Solar has a reverse economies of scale problem: the more we build, the bigger the fraction of power comes from solar, the more urgent the issue of storage becomes.
We should keep building until it becomes a problem, I suppose, but also hopefully prepare solutions before it hits.
Twitter and Google and Facebook often cut a person at the same time. So it's like backuping up your photos to another drive on the same computer. Better than nothing but not ideal.
discrimination is prohibited towards protected categories. i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation... on top of it, most of those aren't things that you choose yourself.
With the possible exception of religion (you're born into a certain culture, so "by default" you might feel affiliated to a certain religion, so asking people to renounce that would definitely be oppressive), and veteran status (which is not a protected category around the world, I think... though it is in the US)
If you self-select into a segment of the population that no one is born into[1], yet it's lawfully discriminated against (i.e. felons ITT) I'm afraid that you don't have a good case to protect yourself from such discrimination.
[1] Unfortunately, systemic racism and the plea/prosecutors/bail system make it so that people in certain segments of the population are more likely than others to end up involved in crimes.
In my personal opinion anti-discrimination laws are not born out of precise definition of fair/unfair discrimination but on a value judgement that some particular classes of discriminations are disproportionate and are causing too much harm.
If there never was any racism there would be no need for laws forbidding discrimination on race, conversely if we where deeply elitist based on height there could exist laws about height discrimination.
With regards to felonies the two question I consider focal are:
1) what is the long-term plan for convicted criminals, and
2) how much extra-judicial/social punishment should we tolerate on non-public figures for non-public crimes.
Let's be clear that being arrested for a new crime is different than being convicted of a new crime. Given that none of the murderers in that overview went back to prison, I'm inclined to think that their conviction rate is low.
Keep in mind also that being an ex-con in a community likely puts you at the top of the PD's suspect list for new crimes, and that reintegration with society is difficult, so imprisonment (regardless of crime) makes recidivism more likely.
Intuitively, it makes sense that "statistically, it does", but if words have meaning, than "statistically" means literally there are statistics demonstrating the assertion, and so far, bupkis
Only if you work for fortune 500 or a company that has government clients. Lots of boutique security companies probably don't care if you are otherwise qualified.
It is enough in the present, but I'm not sure that will be enough in the future. People have always been distrustful of faraway strangers hiding their faces in hoodies and sunglasses. Similarly for a good credit score you need a history of taking and paying off loans.
You may need a good life on display rather than just an absence of bad things.
Nonlocality basically means that the universe has a global RNG state. If you write some code that uses a global RNG and no other global variables, that code will still be "local" in the sense that functions cannot communicate information between each other using the RNG. But the outcomes of the functions might still be correlated in interesting ways (corresponding to entanglement).
No, non-locality simply means that effects happen at infinite speeds, not that they carry information.
For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM abandons both locality and realism - particles don't have definite states, and they also communicate at infinite speed (but in a way that can't carry information).
Basically when you measure the state of two particles that are entangled, you find that their state is correlated in some way. For example, they may be entangled in such a way that their spins are the same. So if you measure one to be spin up (when measured along any axis), the other will also be spin up (when measured along the same axis). This happens regardless of the separation distance between the two particles. By carefully adjusting the axes along which you do your measurements, you can prove that the spins that you get are not predetermined (this is Bell's Theorem) and yet the particles are not communicating at the speed of light with each other either (the correlation remains even if you move the particles far apart and then do the measurements at the same time). Note that the actual spin value itself is random, and once you do the measurements the entanglement is broken, so you can't use this to transfer information faster than light. Hence what the parent poster means by "communication without information": each particle individually appears to be completely random, and yet when you compare them you see both particles are random _in the same way_ (or in the opposite way, particles can be anti-correlated too).
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Vitaly Nikolayenko?
"He spent 33 years living with the brown bears (Ursus arctos) native to the Kamchatka peninsula (...) For over 20 years, Nikolayenko followed an enormous male he named Dobrynya, forming such an easy bond that the bear would often curl up to sleep just a few feet from him."
I listen to Joe Rogan podcasts and he always mentions bears being very different than people think. He said they do all kinds of terrible things, even their own kind. (think how much food a large bear has to eat to stay alive)
