In light of he Sony hack, here's some earlier GG thinking on disrupting corporations.
The most interesting aspect of the Sony hack?
As we anticipated, nobody cared. Not the public. Not the government.
In fact, most people made fun of the victims and the information released was widely reprinted.
Why did wasn't there a response? Three reasons:
What does this attack mean?
Bacteria, like all living things, needs iron for a variety of biochemical functions. Humans and other higher order organisms have plenty of iron; we limit bacterial access to it as a means of defending against bacterial infection. So when we need to transfer iron throughout our bodies, we keep it tightly sequestered in a protein called transferrin.
In order to infect us, bacterial pathogens must try to wrest that iron away; they have specialized transferrin binding proteins (Tbps) to do just that. Recent work demonstrates that transferrin "is engaged in ancient and ongoing evolutionary conflicts" with one of these Tbps, TbpA.
By comparing the genetic sequence of transferrin across twenty-one different primate species, researchers found that transferrin has undergone positive evolutionary selection in a manner often seen in molecular arms races between mammals and viruses. Fourteen of the sixteen rapidly evolving sites identified in transferrin are in amino acids that form direct contact with TbpA from bacterial all-stars like Neisseria meningitidis, which causes meningitis; Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which causes gonorrhea; and Haemophilus influenzae, which can cause pneumonia.
In a competitive market, if you do the work to lower your price by 10%, your market share grows.
If you dig in deep, analyze, reengineer and make thoughtful changes, you can lower your price another 10%. This leads to an even bigger jump in market share.
The third time (or maybe the fourth, or even before then), you only achieve a 10% savings by cutting safety, or quality, or reliability. You cut corners, certainly.
The last 10% costs your workers the chance to make a decent living, it costs your suppliers the opportunity to treat their people with dignity, and it costs you your reputation.
The last 10% isn't worth it.
We're not going to remember how cheap you were. We're going to remember that you let us down.
From Quora, an answer to the question "If we pour water on the sun with a bucket as big as the sun, will the sun be extinguished?"
The probable answer is "no." The Sun involves a special type of fire that is able to "burn" water, and so it will just get hotter, and six times brighter.
Water is 89% oxygen BY MASS. And the Sun's overall density is 1.4 times that of water. So if you have a volume of water the VOLUME of the Sun, it will have 1/1.4 = 0.71 times the mass of the Sun, and this mass will be .71*.89 = 63% of a solar mass of oxygen and 8% of a solar mass of hydrogen. The Sun itself is 0.74 solar masses of hydrogen and 0.24 solar masses of helium.
So you end up with a 1.7 solar mass star with composition 48% hydrogen, 37% oxygen, and 14% helium (with 1% heavier elements).
Now, will such a star burn? Yes, but not with the type of proton-proton fusion the Sun uses. A star 1.7 times the mass of the Sun will heat up and burn almost entirely by the CNO fusion cycle, after making some carbon and nitrogen to go along with all the oxygen you've started with. So with CNO fusion and that mass you get a type F0 star with about 1.3 times the radius and 6 times the luminosity of the present Sun, and a temperature somewhat hotter than the Sun (7200 K vs. the Sun's 5800 K). It will be bluish-white, with more UV. That, along with that 6 times heat input, will cause the Earth's biosphere to be fried, and oceans to probably boil.
Well, we probably shouldn't do that then. (via gizmodo)Tags: science Sun
CARACA MOLEQUE, isso é culpa do papa!
Dans les années 2010, les mots les plus populaires sont: HELL YEAH WE FUCK DIE.
Esta é nossa Foto Gump do dia, que mostra o bizarro e misterioso furacão hexagonal que tem em Saturno.
Não é um furacãozinho qualquer, meu amigo. Localizado no pólo norte de Saturno, está há décadas (talvez milênios) ocorrendo uma tempestade que não cessa. É uma poderosíssima e corrente vento de seis lados, que mede 321.868,8 km de diâmetro. No interior, os ventos sopram a 200 quilômetros por hora, alimentando um enorme furacão central, que gera sub-furacões menores para todos os lados.
Uma vez que não há nada sólido em Saturno para conter ou mesmo desacelerar o fluxo de gás que está causando esse fenômeno, não há nenhuma indicação que a tempestade passará um dia. Nós somente mapeamos e descobrimos esta bizarra curiosidade no polo norte de Saturno há duas décadas, mas isso pode já estar assim, desse jeito, há muitos milhares de anos antes mesmo da Humanidade surgir na Terra, e se bobear, antes mesmo da própria Terra surgir no sistema solar.
Como a tempestade lá começou é um grande mistério, que talvez no futuro um poderoso simulador computacional possa nos dizer.
Esta imagem, que é basicamente uma visão do topo do planeta, vem da sonda Cassini , e a razão pelo qual dá pra ver tão claramente a tempestade misteriosa, é que a inclinação axial de Saturno e sua localização orbital permitiram que a luz alcançasse o pólo norte diretamente. A visão do turbilhão hexagonal de gases só vai ficar melhor em 2017, quando será o solstício de verão do hemisfério norte de Saturno.
Infelizmente, o fim-de-vida da missão Cassini também se dará neste mesmo ano, de modo que teremos sorte se uma das últimas imagens que a sonda nos enviar for um hexágono gigantesco gloriosamente iluminado pelo sol.
Você deve estar se perguntando por que razão a tempestade é hexagonal e não circular, ou mesmo oval, como a tempestade vermelha de Júpiter, que são formas mais orgânicas que o padrão hexagonal.
Cada lado do hexágono tem 13.800 km, o que é maior que o diâmetro da Terra! Este hexágono está rodando a uma velocidade que lhe permite uma volta completa a cada 10 horas e 39 minutos. Este é o mesmo período em que as emissões de rádio de Saturno são lançadas a partir do seu interior.
Segundo a Wikipedia, a hipótese para explicar o hexágono no polo norte de Saturno foi desenvolvida na Universidade de Oxford. Os cientistas acreditam que as formas hexagonais surgem onde há um íngreme gradiente latitudinal na velocidade dos ventos atmosféricos na atmosfera de Saturno. Similares formas regulares foram criados em laboratório quando um tanque circular de líquido foi rodado em velocidades diferentes em seu centro e periferia. A forma mais comum era de seis lados, mas as formas de dois a oito lados, também foram produzidas.
As formas eram obtidas em uma área de fluxo turbulento entre os dois órgãos rotativos de fluidos diferentes e com velocidades diferentes.
Um número de vórtices estáveis de forma semelhante surge sobre o lado mais lento da fronteira de fluido e estes interagem com uns com os outros no espaço, produzindo uma forma uniforme em torno do perímetro.
Last week I finally saw The Imitation Game, the movie with Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing.
OK, so for those who haven’t yet seen it: should you? Here’s my one paragraph summary: imagine that you told the story of Alan Turing—one greatest triumphs and tragedies of human history, needing no embellishment whatsoever—to someone who only sort-of understood it, and who filled in the gaps with weird fabrications and Hollywood clichés. And imagine that person retold the story to a second person, who understood even less, and that that person retold it to a third, who understood least of all, but who was charged with making the movie that would bring Turing’s story before the largest audience it’s ever had. And yet, imagine that enough of the enormity of the original story made it through this noisy channel, that the final product was still pretty good. (Except, imagine how much better it could’ve been!)
The fabrications were especially frustrating to me, because we know it’s possible to bring Alan Turing’s story to life in a way that fully honors the true science and history. We know that, because Hugh Whitemore’s 1986 play Breaking the Code did it. The producers of The Imitation Game would’ve done better just to junk their script, and remake Breaking the Code into a Hollywood blockbuster. (Note that there is a 1996 BBC adaptation of Breaking the Code, with Derek Jacobi as Turing.)
Anyway, the movie focuses mostly on Turing’s codebreaking work at Bletchley Park, but also jumps around in time to his childhood at Sherborne School, and to his arrest for “homosexual indecency” and its aftermath. Turing’s two world-changing papers—On Computable Numbers and Computing Machinery and Intelligence—are both mentioned, though strangely, his paper about computing zeroes of the Riemann zeta function is entirely overlooked.
Here are my miscellaneous comments:
For more, see an excellent piece in Slate, How Accurate Is The Imitation Game?. And for other science bloggers’ reactions, see this review by Christos Papadimitriou (which I thought was extremely kind, though it focuses more on Turing himself than on the movie), this reaction by Peter Woit, which largely echoes mine, and this by Clifford Johnson.
I can't think of a single time that an individual or an organization has created a brand-new worldview, spread it and then led that tribe.
There were Harley-type renegades before there was Harley Davidson. There were digital nomads before there was Apple. There were pop music fans before there were the Beatles and Rastafarians before Marley.
Without a doubt, a new technology creates new experiences. But the early adopters who gravitate to it were early adopters before we got there.
Our job is to find the disconnected and connect them, to find people eager to pursue a goal and give them the structure to go achieve that goal. But just about always, we start with an already existing worldview, a point of view, a hunger that's waiting to be satisfied.
If someone asked you how to do something, would you act it out, using no words at all?
Of course not. Yet, in our increasingly post-literate world, it seems like organizations are afraid to use prose. It doesn't cost anything, and when you post a link, you have all the room in the world to clearly write out a narrative of how something works. You can even do it in 200 languages without too much trouble.
Here's the fundamental mistake that marketers make: Great design often needs little explanation. And so, natural, organic, effective design often comes without written instructions. But, and it's a huge but, the converse is not true. Shipping something without instructions doesn't mean it's a great design.
What are the chances that a guest is going to use this hotel shower properly the first time?
Why does Ikea believe that providing nothing but little pictures is the best way to teach someone to do something?
After wasting hours trying to figure out the proseless instructions for a fancy lamp I purchased from an Italian company, I wrote a narrative for the company, in the vain hope that perhaps they'd save other people the trouble.
Most people would never to choose to read it. Except the people who are stuck and confused, which is precisely the group you write instructions for. When in doubt, write it down. By all means, you still need pictures, even video. But there's nothing to replace the specificity that comes from the alphabet. Use labels. Use words.