I imagine the 20th century was the worst time for it because we had more sophisticated data collection and analysis methods, but failed to recognize our own inadequacies when using those tools to draw conclusions.
This paper by one of the team members has more detail about the process used to narrow down the search field to a list of galaxies and identify possible locations of the event:
Apologies, I'm not one of the researchers involved in the discovery. I'm just the web developer who built the announcement site for UCSC. Ryan Foley will participate in a Reddit AMA tomorrow (Tuesday, 10/17). I imagine your questions might get answered there.
A team from UC Santa Cruz used the data from the Swope telescope in Chile to locate the source of the gravitation waves and observe the light from the event. The data provides evidence of how gold and other heavy elements formed in the universe.
I once had a job making ice cream and it bothered me that I had to add yellow food coloring to the banana ice cream. We used real bananas and didn't add banana flavor. But I was told to add yellow color anyway.
It is not in Facebook's monetary interest to identify or remove fake or questionable news from our news feeds. By it's nature, fake news is emotional. It causes an emotional, gut-level reaction ("OMG, must like and share this!") that promotes virality. Virality === $$$ for Facebook. I imagine they have already experimented with news feed filters that reduce noise and I'm sure the result was reduced engagement. As long as Facebook profits from attention, we should expect them to be tepid at best about any change that reduces their share of our attention.
I think they see this as a key differentiator between iOS/iCloud and Google services and they want the public to know about it. In a post-Snowden world, it's worth noting the difference between platforms that prioritize user privacy and platforms that share user data with advertisers in return for additional services.
Thank you for a thoughtful, detailed response. It seems like a mix of job exposure and natural curiosity led you from language to language.
Throughout this thread, I've noted a distinct lack of dogma about everyone's evolution as a programmer. While I imagine there was some of it during the popular phase of many of these languages, it's nice to see mostly pragmatism in everyone's career journey.
Just curious, as you moved from language to language do you think there were any patterns as far as the timing of your moves? Did you jump into new languages as they emerged or wait for them to reach a stable mindshare within your peers? Or perhaps waited until you needed to pick up a new language in order to pay the bills?
I don't think your definition of Godwin's Law matches its stated definition. However, I want your definition to get forked into its own law because it is an incredibly astute observation.
It seems like I read a story like this several times each month. It is good advice. We all know it deep down. Yet the "I'll sleep when I'm dead" culture of constant work persists. How do we change that? I ask honestly as someone who is reformed. It took nearly losing my marriage for me to establish balance in my life and work. How do we set up an enduring culture of respect for actual balance?
I was thinking the same thing. Always, always, always have a contract in place. I really feel for this guy, but the way this went down, he provided them with his best work on the hope they would then reasonably compensate him.
A contract, negotiated up-front, might have prevented the agency from taking advantage of him.
When you launch the updated Messenger app on iOS, it asks for permission to use your contacts. The alert message was sufficiently creepy that I didn't give it permission to "sync contacts" with Facebook.
This was my thought too. The OP's friend seemed to be responding to each communication with leading statements and not once does it elicit a "tell me more" or "Oh goodness Mike, what's wrong? Is there anything I can do?"