Note "converging to zero" doesn't really mean zero because economics includes opportunity costs. It just means that outsized gains don't exist over the longer term without some kind of market power. In the long run, most industries end up making the same returns.
I've found that this does not match reality. People have strong beliefs in value of specific things, even when that value is not economically there. The value of software is indeed zero, which seems to make people value hiring software engineers greatly over paying for software, and, tbh, that makes approximately zero sense in a lot of cases. The value of medical care is high, even when it's not (meaning there is plenty of medical and "medical" products that don't have real value). The value of houses is high and absolutely certain. Thinks like certain brands (even when the company behind them has disappeared), most obviously of watches.
This tends towards the economic reality but it certainly does not match it.
> A tripwire would send notifications in real time without the user needing to check.
c.f.
> > If any motion is detected by RPi's camera module or motion sensor, the server will delete those secrets immediately, in addition to sending push notifications to the web client.
It sends notifications in real time and tries to stay irrevocably tripped.
I haven't seen a report of 4000 civilians injured. I have seen a report of 4000 people injured across the two attacks, but presumably some fraction of these are targets.
42 killed, of whom Hezbollah said 12 were civilians (later admitting some of the 12 were fighters).
Historical average is about half of the wounded or killed in conflicts to be civilians. < 12/42 would be a relatively "good" ratio.
You didn’t see 4,000 because you didn’t look for it. It’s literally in the wikipedia article linked in the thread you’re responding to with multiple associated citations.
You make an assumption that of the 4000 people wounded /all/ were civilians, which is odd, considering that explosive was in a device given out to Hezbollah members.
The problem is, 2750 + 750 injured is less than 4000, and it doesn't make sense that none of the injured were targets but >30/42 of those killed were.
We're talking about a tiny amount of explosives in each pager. Sure, it could lightly wound a bystander under perfect circumstances, but it's not going to create a big confluence of major injuries. <6 grams of PETN--we're talking about a risk of injury at roughly arm's reach.
To be clear, that claim of 4,000 comes from a member of Hezbollah:
> According to the Lebanese government, the attack killed 42 people,[11] including 12 civilians,[12] and injured 4,000 civilians (according to Mustafa Bairam, Minister of Labour and a member of Hezbollah).
The wikipedia page's other reference claiming that the majority of those injured were civilians is also vague. For instance, it writes, "On 26 September, Abdallah Bou Habib, Lebanon's Foreign Minister, confirmed that most of those carrying pagers were not fighters, but civilians like administrators"
> It was an attack mostly on Hezbollah, but a lot of civilians got hurt in the process, because not everybody is sitting there fighting on the front. These are people who have pagers or have telephones. They are regular people. Some of them are also fighters, but not most of them. A lot of them are administrators working here and there. . . .
This is a very different claim that what the article reads. "Administrators" and "not fighters" is a very different thing than "civilian". A woman working in my building also works in the Army's HR department during the day. She's literally a member of the military, but it's also not wrong to say she is "not a fighter" and an "administrator".
In short, the idea that we have credible evidence that the 4,000 people who were injured (and more, importantly, those that were actually maimed rather than receiving light injuries) were mostly civilians doesn't seem to pan out.
You can be wildly off in baking and produce an edible, enjoyable product. Especially if you have a sense of how to adjust the consistency of what you're mixing and can adjust baking times.
But-- if you use weight measurements and attend to precision, you'll have to adjust a lot less and you'll come much closer to the best possible output.
This is only true as long as there's enough of a market left. You tend to end up with oversupply and excessive inventory during the transition, and that pushes profit margins negative and removes all the supply pretty quickly.
1. I don't think adding robustness necessarily requires changing how systems are presented to the flight crew.
2. Bigger changes than this are made all the time under the same type certificate. Many planes went from steam gauges to glass cockpits. A320 added a new fuel tank with transfer valves and transfer logic and new failure modes, and has completely changed control law over the type. etc.
> Point #2 ("somewhat less fit... on average") is totally inaccurate if the parents are statistically average in the modern/Western world.
I wonder if you've misunderstood the point. Offspring are expected to be less fit on average because -things can go wrong- (mutations, birth defects, etc). But selection is a counterweight to this.
Seemed to me that the author was referring to regression to the mean, as another commenter noted.
De novo mutations have a negative effect, to be sure, but it is extremely weak on an individual level. In parents who are extraordinary, the effect of regression to the mean is going to be 20x to 40x stronger than the effect of de novo mutations. For instance, if you have two parents who are both 195cm tall, the regression penalty might be 4cm, whereas the mutation penalty would be somewhere in the millimeters, so a statistically average child would be ~190.9cm. If both parents are statistically average, there'd be no regression penalty and only a vanishingly small mutation penalty.
> That if you’re a life form and you cook up a baby and copy your genes to them, you’ll find that the genes have been degraded due to oxidative stress et al., which isn’t cause for celebration, but if you find some other hopefully-hot person and randomly swap in half of their genes, your baby will still be somewhat less fit ...
You're right that it's a relatively weak effect-- which is a good part of why the effects of variance and selection (incl sexual selection) win out and fitness doesn't decline with each generation.
reply