There was a recent post asking what the self-taught among us feel we are missing from our knowledge base. For me, it's being able to calculate stuff like that for making decisions. I feel like I can spot an equivalence to the travelling salesman problem or to the halting problem a mile away, but anything more subtle is beyond me.
Of course, in this situation, I'd probably just see if I could find a sufficiently large precalculation and just pretend :)
There is a lot of good discussion here, but I'd like to toss in something else. Look around at the society we live in. Corporations don't care about health and well-being. Insurance companies don't care about health and well-being. Political leaders don't care about health and well-being. Pundits and think tanks don't care about health and well-being.
Caring, volunteering, and donation all require the right frame of mind. Between the stress of daily survival and the messages we get from the people with the most power and the loudest voices, it surprises me that anyone is still donating.
That's what 3D printing is for...
Gotta lock those cells, even when the sheet never leaves your control.
You've had a couple of pretty good responses. I would add that the very fact that you can ask that question demonstrates a failure of the education system and the fundamental problem of depending on business ideals to manage society.
In the first case, a proper education would have included, at all grade levels, examples and discussion of the various purely intellectual pursuits that ultimately proved critical to some technological advance that improved quality of life.
In the second case, the naive "businessification" of society means that any pursuit that doesn't make clear at the outset what practical (ie profitable) goal is being pursued is dismissed as folly unworthy of funding and support and education. (See my point above.)
One thing that was not addressed in the article is morality. Among the other things I learned during 50 years in the workforce is that sleep is treated as a moral issue.
Choosing to "stay up late" or choosing to "sleep in" are decadent, unless it's a result of late socializing. Choosing to go to bed when tired instead of staying up socializing is antisocial and even an insult to others. Choosing a sleep schedule that is natural and healthy is selfish when it conflicts with the imposed schedule. Not going on-call, taking shift work, or working extended shifts demonstrate the moral failing of a bad work ethic. Students suffering because their circadian rhythms don't match the imposed schedule are lazy or don't care or are unintelligent.
We're not going to fix anything until we treat sleep and sleep schedules as biological imperatives instead of moral decisions.
Yes, but it's important to remember that a much (most?) of that work was performed by those with hereditary wealth, under the patronage of those with hereditary wealth, under the patronage of the church, or by clergy who had plenty of free time beyond their duties and no separate need to earn income for housing and food. In fact, one reason to enter the clergy was to gain access to the resources to pursue other activities.
I would draw your attention to the difference between mathematics and reality. Although mathematics is extremely useful in modeling reality, it's important to remember that while all models are wrong, some are nonetheless useful.
Thus, a household gardener or storage tank owner or a builder of small boats can choose the appropriate diameter of hose, tank, or pontoon very effectively by rounding PI to 3 but cannot do so when "rounding" to 1 or 5. In these cases, it literally doesn't matter how many decimal points you use, because the difference between 3 and any arbitrary decimal expansion of PI will be too small to have concrete meaning in actual use.
Under the philosophy you are promoting, it would be impossible to act in the physical world whenever it throws an irrational number at us.
I don't know, but I suspect that there is a whole branch of mathematics, engineering, or philosophy that describes what kinds of simplifications and rounding are acceptable when choosing to act in the physical world.
The real world in which we act has a fuzziness about it. I think it's better to embrace it and find ways to work with that than to argue problems that literally have no numerical solution, at least when those arguments would have the effect of making it impossible to act.
Not necessarily. Calculating the flotation of a cylindrical pontoon using pi=5 will leave you with a boat that sinks!
The impossibility of perpetual motion is not a reason to shut down research into methods of making power production and power consumption more efficient.
Are you saying that dealing with the waste brine is impossible in any way, shape, or form and that this is a reason to not pursue desalination research?
I used to be municipal water treatment plant operator (Level 2). I'm well aware that treatment waste is something that must be dealt with in any plant that does more than just disinfection.
I already admitted to not being up on the state of the art, but I was under the impression that there are potentially viable methods of dealing with waste brine in environmentally sustainable ways. Perhaps not at a scale that allows literally every human to use desalination for all needs, but that there are cases where desalination is a good solution.
My curiosity has been piqued. I will, of course, start looking for resources on waste brine management, but any pointers you have will be much appreciated.
One of the challenging issues with a complex problem is that the problem is not solved until the whole thing is solved.
One of the nice things about a complex problem is that you don't have to solve the whole thing at once in order to make progress toward a complete solution.
I don't know the state of the art on dealing with waste brine. If that is already deemed insoluble above a certain scale, then we better not invest in anything that exceeds that scale. On the other hand, if research into handling waste brine in sustainable ways is ongoing and making progress, then why not continue attacking the extraction problem?
I think you're on the right track, but have identified the wrong place to insert a law. It shouldn't be illegal to do this work. It should be illegal for insurance companies to abuse it through eligibility, premiums, and claims restrictions.