There's a lot of difference between not getting along well with each other and not trading .
"From 2015 to 2022, India-China bilateral trade grew by 90.14%, an average yearly growth of 12.87%. In 2022, the overall trade with China increased by 8.47% year on year to reach USD 136.26 billion, crossing the USD 100 billion mark for a second time in a row. The trade deficit came at USD 101.28 billion as India’s imports from China witnessed an increase by 118.77% to reach USD 118.77 billion, meanwhile India’s exports to China decreased by 37.59% year on year to reach USD 17.49 billion, down for last year’s net exports of USD 28.03 billion" [0]
Hmm. Something strange. When I open the link in a new tab, I see the article but just clicking it in the same tab redirects to Google. I’m on iOS safari fyi
Not to take away anything from Mr Penzias but here’s how I remember his name :-)
“Although Penzias and Wilson had not been looking for cosmic background radiation, didn’t know what it was when they had found it, and hadn’t described or interpreted its character in any paper, they received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics. The Princeton researchers got only sympathy. According to Dennis Overbye in Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, neither Penzias nor Wilson altogether understood the significance of what they had found until they read about it in the New York Times”
- Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Without aspersion on Penzias and Wilson, Robert Dicke should have been recognized in due time. He was a supremely gifted experimentalist on top of everything else. Credited with inventing the lock-in amplifier, he graciously deferred to others. His radiometer and switch also had great impact. Stockholm should hang its head for this oversight.
Have any other Nobel Prizes been awarded to someone who only discovered some phenomena but didn’t do any further research to advance our understanding of it? It seems to me that that falls in the category of blind luck rather than research and shouldn’t qualify for the Prize.
The nobel prize is granted for discoveries that advance human knowledge. Whether that discovery is through chance, sheer hardwork or some linear combination, what matters is the discovery. It is not not disputed (by anyone) that the discovery was important here. The theory of the Cosmic microwave background was already out there -- it just needed someone to confirm the theory !
One could argue that the microwave background radiation was discovered precisely by the nobel winning experimenters because they refused to explain away the "noise". They were persistent and kept trying to eliminate possible sources of this noise. Perhaps other similar horn antennae had the same noise but this noise was just explained away by the other experimentalist as being an artifact of the equipment ? One may never know.
Lastly, it has been my experience that luck seems to strike competent and fastidious researchers more often than average ones.
Let's suppose for reasons of this discussion, that Bell labs had assigned a junior engineer to determine how noise was getting into the antenna, not a couple of PhD's who were well along in their careers. Further, let's also assume that, through sheer hard work, some innate brilliance, and maybe some consultations with his mentors, this engineer arrived at the same discovery. Do you think that he would be awarded a Nobel Prize or would he be ignored because he doesn't sport the right credentials?
Not a scientist chiming in, but I'd guess that the project had "lead" scientists who set everything up for the antenna experiment and any data from the junior scientist (what I think you meant) would need to be vetted and still fall under the purview of the lead(s).
Here, here. We take it for granted now, but even such things as HBO’s white-noise intro, the echoes of creation, is a cultural artifact of their tenacious attention to detail.
Many. Just to give an example, the very first Nobel in physics was awarded to Röntgen, who discovered 'A new kind of Ray' (which only later named x-rays and were shown to be photons with a different wavelength). He noticed a detector going off even though his device was in a sealed box.
We call it "Röntgenstrahlung" (X-rays), "Röntgengerät" (X-ray machine), "Röntgenaufnahme" (X-ray picture). We even made a verb out of it, even though that's probably colloquial: "Wir müssen Ihr Bein röntgen" (we need to X-ray your leg).
At my work maybe 10 years ago, we had a little trivia competition on a fun day, about 25 people taking part - one of the questions was "who discovered the X-ray?", and all 7 of the eastern Europeans got the correct answer, but none of the Americans, Indians, or Asians in the group got it right (except for me, but I'm special).
"John Lorimer Campbell is an English YouTuber and retired nurse educator known for his videos about the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, the videos received praise, but they later veered into misinformation.[2] He has been criticised for suggesting COVID-19 deaths have been over-counted, repeating false claims about the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and providing misleading commentary about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines (emphasis mine).
As of June 2023, his YouTube channel had 2.8 million subscribers and over 653 million views"
In this video, he takes the linked, published paper, and walks through what it contains. Repeatedly, he suggests one look at the paper itself, and validate what he's saying.
This tends to be his style, and after reading the wikipedia discussion page, I do wonder how much of his "misleading commentary" was "he said something not in line with official stances re: COVID".
From the Wikipedia talk page:
This article oddly references "American comedian" and podcaster 4 times as having referenced a Campbell video to make unfounded claims. Aren't these issues better suited to an article about Jimmy Dore? If, as this article claims, Dore is making false claims, why does it belong here? Flat Earthers have used Flight Aware images to bolster their claims but Wikipedia doesn't include that in the FlightAware article.
I have edited Wikipedia articles before, only to have every edit reverted, only to have gatekeepers leap in and refuse change, even mild changes. Regardless, whether or not the gatekeepers of the Wikipedia page are correct, the accusations against Campbell are not relevant to the paper in question.
"The router’s specifications have been selected with the goal of keeping the price under $100, and that’s why we have interfaces such as USB 2.0 instead of USB 3.0 since there aren’t any spare ones in the Filogic 820 SoC"
2.5G is still plenty for most creator use cases (even for editing a few 4K livestreams off a NAS). The only difficulty is if you hit certain types of routing, performance can't always keep up (sometimes even to a gigabit).
One thing I'd love is if more vendors would give a bunch of examples and specifically list what things are hardware accelerated and which are not (MikroTik's been pretty good about this lately, though it's a lot of digging in docs).
What is the difference between a "homelab" and a "creator"? I don't think these labels mean anything.
Also you realize this is a router to connect to the internet right? If you want computers to have faster ethernet links between themselves you can have a switch with faster ports. It isn't going to make sense to try to mix your router and your switch at that point.
I like this paragraph from the article. Sort of first principles approach to the whole thing :)
"The basis for the whole system is the A0 format which has an area of one square meter. With an aspect ratio equal to the square root of two, a sheet of A0 paper ends up being 841 × 1189 millimeters. Figuring out the dimensions of the subsequent paper sizes does not require any real mathematical strain since each ensuing size can be created by simply folding the paper in half with the crease parallel to the shortest sides. If you do this with an A0 sheet of paper, the resulting dimensions will be 594 × 841 millimeters, or the A1 format. Take note that the height of A1 is equal to the width of A0"
This is true if the ANSI A/B/C/D/E series as well. It’s just that the successively smaller pages don’t have the same aspect ratio. The square root of two is the key point.
I’ve read part of his other book - “The Equation”. Good book and touches on the importance of “networks” in fields like art where you can’t measure quality. Should pick this one up.
<https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoSentenceHorror/>.