in German even after other means (e.g. italics) became common in other languages. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperrsatz
Nicotine is also an acetylcholinergic stimulant, meaning it aids in the quickness of thought [0]. By removing this from your stack you probably depressed your acetylcholine for a while, making you less able to think clearly.
It might also be the lack of breaks too, but who knows.
The mental clarity comes from adrenaline. When you fast your body slowly uses up its glycogen store and releases adrenaline to compensate. Presumably it does so in order to keep you active / motivated enough to go look for food to refill your glycogen stores. It is this adrenaline that gives you the mental clarity and causes you to have trouble sleeping when on a fast: fasting is essentially natural adderall.
On top of this, once you use up all your glycogen, your body enters a period of autophagy which causes disfunctioning cells and protein fragments to become broken down and reused. This causes your body to function more efficiently, including your brain.
There is the real issue of people holding onto illiquid assets which are difficult to monetize. E.g, the phrase "land rich, cash poor" comes to mind. Selling off small portions of land, or renting out a bedroom at a time, are difficult for logistical or regulatory reasons.
Not that I disagree with your sentiment. Just, there are non-trivial problems w.r.t. taxing wealth, as opposed to taxing income (which is probably already being paid in fungible, liquid, dollar bills).
The problem here is that when an "investor" "earns" a rate of return due to capital gains, we ought to recognize that these gains are not due to capital performing useful work (e.g., capital used to found a business) but are the result of speculation. Whether the speculation is long-term or short-term is immaterial. Because of this, aside from the company's IPO, stock market "investment" ought to be discouraged in favor of useful investment. Therefore I see no reason to tax capital gains at a rate lesser than that of income.
[0] https://github.com/robjhyndman/forecast