I tried this years back, but found that the metabolic rate increase alone won't do the trick. The difference in calories burned is so small that it can be offset by eating a few bites more. And one will be more hungry.
The most effective way to lose weight is to reduce caloric intake. You don't need to burn calories that you don't consume. It is really easy to reduce daily caloric intake by, say, 500 kcal. But it is much harder to burn 500kcal extra each day.
Russian bombers, fighter jets, missiles launched from those Iislands can reach Hokkaido and/or Tokio much quicker than when launched from more northern islands, leaving less time for countermeasures. Same for ground troops.
Looks great and is certainly useful for a quick check. For finer discrimination a real graphical display will still be required though, e.g. for checking bonds, and geometries.
Most of the time it's impossible because even if we can connect from the head node to the compute nodes, we cannot open an X tunnel there. So at the moment what I do is copy the latest file to a filesystem on the head node and then run a lightweight X visualiser on the head node (Rasmol or equivalent is fine there).
We have fancy complicated visualisers and they are great, but I really hope the (often old) barebone ones that work over an SSH tunnel on a flaky VPN keep working for a very long time.
Yes, analog computing can be more efficient and faster. But there are reasons why analog was eclipsed by digital.
1. Flexibility. Reprogramming digital computation is easy and quick.
2. Robustness. One can mass-produce devices that operate in the digital domain and sell them as working as spec'd. But operate them in the analog domain, and you will work with a million snowflakes that all operate slightly differently, giving different computation results. And when temperature changes, the result of your analog computation will inevitably change, too. You can work around that by adding more circuitry, and partly also on the algorithmic end but it will cost efficiency and precision.
Matrix multiplication on an analog device is great, unless you want an exact and reproducible result.
on point 2 another way to put it is that digital computers take much much lower tolerance components than analog computers.
A digital computer transistor has to operate(assuming ttl logic) at around 5 volts and 2 volts the transistor behavior in between does not really matter.
The analog computer transistor has to operate to a high precision at all voltage ranges.
Go ahead and start pricing out high precision transistors and the environmental controls needed to keep them there and you will see why we use digital computers.
The history of the navy NTDS air defense system is interesting because they were in a position where they could have gone ether way. use known and understood analog computers or go with the unknown new tech, digital computers.
> we are now getting into a regime of computing where exact reproducibility is not necessary.
I think that is a myth. Predictable, reproducible and explainable outcomes are the holy grail of computing, in particular in AI.
If stochasticity is desired, there are methods to inject it, with precise control of the level of stochasticity and the distribution.
This level of control is absent in analog computing. Device mismatch introduces some randomness, but it cannot be controlled in practice. Instead of adapting the randomness to the algorithm, one ends up adapting the algorithm to the randomness.
Working with analog computers is a fascinating academic exercise. For practical applications, I doubt we’ll see it compete with digital computation anytime soon.
I said exact reproducibility. Every time you add numbers your neurons likely fire in slightly different ways, but the end result is what is reproducible and useful.
He's not totally correct because, like I said, the way we think of analog computers right now is likely not going to get us to where we need to be. Noise is a huge problem. Our own neurons do not seem to use continuous voltage, for example, and use pulse density coding, at least for some of their operation.
Isn't the restriction to availability in major cities contradicting the requirement of fully autonomous driving in "all" conditions? Driving in a major city with (mostly) intact infrastructure is much easier than e.g. driving in sand or mud.
I agree, but in my experience, recruiters and HR departments share total paranoia about giving feedback to applicants, most likely out of fear of being sued.
Sometimes (rarely) it's possible to obtain feedback from people you know at the place where you applied, but even then feedback is likely to be distorted and not tell the full story.
TL;DR There is no feedback when applying for jobs and most of us are flying blind.
You're absolutely right. I'm querying a novel to literary agents right now, and it's the same way. The official channels provide absolutely no feedback. That's exactly what's frustrating about it.
You need to look for feedback elsewhere. There's a risk of getting bad feedback if the person isn't actually involved with making decisions, but it's better than just talking to friends (or not talking to anyone at all). And if you're willing to iterate and experiment, you can figure out (at least indirectly) how good the feedback is by the results you achieve when you put it into practice.
I personally provide mentoring to junior members of my community (as a researcher in HPC) through conferences I attend. In my writing life, I look for feedback at writers conferences. I'm not sure what the equivalents would be in other parts of the job market, but something similar might help.
Feedback's tough. I sometimes sit on content committees for conferences. Sometimes for a given abstract my feedback would be along the lines of "Did you even try?" or "How many different events did you submit this generic abstract to?" But mostly it would be more along the lines of it's OK but there's a known person who is better plugged into this particular topic who also submitted and their abstract is sharper.
Conferences do often try to get new and more diverse speakers but you're still competing with people who do this sort of thing for a living. The bottom line is that a lot of feedback would be along the lines of "You were fine but someone else really grabbed us in one or more ways."
Feedback like "Did you even try" is just as useless as "You were fine but someone else was better." Why not simply state what's wrong with the abstract, and how it could be improved?
There is a lot wrong with todays scientific publishing industry. But this does not mean that their service should be free.
Access to research is one thing, organising the review process, print layout, marketing another. Most researchers I know share their preprints for free. But the final peer reviewed & laid out product has added value.
The problem is the inflated price that researchers have allowed to be charged for their own product. Partly because many care more about their publication list than about anything else.
Rather than downloading illicit copies out of convenience, one should download preprints, engage in their discussion, seek out open peer review, share personal copies of peer reviewed papers, and contact other researchers for their papers.
We need to build a community of researchers if we want to take the greedy publishers out of the equation.
> don't know if Germans were really happy that their country wasn't even onboard supplying arms to Ukraine till yesterday.
I guess Germany was under pressure from Putin regarding their gas dependency from Russia. The decision to deliver weapons after all was also a decision to accept Gas prices rising 10x fold next winter. Germans will pay quite dearly, since most of them use gas for heating.
Yes, Germany was under pressure - and Germans including me were disgusted that our politicians caved in to that pressure, when another European country is getting invaded and so much more is on the line.
I just find it a bit ironic (in a very sad way) that Germany and Russia switched places with regard to what happened ~80 years ago.
My brainwashed Russian relatives think that their army is there to "protect" the population from the "modern Nazi", all the while not being able to see that their self-appointed czar is the actual Nazi (which I don't think is an exaggeration anymore).
To be fair: once Putin invaded, Germany came around.
What many Germans don’t seem to realise yet is the massive changes they are in for. Some consequences are evident already now, e.g. gas rationing next winter. Many other, still hidden consequences will emerge in the next four weeks as the sanctions kick in. German and Russian economic ties went deep, their rupture will not come easy.
The price might be worth paying but I hope all those Germans who were angry at their government for not delivering weapons sooner will accept those consequences with the same enthusiasm.
That anger should be directed towards those that ignored and strengthened ties to Putin and his friends. There are many risks when supporting an autocratic regime. Germans will see these risks play out.
I think there are 2 independent problems for Germany:
Not delivering weapons to any war zone has been a holy principle for German politics since 1945. Never war again war has had a strong foothold. Even now I grown up in this tradition would ask, is it better to lose the war or more lives. Putin might invade the country now, but he will not stay there forever. Most of Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries show that. Even Eastern Germany.
Germany's dependency on Russian gas is a different problem. They don't dare to do much. Now delivering weapons might prolong and intensify the fights. If the pipeline (it passes through Ukraine!) gets destroyed they don't need to dare to stop financing Putin's war. They will need to solve the problem how to heat their homes.
That is why Germany’s decision to deliver weapons is much more dramatic than many Germans realise. It is the admission that their previous policy of “Wandel durch Handel” (roughly meaning to gain influence in a country by forming tight trade links) has failed.
Today it’s Russia, but they will have to follow through with China, too, plus a few other countries (gulf states e.g.).
If Putin gets Ukraine he'll definitely stay there forever. He will place his army alongside eastern Polish border and NATO will be forced to fortify the other side.
Germany along with other countries of NATO will be forced to militarize which will cost way more than abandoning Russian exports.
Ukraine is fighting now for less militarized and endangered Europe.
I agree that sometimes it's better to loose a war. Just not this one.
> Ukraine is fighting now for less militarized and endangered Europe.
I hope somebody else can appreciate the irony of this sentence like I do, given that the cause of the conflict is military NATO expansion towards east.
You seem to fail to see, that the so-called "NATO expansion towards East" is independent, democratic countries, voluntarily joining a defence-alliance.
To large parts of Eastern/Northern Europe, it is either be part of a pretty good (but admittedly imperfect) NATO defence alliance - or have your sovereignty threatened by Russia.
You seriously think the Baltic states would be independent today, if they had not gained NATO membership?
From the Russian point of view that's your mortal enemy that has expanded for the past 20 year and now it's knocking on your borders. How would the US react were Canada, an "independent, democratic country", "voluntarily joining a defence-alliance" with Russia that allowed Russian military to place missiles right on the US border?
It will be a cold war situation. If one side brings nukes to the border, the other side will do so as well. A possible deal would be something like NATO and Russia removes their nukes from border countries. And maybe make another deal to remove the amount of nuclear warheads.
Putin wouldn't have allowed them to become members. And this is effectively what is happening here: Putin is unfortunately destroying Ukraine, and effectively making sure that any possibility of joining NATO is long gone. This would have just happened earlier if Ukraine had tried to join NATO.
Nah, he is just ensuring Ukraine gets support to join immediately, and inflicting enormous damage on Russia in the process. He'll be remembered as "The Man Who Ended Russia in a Week". Russians are going to be embarrassed about their nationality for the next 100 years at least.
There is no chance Ukraine will join NATO in the short term (and possibly ever), let alone immediately. This would trigger an Article 5 invocation that would compel NATO members to send troops to Ukraine, escalate the conflict even more, possibly leading to a global war, which no one wants to do.
Yes, but this point is kind of moot given that it was NATO membership expansion in the first place to start the tensions.
You can look up articles from 2008 and see that even Germany (Angela Merkel) was adamantly opposed to Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, because there was no credible threat from Russia and she knew this would create instability in Europe. The fact that there was no credible Russian threat is easily confirmed if you do a Google search for "ukraine russia" before 2008: you hardly find anything noteworthy. The whole narrative only changed around 2014.
Now we're at the situation where the Ukrainian people, and also Russians and the entire Europe (at least economically), are paying huge costs because we couldn't avoid seconding foolish US foreign policy choices.
Ukraine wasn't in immediate danger because there used to be pro-Russian government. But the citizens of Ukraine want democracy, freedom, don't want corruption and want to be included in the Western sphere, and as a sovereign state, this is up to Ukrainian citizens only.
All this bullshit about "NATO expansion eastward" that "Putin warned against" - LOL, this is no "NATO expansion", this is "free sovereign states joining NATO by their own volition to get protection from aggressors", and Putin's opinion doesn't matter at all and his "warnings" only reveal him as the bully aggressor he is.
His place is to sit home and accept what Ukraine's elections decide. He should've thought out his actions and shouldn't have done things that made Ukrainians want to join NATO and EU if he is afraid (more like paranoid) of NATO being too close.
> You can look up articles from 2008 and see that even Germany (Angela Merkel) was adamantly opposed to Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, because there was no credible threat from Russia
This shortsightness is exactly what got us into this mess. It was crystal clear in 2008 that this is what Russia will do if the pro-Russian government withers away, but business was more important to Germany.
> The whole narrative only changed around 2014.
No, you're very out of touch. Ukrainians wanted freedom, democracy and end of corruption since forever - but they were silenced by the old government.
Trying not to upset an authoritarian to ease tension will only work in the short term. I'm sure Putin felt threatened for many reasons, both internal and external to Russia. Both valid and imaginary.
It seems that many in Europe hoped to turn a blind eye in return for economic success. I hope much can be recovered and ties restored, but probably not while Putin is at the helm.
> Ukraine didn't have ambitions to join NATO before Putin attacked it for the first time in 2014
That's just not true.
> NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.
This is from the 2008 Bucharest NATO meeting official declaration. [1]
Rather than a justification, I take it as an explanation of why Putin is doing what he's doing, as opposed to the other, often circulated, explanation that he just went crazy and invaded Ukraine for no reason.
I find it way more plausible that he just believes that Ukraine is a birthplace of Russia of mythical and religious significance and Ukrainians are not a separate nation.
It explains way better why he decided wage war that will be devastating to Rusian economy that wasn't doing so well already.
This and access to Ukraine resources because resources is what Russia earns their money from.
That's why he believes sanctions won't be such a big deal in the long run. He thinks Ukraine resources will balance out costs of war.
Talking about NATO agression on Russia is pure and simple propaganda. NATO is a defensive alliance and there's no way USA or anyone could convince other members to invade Russia in peace time.
> I agree that sometimes it's better to loose a war. Just not this one.
If Ukraine can stand up (which I'd hope, but don't really believe) and Putin thinks the same way you think he will use nuclear weapons. And he has said clearly that he thinks the current Ukraine is a threat to the survial of Russia. Which is of course nonsense, but that doesn't matter.
The better support Ukraine gets the closer we are moving to a nuclear war. I'm not sure to say don't support them. But don't underestimate the danger of Putin.
If Putin throws nukes in Europe then the radioactive fallout will reach border countries including russia. And it could provoke a nuclear reaction from NATO, because nuclear fallout over NATO states could be considered as attack.
As said in many places, Putin will go to history the worst aggressor in Europe since Hitler already. He might have committed economic suicide for Russia already. So don't be so sure he doesn't extend the suicide any further.
If Putin already has decided to end the world in a nuclear war, then there's not much that we can do about it.
But if Putin would be seen as a brutal murderer by many russians, then chance are that there are some who could try to assassinate him, like there were many assassination attempts to Hitler.
> lead to quite a bit of civil hardship and even death next winter.
Death? Hardly. Most German homes are well isolated and can be heated quite efficiently. If gas cuts out one can use an electric stove. Same for cooking, one can use an electric hob.
So hardship—yes, especially for the poorest living in undermaintained homes and no resources to upgrade. Germany will certainly put in support programmes for those affected.
It's not that the grid is reliant on gas, it's that if people switch from gas to electric for heat quickly, the grid might not be able to handle the sudden extra load.
Either way, it is known how much gas is available. It can also be estimated fairly reliably how much gas will be used a couple of days in advance, given the weather forecast. Therefore a gas shortage will be known in advance, and contingency measures will be taken, both for gas and electricity.
Germany is the richest affected country. There will be deaths in the eastern EU if this is done without massive western financial support, any COVID-related budget will be dwarfed 100x by what is needed for this, no eastern state has nearly enough money for it even if they dedicated their entire budget.
The most effective way to lose weight is to reduce caloric intake. You don't need to burn calories that you don't consume. It is really easy to reduce daily caloric intake by, say, 500 kcal. But it is much harder to burn 500kcal extra each day.