I vouched for you, reasonable question, I got a few pages in and expected something reasonable. The first example set of white supremacy in math read as extremely tenuous by linking pedagogical techniques to overt white supremicist philosophy. An example that stuck out to me because I also think there are better ways was the teaching of maths as a linear sequence - seems much more clearly the result of an education pipeline focused on producing physicists and engineers than white supremacy.
Readers wondering how else you would do it; more like a tree structure, some pre-reqs make sense but there is an astounding volume of useful introductory math that is approachable once you have mastered arithmetic and are comfortable performing algebra. Logic, digital logic, linear algebra, probability, statistics (we can call that three things though given that two sets of two examples are closely related). Loads of stuff
You will, at some point, have to internalise the idea that life is going to start sucking more from now on. There is no alternative here, it will suck. This can not be avoided.
And you need to take on your own share of that suckiness to help out. Refusing to do so means you are pushing more burden onto everyone else, and that is nothing but pure selfishness.
The history of the human race is one of making life suck less.
I, for one, plan to be on the right side of history on this topic.
If the oil is running out or is otherwise untenable lets make some rational plans for something better (oil is dirty anyway and makes life suck) rather then running around in rough goat haired shirts flagellating ourselves and congratulating each other on how much we have made life suck and how virtuous we now are.
It's probably worth thinking about how ugly this is going to get politically. Right now, we basically have a bunch of wealthy people jetting around the world on private planes pushing for changes to society that will make ordinary people worse off in ways visible to them every single day. Not the super-wealthy, of course; why, the very idea that they should change their lifestyles first is an evil right-wing plot to undermine necessary measures against climate change for the benefit of evil big businesses, according to the accepted mainstream media prespective. We have the banking industry and the super-wealthy using their control of funding to slowly starve and dismantle the energy infrastructure that supports people's current lifestyles; most of the cost of this will fall on ordinary people who effectively have no say, but the media coverage sytematically lies and says it's big businesses and the wealthy who benefit from it and will pay the price. (They do things like counting all CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use as being caused by the companies that extracted them, and spin this to make it sound like those companies are the ones benefitting.)
Now, according to the media coverage, this will have the exact opposite effect - think about all the articles about "green jobs" and the "green economy", all the column inches claiming that ordinary people will be better off and rich right wingers are just trying to trick them into thinking otherwise to protect themselves. The propaganda can't go on forever though. Sooner or later, the true social costs of all this and who is actually losing out will become undeniable, and at that point a lot of people are going to be very angry.
No, there are not. Pretty much all the popular contenders are less plausible, and most still need dark matter to explain all observations, so they only add more complexity.
Dark matter is a simple theory that explain a wide variety of unrelated observations.
I mean, until we actually prove that dark matter is "something", we need to stop calling it that. All it is, is some constant that we apply to make sense of the motion of galactic-scale objects. And we use "dark energy" as a constant to explain why the universe keeps apparently accelerating its expanse beyond what we would have predicted given what we know about the universe. There is no reason to believe that these phenomena are caused by some singular thing. These latest development only strengthens that conclusion.
In any case, until we actually are able to test that this is one "thing" rather than a bunch of things we still have no idea about, we should stop calling it "dark <foo>". Because I think that a lot of people are under the impression that there is some discrete substance out there causing this discrepancy, and there really is no reason to believe that's the case.
I think it helps to give a name to the concept, and then do a better job of educating people that this is basically a placeholder name until it's better understood. (and yes, I realize that is not an easy task, might be easier to find the solutions and figure out the best name)
Right, I'm not sure there's one unifying theory that you could bundle it under, not sure what the right term is for a general concept rather than a hard testable theory. But that just further proves the need to stop calling it one thing in particular, because it leads the vast majority of people (including scientists!) to think that "dark matter" is some big unifying theory, when there is no such thing as some singular substance called "dark matter".
You've described the search for dark matter as it is performed. There's already a percentage that's been filled in and most theories try to fill in additional chunks rather than as you say "some singular thing".
I think if anyone has proven anything here, it is Russia and Russia alone.
Getting upset at Germany for cancelling some scientific cooperation in response to literally invading a sovereign country and shelling civilian cities is, just, absurd.
This is only acceptable if they weren't going to share it with the international scientific community. Otherwise we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Unreal that it is 2022 and this is the state of terminals.
There is no reason that terminals should not be able to show actual graphics other than a complete and utter failure of innovation in command-line interfaces.
But why do we care about graphics in a terminal? If I want to display graphics, I'll use a GUI, if I don't care, I'll use a terminal.
If I want to use graphics remotely, there's X, or any number of remote desktop solutions, or scripting remote data and local programs, or web browsers.
Last response because you clearly didn't read my first comment or any of my others.
> None of those things are true, though. You can have all of those exactly like before. But you can now also do, for instance, "cat image.jpg" and you will see the image inline in your terminal. That only adds value and prevents nothing
That case is covered by Sixel [0] like I mentioned before.
Also, the use for 'cat' is not to display the contents of a file, but to output the contents of a file for concatination, so 'cat image.jpg' doesn't make sense.
> Again, I specifically said I do not want a GUI
This is also not what you said before when you said
> And there are plenty of CLIs that use graphics. Just not for controlling computers for some absurd reason.
You know what something that uses graphics to control computers is? A user interface, with graphics... I wonder if there's an acronym for that. The fact that graphics are a key part of usage make it a GUI by default.
Of course I despise the Russians for invading, but that doesn't free you from the obligation to plan for the worst.
Now the only An-225 article is gone forever, and we won't ever see another one built. I doubt they even have the engineering drawings to do so. Those were probably also lost during the bombings.
Please note that this person has been arguing that Zelenskyy is to be blamed for the civilians that Russia is killing during their invasion, because he did not surrender to an invasion from a foreign power.
