A man with no body fat is at high risk of death during a severe infection. Women might instinctively pick up on that. A dead man can’t provide or protect.
Another thing is that muscle requires constant maintenance in the forms of exercise and food.
The overweight but otherwise healthy individual will last longer in crisis situations. I'm about 60 lbs. overweight, which translates to around 3 months of caloric reserves (likely an unhealthy amount TBH).
Before industrialization, being overweight was seen as a mark of beauty and wealth regardless of gender.
(Not a rationalization for being unfit or unhealthy when taken to extremes.)
The total net worth of all U.S. households is close to $160 trillion. A trillion dollars over a decade (100B a year) as an insurance policy is a very good deal.
I believe this budget includes supercomputer based simulations for reliability without testing. But even if it's not 100% reliable, it still works as a deterrent.
Why would the US start a nuclear war over reserve currency? You are an idiot.
Google Maps has declined remarkably two or three years. It’s now an ML-brained mess. Like the rest of Google. Apple Maps is actually better now! That’s incredible.
It's been a bit more than that; about four years ago they started using machine-analyzed satellite photos to override street geometry in my neighborhood and decided that a parking lot is a through street; since then, nobody who uses Google Maps can get to my house because Google Maps directs them to drive down that parking lot (which has a brick wall in it and is not a through street). I've filed this as a data issue maybe a half-dozen times and it gets fixed and then breaks again a couple of months later in the exact same way. Drives me crazy. OpenStreetMaps and Apple Maps are both correct.
Google Maps often has problems adding stops between where I am and where I’m going. I experience this the most when I’m driving cross country on an interstate and I search for restaurants. It often thinks I should turn around and drive back 5 miles to go to some restaurant that I’m guessing is paying Google to send it traffic.
What I really I want are options between where I am to where I might be in 30 minutes.
That’s because it simply orders results based on distance from your location. That’s it. It just doesn’t have an ordering method that considers your route.
So, I've been in a position where I have helped do address verification for a school district. In some states, schools have to verify where students live because property taxes often pay for schools, so knowing where your students live determines your tax funding (and for missing children laws). I've worked with thousands of addresses now, and seen a lot of uncommon situations.
Google Maps is really bad when streets are even slightly unusual. That's even with North American address conventions, which are extremely regular by comparison to many nations.
For example, if you have both a North and a South version of a road, and the address numbering for North and South versions overlaps -- say, North and South begin at a county midline road and North increases going north and South increases going south -- it will irregularly put a pin on the wrong road or wrong segment of road.
Similarly, it will be confused if you have River Rd and West River Rd. And it can be confused when Oak Ln becomes Oak Ct or insist that Oak Ct is really Oak Ln even when the road name actually changes.
It also gets very confused by roads that have two names. For example if there's a county line road, the east county might call it "Franklin Rd" while the west county calls it "E County Line Rd." And in that case the east side of the road have one set of addresses, and the west have another set. Worse, the address numbers often don't align. Except that's not what Google screws up that often. Instead, Google will sometimes insist that one or the other road doesn't exist at all. It will say that 123 E County Line Rd is actually 123 Franklin Rd, and then it will put a pin where 123 would be on Franklin Rd if that road didn't begin its address numbering at 3000.
Sometimes it insists the city is incorrect, too. If your address is "123 Miller Rd, New London" and New London is a tiny unincorporated town near Portland, Google might translate the name to "123 Miller Rd, Portland." Sometimes even when there's a street the next county over with an address "123 Miller Rd, Portland". In this case if you enter the Portland address, it will point you to the address actually in Portland, and if you put in the New London address, it will show you the New London address... but it will still correct your New London address to Portland.
If you have a road with breaks in it, such as for a river without a bridge, it will occasionally just... put a pin at the end of one segment of the road and not find the address on the correct segment on the far side of the break.
About the only things that's really consistent is: If you zoom in and the pin is in the middle of the road, then Google Maps probably can't find the address. On the other hand, if the pin is off the road, then it's probably exactly on the structure based on the local or municipal authority and their GIS data. In that case, Google found the address on the GIS data they got from that municipality.
And you might say, "Oh, but those are really easily confusing things! It's entirely understandable." And, maybe that's true. But USPS's ZIP code finder still knows the addresses well enough to both find and correct them for you, and ArcGIS interfaces also seem to be able to find things much more easily. Google Maps was groundbreaking 20 years ago. But it really hasn't kept pace. The only thing that seems to confuse the other sites is new construction. At the very least, I wish Google Maps would be more clear when it's guessing rather than when it's found an exact match.
All that is to say, yes, we did use Google Maps to help find addresses. But when things looked even a little weird, we assumed that Google Maps was wrong. And it usually was wrong in those cases. And what it got wrong was sometimes really, really wrong.
Same here... around 2-3 years ago the driving route out of my neighborhood changed to always be down a set of (human-only) stairs. After a while it did change back, but it's not trustworthy anymore.
Soon we can tell the younger generations that when we were young, Google was almost magic, it could find the most obscure stuff.. nowadays, not so much.
Proof in this case is that the upper bound and the lower bound of the solver converged. This is not like a SAT solver where the solution itself can be trivially evaluated to verify the solution, it requires trusting that the solver does what it's supposed to be doing, similar to what happens when you solve a MILP with Gurobi or CPLEX.
You could still save the branch-and-bound tree, the LP problems solved at the tree nodes, the derivations of the LP cutting planes, and the LP solutions that together constitute the proof. Then you could in principle create an independent verifier for the branch-and-bound tree and cutting plane derivations, which could potentially be much more straightforward and simple code than the entire Concorde TSP solver, and wouldn't have so high performance requirements.
If you can prove, as they claim, that you have an algorithm that gives you the optimal solution (aside from the obvious, brute-forced one), you might be one stone throw away to make an argument for some P == NP, that would be HUGE.
But it seems that some people get offended when you tell them their perpetual motion machines are not real.
The branch-and-bound algorithm does provide a proven optimal solution. This does not mean that P=NP because the size of the proof is not bounded by a polynomial in the input size, and neither is the algorithm runtime. Also, Euclidean TSP is known to be easier than TSP on arbitrary graphs: there are polynomial-time approximation schemes that can produce solutions with an (1+epsilon) factor of the optimum in polynomial time, for any value of epsilon. Thus it is not surprising that a proof of full optimality can be constructed for some instances.
The solver generates a relaxed lower bound that indicates how far they could be from the global optimal solution. The moment that the lower bound improves enough to match a path they can guarantee that it's the global optimum
Regen can capture during stopping most of the energy consumed during starting, if well designed, while in a non-electric bus all energy is lost.
The mass of the bus does not matter, only the energy lost due to mechanical friction or electrical resistance, both of which increase much more slowly than the mass for bigger buses.
This math is for future busses designed for city use - so batteries will be much smaller and therefore lighter, and the bus construction itself will be much lighter because, as you point out, with a city bus pulling away ~5 million times in its lifespan, the cost of energy lost when stopping and pulling away far exceeds the cost of upgrading the frame to aluminium and other weight saving measures.
In the digital age, we should have 2D timezones where the time is slewed ever so slightly every night at 3 a.m., so that 6 a.m. is always dawn. That is the future.
In some ways, yes. "Changing clocks" is the easiest it's ever been. We should be looking into changing them more often, not less. Two levels of daylight savings might be better than 1.
But on the other hand I think having the same sunrise time every day is actually pretty bad from a coordination perspective. Instead of everybody having a fraction of their year have an unfavorable sunrise, you will lock people into having either a light or dark commute.
Everybody will want to start their jobs at the same time making congestion worse. "Support jobs" (e.g. opening the store before "regular" business hours) will be permanently in the dark for their commute.
reply