Any ETA on making PostreSQL Aurora a HIPAA eligible service? We are currently using MySQL Aurora and would like to switch to PostreSQL, but we are storing ePHI, so we can't switch.
They are different in degree and method, but fundamentally they are the same thing. In the end they are both humans causing the genes of a good crop to change over time. Direct genetic engineering is going to be faster, but the end results could still be the same as indirect breeding and hybrids.
A species, the lowest taxonomic classification on the tree of life, is defined by the ability to crossbreed. [0]
Previously, any crossbreeding between plants, by necessity had to belong to the same species. Since this is the lowest taxonomic classification, the vast majority of the genome was shared.
Now, a plant can be crossed with any other species on the tree of life. That's a significant difference.
All you need to say is that without modern methods of direct gene alteration (and perhaps mutagens), organisms had to be able to breed to have their genes crossed (fertile offspring make the cross more interesting). Talking about species just muddies it up.
Of course, GMOs can also pass the tests of successfully maturing and reproducing.
What do you mean? The arabic number system that most of the world uses is base 10. Also, I don't see why the base of the number system would make math any easier or harder.
The arabic numeral system is base-10, but English numerals are only sort of base 10: consider 2, 10, 12 and 22. In English, these are spoken as "two", "ten", "twelve" and "twenty-two". The words "twelve" and "twenty" are both derived from "two", it's true, but in two different ways. "Teen" and "ten" are similar, but there's nothing about "twenty" that indicates a connection to "ten".
In Japanese (IIRC), 2, 10, 12, 22 is spoken "ni, ju, ju-ni, ni-ju-ni": "two, ten, two-tens, two-tens-and-two".
It's not that one base is better than another: the idea is that a single consistent base is better than inconsistency.
Thank you. I had flirted with the thoughts before, but never really explicitly considered how odd the English words "eleven", "twelve" and then the "teens" are. Not only is "teen" not quite "ten", we also put it after the ones digit. That is, 19 is "nine-teen", but 91 is "ninety-one".
This is true of Germanic languages more generally, where they have special cases for teens too but also read higher numbers as "five-and-twenty" etc. And then French has their vigesimal thing - 92 is quatre-vingt-douze, ie. "four twentys and twelve". English gets off relatively lightly with teens only...
Interestingly, this is how I was always taught to think of numbers. Beads on a stick represent all numbers. 1 bead is 1. A ten is therefore a stick with 10 beads on it. A hundred is 10 tens (in a square). A thousand is 10 hundreds stacked on top of each other (or 10 "10 tens" in a cube).
This really made it simple to think of things like carrying (oh, that's just breaking the wire holding the beads together) and squaring/rooting (since 100 was a square of 10 it was trivial). It provided an interesting method of multiplication too (simply align two numbers orthogonally and fill in the grid). I still think in terms of this now.
Incidentally, when I learned Japanese many years later it felt more natural than saying twenty-two or the abomination that is seventeen.
20 is "esrim", meaning tens, which is actually a special case because Hebrew once had a grammatical dual form. Then comes "shloshim", meaning threes. "Arba'im", fours. And so on. So 22 is "esrim ve'shtayyim", tens and two.
This is the case for chinese (japanese, despite being from a completely different language family, inherited the system). Digits are grouped by myriads (10^4) instead of thousands (10^3). Accordingly, you would write 10^6 like this: 100,0000
RSS was dead for non-techies before this too, which is why the audience for Google Reader was so small: it was only techies. Non-techies have simply been using Facebook and Twitter all this time, and now they will just continue to use Facebook and Twitter.
Techies on the other hand will migrate to other products, and RSS will keep chugging along as a techie-only protocol.
RSS and Google Reader itself has an awareness problem. These are just anecdotes, but I introduced Google Reader to multiple profoundly nontechnical friends and family members over the years. Literally every single one of them immediately fell in love with it, and never stopped using it. My mother, who completely lacks understanding of the idea that she can save a file to her computer and get it back later, for whom the web IS the computer, uses Google Reader daily to follow dozens of blogs.
It's not that Reader or RSS have no potential value to anyone who isn't "good with computers." It's that Google never bothered to tell anyone it existed! And why should they? Modern Google doesn't give a shit about the open web or decentralized culture, they want to "own social" and keep everything contained within their cancerous Facebook clone.
People I know who ask me why this mattered and why I used it seem to understand it when I explain it this way: Imagine being able to know when your favorite websites are updated, what that update is, follow the blogs or articles of your favorite writers, and not be limited to what some strangers decided they thought was kewl and up or downvoted.
A lot of people just didn't know you could have a service like Google Reader.
Following any more than a couple sites without this type of service, where you have to bookmark and visit the sites daily or periodically, makes it feel like you're changing channels on a TV without a TV guide view. Which is one reason why sites like this and reddit are so prominent.
The Earth is not an intelligent agent. The Earth doesn't "know" anything. Also, plenty of plants have evolved to be poisonous to prevent animals (including humans) from eating them, so you can't just blindly go around eating any mushroom or berry you find in nature. Natural does not always mean "good for you".
you can't just blindly go around eating any mushroom or berry you find in nature. Natural does not always mean "good for you
Of course it doesn't. That's not what I was suggesting. Rather, when people are told that something is illegal or cannot help them, for them to conduct research into it independently. Even better, seek out studies like the one mentioned in this article and participate in them.
Concerning the Earth as an intelligent agent, can we be so sure? It's been around for an awfully long time to not know a thing or two.
PHP has nothing to do with the browser (i.e. the "platform you download software into"). If you don't like programming in PHP, then pick a different server side language instead. Even JavaScript can mostly be avoided, if you want, by using one of the higher level languages that compiles down to JavaScript.
My objections don't start (or end) with PHP. Browsers are terrible platforms, and the protocols we have to deal with are likewise terrible (ever written an HTTP proxy? Oh boy).
Oh yeah, and it's not fairly hard. After all, it's a well defined, text-based protocol. It's sweet to implement if you're not using C. That is, before you started supporting persistent connections or interacting with the content.
In any case, it's loads better than FTP and SMTP (at least HTTP spelled things completely), and loads easier to use than binary protocols.
Is there a name for the fallacy of ignoring marginal effects at the tail end of a probability distribution? I see it here incredibly frequently.
There will almost certainly be some number of people who would have stopped by Amazon right now and made some impulse purchases. At the scale Amazon operates, the increase in inconvenience to push off the marginal purchase as a function of inconvenience is almost certainly miniscule (See frequent reports on how milliseconds of page load time affect the likelihood of purchase)
I can attest to this being the case. I mentioned it elsewhere in the thread, but we're in e-commerce and when walmart.com went down around black friday last year we saw a 20megabit jump in traffic until their site came back up... and we're only one e-com provider out of many.
