What are the actual numbers you think are fantasy? Most of the time when I see someone claiming economic statistics are fake, it's a misunderstanding or lack of context. For instance, people will say the US unemployment rate is fake because it doesn't include people who have given up on looking for work... but the U-4 unemployment metric, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics alongside the main U-3 metric, does include these people.
Because it is hilariously wrong. You have been operating under the false understanding, for who knows how long, that the media are talking about job postings when they are talking about jobs numbers.
There are some that talk about jobs filled, others are talking about unfilled postings. I guess you can laugh at your hilariously wrong assumption while reading this article.
Many thanks, I was thinking to build something similar and try to predict stock market macro movement.
Typically, right now I am relatively bearish but I feel I am 3-6m too early.
Trend is downward for both hiring and seeker, which I would interpret as employers are hesitant to invest in IT due to current US politic unknowns, typically, the tarifs and actual impacts on economy.
Growing and sequestering enough biomass to slow down climate change means effectively running the fossil fuel industry at the same scale but in reverse. In that spirit, I'll point out that most efficient way of moving carbon-bearing solids per ton-mile is the bulk carrier ships we use for shipping coal.
Lightly-armed Athenians trapped heavily-armed Spartans in hilly terrain, and instead of fighting them in a phalanx, wore them down with a long day of hit-and-run. Hundreds of exhausted Spartans were taken alive, which was a massive scandal for the Spartan reputation at the time.
Plants still perform respiration using oxygen. Photosynthesis lets them create their own sugars, but their process for using those sugars in the mitochondria is similar to how we do it. Plants release more oxygen than they consume because they grow: in order to grow they must pull CO2 from the air, use the C as building material (instead of respiration fuel), and dump the O2.
That analysis is from the perspective of the scammer. The scammer has limited time to write to each victim once the responses come back from the initial mass-email, so the scammer is better off if only the most gullible people reply. From the perspective of the person being attacked, the counterintuitive result based on selection bias goes away, and a more convincing scheme is more of a risk to you personally. (The assumption that scammers have limited time to write to each victim may itself become less true because of LLMs.)
Texas is not going to secede. In the 2020 election, the vote was 52:46 between Trump and Biden, meaning almost half the state supported the overall national winner. Compare this to the actual secession crisis election in 1860, where the vote was 75:24 against the pro-Union candidate, with Lincoln not even on the ballot in the state.
"Third. New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. "
(This is Texas trivia for mutual amusement, not a serious suggestion.)
What was annexed and what is now Texas are not the same thing. Some of the area of the original Texas already is part of different states (no other state is a majority of old Texas though)
The method you describe would be an example of what is called a "thermostat" in molecular dynamics (because the speed of molecules forms what we call temperature). Such adjustments to the speed can definitely paper over issues with your energy conservation, but you still have to be careful: if you rescale the speeds naively you get the "flying ice cube" effect where all internal motions of the system cease and it maintains its original energy simply by zooming away at high speed.
Thermostats ensure that the average _kinetic energy_ remains constant (on average or instantaneously depending on how they are implemented). Your parent post wants to enforce the constraint that the total energy remains constant. So its a bit different from a canonical ensemble (NVT) simulation. This is a microcanonical ensemble simulation (NVE). This means you don't know if you should correct the position (controlling the potential energy) or the velocities (controlling the kinetic energy).
Basically, there will be error in the positions and velocities due to the integrator used and you don't know how to patch it up. You have 1 constraint; the total energy should be constant. There are 2(3N-6) degrees of freedom for the positions and velocities (if more than 2 bodies). The extra constraint doesn't help much!
Edit: Also, the only reason thermostats work is because the assumption is that the system is in equilibrium with a heat bath (i.e. bunch of atoms at constant temperature). So there is an entire distribution of velocities that is statistically valid and as long as the velocities of the atoms in the system reflect that, you will on average model the kinetics of the system properly (e.g. things like reaction rates will be right). In gravitational problems there is no heat bath.
The "camel means rope" story, while cute and not implausible, is basically a guess. All the earliest available sources say "camel" - there is no actual evidence of this mistake beyond speculation (though it is admittedly an ancient speculation, as early as Cyril of Alexandria). The Wikipedia page has a much more balanced summary than this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
Both the original writing, and the surviving manuscripts, have uncertainty bounds of decades in their dates. The oldest physical pages we still have come from the years 100-200 or so. And assuming that a description of an event can't be written before the event happened (a touchy subject in this case), then the original writing of the Gospels must have been after the start of the First Jewish-Roman War in the year 66. So the gap between the writing and our extant sources could be pretty short, or could be over a century.
We're talking about negative externalities, of which pollution is a perfect example: the effects of pollution are spread across everyone, no matter who emits it, so no one has an individual incentive to change their buying habits. It's a coordination problem, which can be solved democratically by the voters demanding an overall change in incentives (such as an appropriate tax on single-use non-biodegradable plastics).
No. Not sure why would you would choose to reply before reading the comments, but since you have... we are quite explicitly talking about at least one consumer expecting food packaging to degrade within a similar period as the food contained within, with a suggestion that an authoritarian government in a perfect world would recognize that as a good idea and force it upon the people.
But the general consensus seems to be that, in a perfect world, governments are democratic – a notion you do not seem to discount.
Under a democracy, if he stands alone in that desire of short-life packaging, nothing is going to change. No business is going to cater to his unique want (well, maybe if he's exceedingly rich and is willing to pay disproportionally for it) and government is not going to act on the wishes of one person (that would be undemocratic). If a majority of people share in that desire, though, then businesses would face pressure to provide when consumers make that choice clear. Any business that fails to comply will suffer the consequences of lost profits. The people can enact a law that prevents themselves from buying the product they already don't want to buy, but that doesn't accomplish anything. They've already decided they don't want to buy it!
Democratic government is useful for cleaning up minority groups who try to act against the wishes of the majority, but in this particular case you have not even made clear why the minority would be stuck on buying 'forever' packaging or what businesses would gain from catering to the minority. People don't care about food packaging that much. Once the majority are buying short-life packaging, the small number of people who want to watch the world burn will be priced out of the market anyway. As such, there is no need for government. The people can just do it...
...and if they don't, that's the end of it. Magic isn't going to swoop in and save the day. The democratic government is nothing other than the very same people who have already decided that, in this scenario, they don't want to do anything.
But maybe what you're really struggling to say is that democracy wouldn't be found in a perfect world? Fair enough, but I'm still not sure that's the general consensus.
I was going to link to the article about sympletic integration, but it's toooo technical. This other article explains the problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_drift
