A simple piece of code to load data from a well-defined file format, with a provided suite of tests to verify that your code does what it's supposed to?

That's a pretty standardized product that a lot of people can produce.

There's not a single quote from the LKML in there. There's two emails, a bunch of blog comments, and a quote from a Linux USB mailing list/gmane newsgroup.

It's pretty funny how she's asked for examples from the LKML and then responds with a list of examples not from the LKML.

"The LKML is so toxic, look at all these examples from places completely unrelated to the LKML!"

I think he's suggesting that you need to buy a Google Play music subscription ($9.99/month).

> Is written on it: no photons, no videos?

I hate stadiums that ban photons. I'm just trying to watch the game, dammit!

I think they actually get cut off at GOOOOOOOOOOOA--

You're making an argument based on contracts, which is not the same argument the PL is making.

The effect the OP describes, where after lying on your side for a while the eye which is lower down sees things as slightly warmer (more red) than the eye that is higher up, is completely normal AFAIK. I notice it at least once a week or so. All my family members have confirmed that they experience the same thing--we actually discussed this in our family facebook group a few months back.

Since it seems unlikely that we all have tumors pinching our optical nerves, I'm guessing it's something that happens to everyone and you just haven't noticed it yourself.

Hi, statistician here.

For a single model to predict temperatures higher than what actually happens and for the result to be within the error bars is unremarkable. When all 73 models predict results higher than what happens that indicates some serious systematic bias in the modelling (assuming there wasn't selection bias on the other side, of course--if the heartland folk intentionally ignored models that predicted less warming than actually happened then that's a huge problem). If the models are unbiased ("right on average") I would probably expect about half of them to predict above and half of them to predict below the actual results. (It wouldn't necessarily be exactly half and half, because the error distribution is not necessarily symmetric, but it should probably be somewhere around there.)

I believe that climate change is happening, but I think we're probably generally overestimating both the size of it and our precision.. There are well-recognized biases in various steps of the academic/scientific system--obtaining funding, getting published, making a name for yourself--that encourage this kind of exaggeration of results, in terms of both size and precision.

This is my judgement as a statistician--a kind of meta-scientist, if you will. I have no expertise in climate so I can't speak to the soundness of the mdoels being used, but the statistical behavior of them does raise some flags.

But now we have robots! Surely the problem with previous attempts was simply a lack of technology and resources which we have now solved.

He is claiming that he was trained and worked as a spy for the US government, not (as you seem to think) that he spied on the US government for a foreign power.