= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
An earthrise that might be witnessed from the surface of the Moon would be quite unlike moonrises on Earth. Because the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth, one side of the Moon always faces toward Earth. Interpretation of this fact would lead one to believe that the Earth's position is fixed on the lunar sky and no earthrises can occur, however, the Moon librates slightly, which causes the Earth to draw a Lissajous figure on the sky. This figure fits inside a rectangle 15°48' wide and 13°20' high (in angular dimensions), while the angular diameter of the Earth as seen from Moon is only about 2°. This means that earthrises are visible near the edge of the Earth-observable surface of the Moon (about 20% of the surface). Since a full libration cycle takes about 27 days, earthrises are very slow, and it takes about 48 hours for Earth to clear its diameter.
Thanks, a correction has been made.
This is the reasoning behind tit-for-tat, and which allows it to succeed - when it does succeed.
However, in a crowd of always-defectors (such as a set created by reasoning from a known length-of-game), tit-for-tat's initial cooperation means it will have a slightly lower score than the crowd which always defects; tit-for-tat needs the cooperation of one or more other not-always-defectors to build up enough of an advantage amongst themselves to overcome that.
For such an ideal set of defectors, that's true.
But even there, you soon find two or more defectors from this always defect code. They start to cooperate between each other and outmaneuver the initial crowd.
In real life, you can do something even better than to defect every time.
You can cooperate, thus signaling to others, you are not a defector. Cooperating with them, you can do more than alone. More than a lone wolf, always defecting to everybody.
I have a half written post about the cultural divisions in the environmentalist movement that I intend to put on a personal blog in the nearish future. (Tl;Dr there "Green" groups who advocate different things in a very emotional/moral way vs. "Scientific" environmentalists)
I've been thinking about comparisons between the structure of that movement and how future movements might tackle other potential existential risks, specifically UFAI. Would people be interested in a post here specifically discussing that?
Yes. As I see, a lot of Greens are Misanthropes. Do you cover this aspect?
Just thinking... could it be worth doing a website providing interesting parts of settled science for laypeople?
If we take the solid, replicated findings, and remove the ones that laypeople don't care about (because they have no use for them in everyday life)... how much would be left? Which parts of human knowledge would be covered most?
I imagine a website that would first provide a simple explanation, and then a detailed scientific explanation with references.
Why? Simply to give people idea that this is science that is useful and trustworthy -- not the things that are too abstract to understand or use, and not some new hypotheses that will be disproved tomorrow. Science, as a friendly and trustworthy authority. To get some respect for science.
Imagine, you have something like this back in 1900.
Do you remember how settled was that the Universe is slowing down at its expansion? The only thing wasn't settled was the slowing rate - is it big enough to stop one day and reverse. 20 years ago.
Just now, they discuss Big Bang. Settled long ago.
I am not saying your idea isn't good. It is, but the controversy is imminent.
Nope. People thought that this might be what's going on, so they tested it. People definitely weren't misinterpreting the question; the conjunction fallacy really is a thing.
What is more likely?
A: People gave wrong answer AND weren't misinterpreting the question
B: People gave wrong answer
What's more probable:
A: "Linda is a bank teller AND is active in the feminist movement"
B: "Linda is a bank teller".
When the question is formulated this way, people assume, that it is in fact asked:
What's more probable:
A: "Linda is a bank teller AND is active in the feminist movement"
B: "Linda is a bank teller AND she gave up her previous views".
If giving up her views isn't very probable for Linda, then A is more likely.
The format of a question sometimes conveys some additional information, beware!
This is a traveling salesman problem, so it is unlikely that Thomas used an algorithm that guarantees optimality. If I understand your proposed greedy algorithm correctly, the distances at the beginning would be shorter than the distances at the end, which I do not observe in his list. A greedy heuristic that would not produce that effect would be to consider the state to be a bunch of lists and at every step concatenate the two lists whose endpoints are closest. This is a metric TSP, so the Christofides algorithm is no more than 1.5x optimal.
You are right. I'll call this sorting order Levenshtein-TSP ordering.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The Earthrise videos were shot while orbiting around the Moon in an (approximately) equatorial circular orbit, not from the surface. That's why the effect is similar.
Agree. My intention was and still is, that people would understand how peculiar sky is above the Moon. For one, there is Earth just hanging (oscillating a little, that's true) in the sky. Here we have Polaris, doing the same, but on the northern, not equatorial sky. It's worth to mention, that from the Moon south pole, you always see the Sun and Earth. Sun orbiting around, Earth not.