> IOW, they're being underpaid relative to market, in exchange for ownership, expecting to get more later when they sell the shares. So far so good, but how does this look when the business has a rough patch, even one that's not their fault?
I've been saying this for years: climate science isn't science (in the falsifiable sense), climate is nonlinear and humans don't like to rock the boat. This is especially true with a big, cross-disciplinary project like the IPCC report.
(Yes, I understand parts of climate science are falsifiable... I'm at least semi-educated as a former meteorologist and former PDE guy. But the conclusions of the IPCC report are not testable.)
Kind of like how biology isn't a science? Because observations doesn't count, since they are not testable?
This is just playing with words. That 'science' must be 'testable' or it is not science, and all other fields that either have observations, or theory, is not 'science'.
This is a good one, but I think my point is that the original doesn’t stand up to copyright in the first place - so transformative use wouldn’t apply if that was the case
I live in one of four US states where you must be 18 to get married. Most other states have "parental consent" laws that allow you to get married at age 16.
Then we can combine AD and numerical solvers like is found in modern weather and climate models. I don't quite understand but it has something to do with sensitivity analysis and improving data assimilation. (Google "4dvar ecmwf" for more details... eg: https://www2.atmos.umd.edu/~dkleist/docs/da/ECMWF_DA_TUTORIA...)
I think the idea is to use the "tangent linear model" to decide how much importance to give to a particular observation of the initial state.
This seems to be changing a bit. I have two children in a US public elementary school. The teachers use various apps to have children review mathematics facts. The apps allow children to move at their own pace and also incorporates some spaced repetition. (Though teachers seem to pick whatever app they like and the apps are of varying quality.)
I really hope you're correct. It feels a lot like the debate between phonics and whole language to me, where how we teach makes it difficult for the average student to learn. People here are discussing Bloom's Taxonomy and higher levels of learning, but many students struggle with even the most basic concepts.
