But would he still be alive today if the protestors had not attacked the capitol? Most likely. So, this logic doesn't get much sympathy from me.

This in and of itself is a powerful testament to how overwhelming and out of control this violent protest was-- and also in a sense why the authorities have little or no sympathy to those involved.

Ok-- so at least here there's someone who is willing to accept what was pretty obvious to everyone. Look at this footage here. These people are storming the capitol and battering the doors down! And the hundreds of people here are all participating in this. Are they really trying to argue that they were "invited in"? Its preposterous.

I'm not sure in the documentary why they're making a distinction between "trump" supporters and others. Is this even a meaningful thing?

They've been trying to force a plea deal on him-- yes absolutely.

From an article: "According to video evidence, some of which the upstate New York filmed himself, Edward Jacob Lang hit officers with an aluminum baseball bat and protective shields, and kicked an officer that was on the ground.

Lang has been charged with 13 counts, including several felonies, but his attorneys say the defendant was a source of help that day to people who were being trampled or beaten by police officers. One individual even credits Lang for saving his life. “There was no intention to actually harm. It was more warning signs, more trying to separate two crowds, more adrenaline,” said Steven Alan Metcalf, Lang’s attorney. "This is about him jumping into a chaotic situation and doing what he can.” But also... "Nichols noted, however, that Lang’s defense attorneys haven’t even tried to use the jail’s laptops — which have long wait times and limited access. With this in mind, the judge said he isn’t prepared to modify Lang’s confinement conditions.

“How am I supposed to decide if the current policy is unworkable for you if you haven’t tried under the policy?” Nichols asked.

Nichols also said that he had to deny the motion for release because Lang has not shown any remorse for his behavior at the insurrection, where the defendant was at the front of a mob and verbally encouraging violence.

“This conduct was not in a momentary heat of passion,” Nichols said. “This was conduct over the course of a couple of hours.”

Nichols said he would be willing to review a motion to modify Lang’s confinement conditions if they find the jail’s laptop policy to be unworkable. Until then, Lang will remain behind bars. "

So, the guy beat and kicked officers who were defending the capitol. Hard to feel too sorry for the guy.

By... attacking the capitol? On a notion that somehow the vote was stolen from Trump, an allegation that has failed to win the day in any of the 60 court cases it was filed in? These people are delusional. It really shows how much Trump is at fault for all this though. These people listened to him and believed him. Its a shame, but now they are suffering the consequences of their actions.

This is really not a question. In fact, it seems that Matt was really drawn in by Trump. An article on Ayers says:

"During a July 12 hearing before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, Ayres testified that he felt as if Trump had called him to Washington that day. He said he believed that Trump would join them at the Capitol and held out hope that the 2020 presidential election results could be overturned in favor of the Republican incumbent.

“I felt like I had like horse blinders on. I was locked in the whole time,” Ayres said."

Except they did. Matt's friend from home who he traveled there with and entered the building with was clearly in the capitol for 90 minutes. In Ayers case, he showed remorse and apoligized for his actions and got a lighter sentence (probation) as a result-- presumably the same might have been offered to Matt.

This has been argued in many of the court cases. Some January 6 defendants have claimed that Capitol Police officers “invited them in” or allowed them to enter the Capitol building. This argument is based on various videos showing officers interacting with protesters in ways that some interpret as permissive. For example, some clips show officers standing by or even opening barriers as the crowd approached.

However, these claims generally have not held up in court as a defense. In many cases, footage and testimony indicate that officers were attempting to de-escalate the situation rather than actively allowing or inviting the rioters to enter. The actions of the officers were often interpreted as a response to being overwhelmed by the size and aggression of the crowd, rather than an endorsement or permission to breach the Capitol.

For instance, in the case of Jacob Chansley, also known as the “QAnon Shaman,” court documents and video evidence show officers trying to manage the situation by asking rioters to remain calm and leave the area rather than encouraging them to proceed. Similarly, the Justice Department has noted that about 140 officers were assaulted, indicating a violent breach rather than a peaceful entry sanctioned by law enforcement.

This argument is a total non-sequiter. I can't go commit a serious offense in san francisco and plead that i should get off because shoplifters get it easy. I mean I could-- but is any judge going to spend even a second considering that?

Tragic for sure. But maybe don't attack the capitol? Are the punishments extreme? Yes, but these people made an adult decision to do this.

As far as I understand they only targeted people that broke in or were clearly instigating attacks. People who were just in the general area of the capitol were not indicted.

When you read that actual transcripts of the interviews that the Jan 6 committee did of each of these individuals, the story is not that these folks rejected his claim, but that the group of the four security leaders who got together decided that the basis of the recommendation to add national guard was not warranted. So, clearly because of this decision they didn't have sufficient forces. Was that an error? In retrospect its reasonable to think so, but can we draw any further conclusions from that? Probably not without further evidence, which I am not seeing.

This really feels like an opinion piece, not a documentary. This here is the opinion of the narrator--not really an unbiased take. Another take is that this was one of the most serious assaults on one of our most central bodies of government that has ever happened.

Yep, probably unnecessary. I don't think any of us can deny that ordinary arrests in many cases have escalated completely unnecessarily. However, these people did break into one of our most sacred institutions. So, one can also say that this probably isn't unexpected given how serious of a charge this is.

Security for Roger Stone? Ok.

If they were guilty of attacking the capitol, there's nothing wrong with the speed.

She believes it but she's provided no evidence to support it, and her testimony is not in and of itself noteworthy otherwise.

The video directly shows the officers cornered in a tunnel being attacked by a mob of which she was a part. How is she possibly saying this with a straight face?

What evidence is provided to suggest that it was intentionally unsecure?

Way to flip the argument on its head. In other words: (I guess?) "You should have known a much larger violent mob was coming, and therefore you should have increased the police presence more?"

This argument is pure madness. It's arguing that the blame for the capitol being overrun isn't the actual crowd itself, or perhaps the president who urged them all to show up, but rather with those in charge of the response who failed to grasp how extreme it was going to get.

Orwellian.

The guy was involved in a violent protest and suffered a heart attack. Ok.... next. What exactly are the "troubling questions" he doesn't say.

She's citing the president? That's hardly objective.

Evidence in support of the inside job?

Evidence please?

She's not offering any evidence that they weren't.

Have never heard of "American Greatness" as a news organization. It is effectively named after MAGA, the Trump campaign slogan, and owned by Chris Buskirk, who wrote "Donald Trump vs the Leviathan" a book that is summarized as "The success of the Trump presidency will be judged in large part on his ability to reduce the size and scope of the deep state. The unelected, unaccountable permanent bureaucratic leviathan that winds itself around the body and squeezes its life out must be dismantled if Trump’s legacy is to be a permanent restoration of republican government. Fortunately, his administration is doing that. Quietly and without fanfare he is reducing oppressive regulation and reining in what has become the fourth, all-powerful branch of government. There is much yet to be done, but less than two years in, President Trump has taken steps to return power to its rightful home―the sovereign American citizen."

Maybe we can say that these folks aren't maybe the most unbiased sources in the world?

This language is tilted... And its really saying just saying these people think they had a reason to protest. But that's not in question here. Lots of people protest lots of things. Some even break into buildings. None of these things are in question. The question is the response by the president.

The crowd is pushing into this tunnel, the officers are under attack by a violent crowd.

Was he really? Seems like someone amped up on adrenaline because the building is being attacked.

Notice how the video B roll being shown here has no direct relevance to what's being claimed in the script. It is not clear who this person is and we don't see them doing anything at all that correlates to what the narrator is saying. These little anecdotes are so trivial, and also unsupported by evidence, within the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This video is propaganda. Documentaries that are trying to do a faithful job do not resort to tactics like this.

These guys are literally climbing the walls of the capitol in fatigues.

Well that's certainly true. :)

This version of events is completely unsubstantiated by the DOD IG's own internal review, which is available here.

Specifically Patel claims that the Capitol Police and Mayor Bowser declined requests for additional National Guard support before January 6. The OIG report, however, does not indicate ANY denial of support by key actors. Rather it states that the DCNG support was approved on January 5, that DCNG forces were in place at a wide range of traffic control points the morning of Jan 6, and that an additional QRF (Quick reaction force) of 40 individuals, which is what the various agencies agreed to were in place and in fact mobilized as the situation escalated on January 6.

Specifically wrt QRF team of 40 DCNG folks in riot gear, as the report outlines, it was actually McCarthy, the speaker of the house, who was the individual responsible for activating those additional personnel that day, which he finally began after a call at 2:20pm, over an hour and twenty minutes after rioters overwhelmed capitol police. There were further delays in deployment and ultimately they were deployed late enough in the day that they were not able to be effective.

Notice that many of the most important questions are not asked here. Like... what was Trump himself doing that day.

Just on prima facia evidence, they did a pretty terrible job of that. They were there to "provide security" and yet thousands of people stormed the capitol. So, are they a joke? In fact, where is the footage of any Oathkeepers actually in the front lines surrounding the capitol keeping folks from attacking the police in the first case? It looks like there are some isolated incidents of them helping after the fact-- presumably because they were concerned that their reputation might be in tatters otherwise?

Lets just look at how absolutely nuts some of these statements are. The oathkeepers were there because they thought that Trump might call them to duty if there was "antifa violence" on the day he asked all his flag waving supporters to go march down to the capitol and fight like hell to force mike pence to break his oath of office? This is absurd.

This statement is directly contradicted by numerous reports, including by reporters that were embedded with Miller on that very day. And if all that wasn't enough the DOD-- which we should be reminded is under the control of the Commander-in-chief-- directly refused an immediate quick reaction force on the morning of Jan 6. Did Trump himself refuse that, or was he in fact unreachable? Which is worse?

More importantly, why isn't this interviewer not asking these ridiculously obvious questions?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/15/no-trump-did-not-order-10000-troops-secure-capitol-jan-6/

I'm sure that there are some Trump supporters who indeed wouldn't "do that". But it's pretty obvious that there are others who would-- simply because in any crowd of 10000 there is a broad diversity of people, backgrounds, philosophies and willingness to bend the rules or flat out break them. And there were thousands of known Trump supporters who entered the building illegally, and many were arrested and later emotionally apologized for it like Mr. Ayers. When crowds come together, they do things they wouldn't otherwise do. That's why they call it "mob rule". There is nothing but speculation here.

Yeah, you know, for this massive protest that I am calling where 10s of 1000s of my crazy supporters are going to show up and I'm going to urge them to march on the capitol and insist that the vice president break his oath of office and refuse to certify the election.

I've pegged this annotation to the top in order to summarize.

This documentary was produced by Epoch TV which is a conservative pro-trump media organization run by the Falun Gong. The documentary does not ask the key questions, it focuses on a narrow set of the details around Jan 6, does not focus on key questions about Trump's own involvement and his lack of response on that day. Any unbiased documentary would do that, and would serve all perspectives.

It's possible that there is a hard-hitting documentary that will come eventually that digs deeper and exposes serious questions. This is not that.

In my annotations on this documentary I address point by point the tone, individuals, arguments, logic etc related to each segment of the piece.

But my overall argument is simple, and has nothing to do with these details. Rather, it is that: 1. Trump contested the election 2. Had no evidence to back up his claims 3. In fact, he failed in all 60 lawsuits he filed to prove any wrongdoing. You would think that he chose the jurisdictions to file those lawsuits carefully enough that he would find at least ONE court favorable to reasonable claims that he made. No. It's clear that they were bogus, as every credible commenter that has reviewed them in detail has found. 4. He called at the very least the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, and asked him, on a recorded line, to "find him" 11,000 votes. Thankfully Brad upheld the law he was sworn to protect and did not. How many others did Trump do this to?<br /> 5. Despite all this, Trump still called for a massive protest on Jan 6. 6. His call to his supporters on his completely insubstantiated claims brought 10000+ of his supporters to DC. 7. Including, through Stone and Giuliani, quasi militia groups like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, who even apparently stockpiled guns nearby. 8. He then held a speech on Jan 6 to his supporters and urged them to march to the capitol and "fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". Yes he also mentioned them to march "peacefully and patriotically" but mostly to "fight" at least 20 other times. 9. He also urged his Vice President to not certify the electors, in direct contradiction of his duties of office and the constitution. 10. In doing so, he cited a baseless constitutional memo by John Eastman, that his team (Giuliani and Jenna Ellis) directly coordinated with Eastman. This memo has now been completely discredited-- including by Pence himself, who to his credit refused to do it. 11. Those protestors then did that... they marched on the capitol and fought. Many of them shouted "Hang Mike Pence". 12. The Capitol police tried to hold the protestors back, but they were overwhelmed. 13. Then the protestors broke in and stormed the capitol and ran rampant through offices and so forth, looting and vandalizing it while congressional staff were barricaded on the floor. 14. People died, and over the weeks after four members of the police committed suicide because of the trauma they experienced. 15. And for nearly 3 hours during all this, Trump was completely unavailable to staff and the key members of the defense department and the administration, while he like everyone else in America presumably watched this unfold on live TV, hoping that this crisis and chaos would somehow prevent the certification of the vote. 16. If indeed Trump was as shocked and horrified as the rest of us at what was unfolding and, indeed, did not want any of this to happen, then he would have immediately implored his supporters to stand down. He did not. This is the guy who carries the nuclear football and has to be ready to defend the country on a moment's notice. He was a mile away. 17. The president's oath is simple: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It's short and simple. Trump violated that oath.

If anyone would do ANY of these things except, perhaps briefly, the first one. Then they are unfit to serve.

This "real story" of January 6 only deals with a few details around what happened at the capitol-- not with the entirety of the actual real story leading up to that day.

What he's saying here is that the prosecutors provided extensive documentation of communication between the senior leadership of the oathkeepers that clearly lays out their "intentions" and is trying to deflect that by effectively saying "you can never know the mind of a man". Which is kind of BS, because the legal threshold is simply showing that now only did you commit a crime, but you showed intent to commit that crime. And that is what they were convicted for.

Apparently there may have been a group of them that assisted an officer, great.

The argument here is that "Trump supporters are good" and "those other commie liberals called Antifa that use stealth tactics" are probably behind this is flawed in several ways. First, there are shadowy organizations working against democracy on all sides. Second, there is no actual evidence offered to support this claim. Third, it could be equally possible that some of the shadowy members of Antifa are in fact, stealth members from the "other" side working to discredit progressive causes. In fact, we simply don't know and most of this absent any evidence is just convenient speculation pure and simple.

Exactly, it is illegal to trespass in the capitol. I've been in the capitol, and you're only allowed there under very controlled circumstances, when you're with a tour, or when you have official business and an appointment with congressional staff. You have to go through security, etc. So, the protestors who broke in were trespassing and breaking the law. To argue that after the doors and windows were beaten down that they were "invited in" by security guards that were scared shitless at that point is absolute BS.

Yet another example of some random guy saying something that could easily be said by a Trump supporter as anyone else. Again, I'm sure there were law abiding citizens among them who would do no wrong. Perhaps that includes this "journalist". But obviously a bunch of them also entered the building when it was clear that doing so was illegal at that point. The evidence that it was specifically non-protestors who were plants by some other group, and I think the suggestion here is "feds" and not "proud boys" is not presented.

Well what about the thousands of other folks attacking the capitol-- aren't they all "suspicious actors" that were mutually encouraging each other to break the law?

This is a speculative claim about an unknown person and the only footage we have is that he's holding a door open at some point for some amount of time.

Remember the job of defense attorneys is to sow doubt and get their clients acquitted of the charges.... so I'm not sure the best source of evidence about these claims.

Where is the evidence for this? It may exist but this documentary does not share it.

Remeber, the jury in the court case where this was presented came to the conclusion that they did commit seditious conspiracy, with an intent to attack the capitol. Also, they were in town to provide security for Roger Stone, who helped organize the protest, and their telegram messages with eachother were part of the evidence submitted as part of the court case, where they're on record suggesting that they "invade it".

Which is his absolute right. I wish him the best of luck.

The way these guys talk about eachother as if they were some sort of special group of patriots? They broke into Congress while it was in session to try to stop the counting of the electoral votes.

The fact that they keep focusing on this guy is not helping the goals of this doc. I mean he's picking up the same crutch that other protestors were using to attack the police and holding it up while facing the police? What an idiot.

Maybe instead get the f out of there so that other people can leave too?

Again, with the music in the background and all this completely irrelevant testimony about how God inspired him to do this... this is not an objective documentary, this is a puff piece for evangelical christian right wingers.

Not sure it raises much of a question. Obviously that's going to be a very difficult identification.

Again, sure he's got tactical gear on and a face mask-- but of course maybe he's just a guy that likes to contribute to chaos and doesn't want to get caught. He could be a Proud Boy that's trying to stir the pot. He could be anyone. There's no evidence either way.

Ultimately the protestors are responsible for their own actions. If I see that the capitol is being attacked my first response isn't going to be to climb into a broken window, it's going to be to get the hell out of there and stay away so that the authorities can get things under control.

It appears that the definition of a suspicious actor is anyone encouraging others to commit crimes. But of course, the simplest explanation is just that they were protestors encouraging other protestors.

One can speculate, but unless there's hard evidence, then its just that... speculation that is convenient to the narrative, but otherwise useless.

Promised to who? Trying to find a citation for this claim. Perhaps there is none?

Sounds like he was charged, and plead guilty.

There's a story on him here. But where is the evidence that he was actually a "fed" as opposed to just a garden variety Trump supporter?

I think this is the way it works.

He may want to-- but I doubt there's any precedent for that. If he hasn't presented compelling data then it doesn't appear likely that anyone would take that request seriously.

This appears to be an unsupported assertion made by another party (Brad) who "watched a bunch of video over months" and came to that conclusion. But... where is the evidence other than some random shots of people in the crowd. None of that evidence is presented here.

Also, it's obvious but needs to be said that if indeed there were actors trying to rile up the crowd that could be the work of anyone, including Trump (incl. Roger Stone and others) who obviously wanted this protest to happen, directly incited it, and in fact was unresponsive for hours while it was happening.

I'm really not sure what the point of this story is except to really make this guy out to be a religious nut. He does not come off as a strong credible witness.

But of course the police are also dealing with people that are trying to attack them with the same things-- so maybe just... leave?

So, he went to the front, right where all the action was instead of perhaps praying from the back?

And yet, he still went.

I appreciate how much of an emphasis Kohn puts on the mental strain grades can put on students. How, despite grades purley being a measurement of where we are and there's no right or wrong place to be at, we can lose all confidence in an interest just because of a grade lower than expected on it.

Creating a curriculum that includes everything content-wise it needs while also allowing students to set their individual educational goals to best benefit themselves is a difficult thing to start because in some ways it goes fully against what we imagine for a traditional class, however I wish it was something that was more prominently input by teachers. From a student's perspective, allowing myself to decide what I get out of my education is very helpful and encourages me to go beyond the bare minimum in a class.

I think this is a really interesting comment because, in my opinion, the way traditional grading is structured makes you feel like the end goal is getting an A and once you achieve that you've gone as far is you need to and have perfected the content. However there is no "perfecting" a course there shouldn't be an end goal like getting an A because there's always room to grow and continue your understanding of the topic.

I partially agree with this. Yes, you should learn about things that you are curious about, but you can't just only focus on those things. I think only following your curiosity can be dangerous when it comes to learning. Learning about things, even if you have little to no interest in them, broadens your thinking and helps you grow. You could possibly discover something that you are really interested in by sitting in a class you thought you would hate. I do agree learning should be somewhat catered to your interests, but there should still be some kind of learning standard.

Essentially, if learning follows a specific path laid out for you before you even set foot in a classroom, then the learning is not catered to your needs and goals. When what is being taught to you is not catered to your needs and goals, you are not learning to your full potential. Curiosity should lead learning.

UT PCL has it. https://search.lib.utexas.edu/permalink/01UTAU_INST/3307f/alma991017140839706011

UT PCL has some of them. https://search.lib.utexas.edu/permalink/01UTAU_INST/9e1640/alma991028908279706011

UT PCL has them, mostly.

https://search.lib.utexas.edu/permalink/01UTAU_INST/19i7hhk/alma991015658839706011

UT has a copy that is a facsimile reprint with a newer (still in-copyright) introduction.

UT has a copy that is a facsimile reprint with a newer (still in-copyright) introduction.

UT has it in their microfilm deposit.

for - Dr. Donna Thomas - book - Children's unexplained experiences in a post materialistic world - analytic idealism - children perspective of reality - adjacency - children as natural philosophers - Deep Humanity as reminder of our philosophical nature

adjacency - between - Children as natural philosophers - Deep Humanity - adjacency relationship - At time 59 minute of that interview, Dr Thomas makes a very insightful observation that - children are naturally philosophers - and ask deeply philosophical questions - Another way to look at Deep Humanity is that it is reminding us of these deeply philosophical questions the see all had when we were children - but we stopped asking then as we grew out of childhood because nobody could answer them for us

The essence of cutting AWS data transfer costs by 99% is to use Amazon S3 as an intermediary for data transfers between EC2 instances in different Availability Zones (AZs). Instead of direct transfers, which incur significant costs, you upload the data to S3 (free upload), and then download it within the same region (free download). By keeping the data in S3 only temporarily, you minimize storage costs, drastically reducing overall transfer expenses.

HubScience is here to

Aigment

Researchers'

Capabilities

I asked Claude: Can you expand on what's happening here?

Claude said:

Certainly! This code demonstrates two important Python features: argument unpacking with the * and ** operators. Let's break it down:

First, we define a function show_spread that takes three parameters: left, middle, and right.

Then, we have two examples of calling this function using different forms of argument unpacking:

a) List unpacking with *: python all_in_list = [1, 2, 3] show_spread(*all_in_list) Here, *all_in_list unpacks the list into individual arguments. It's equivalent to calling show_spread(1, 2, 3).

b) Dictionary unpacking with **: python all_in_dict = {"right": 30, "left": 10, "middle": 20} show_spread(**all_in_dict) Here, **all_in_dict unpacks the dictionary into keyword arguments. It's equivalent to calling show_spread(left=10, middle=20, right=30).

The key points are:

• unpacks an iterable (like a list or tuple) into positional arguments.
• unpacks a dictionary into keyword arguments. When using **, the keys in the dictionary must match the parameter names in the function.

This technique is powerful for making function calls more flexible and for passing collections of values as separate arguments.

This proves that grades are so ingrained into our minds that we are constantly comparing ourselves to others. This is not a healthy mindset to have and it takes away from our ability to express creativity and individuality because we are consumed with comparison.

is❌: it is were duh, we were speaking about the 19th century

Sentence

them

Fragment

Sentence

Fragment

Sentence

Sentence

remove

Fragment

remove

Fragment

remove

Fragment

remove

Fragment

remove

fragment

uses

fragment

remove

Fragment

Sentence

adjective

pronoun

verb

noun

noun

conjuctive adverb

noun

prepositions

verb

adverb

noun

verb

verb

conjuctive adverb/conjuction

noun

pronoun

noun

verb

noun

transition word (conjuctions)

verb

subject

pronoun

transition word(likely this one as it isnt in the beggiinig of a sentence, i would say is a coordinating cunjuction belonging to FANBOYS)/conditional adverb

noun

preposition

report

test CAse

hello

Alternative take: if the HTML5 parsing algorithm (and its error handling) had been precisely defined, then HTML would have become as popular as fast (maybe even faster?) while being a lot more cross-compatible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer

should be ¿

TBL says that browsers must be able to handle plain text (and not just that, but 80-column text). I wonder if this mandate appears anywhere else in modern standards (rather than just implemented by convention). It should.

(I am genuinely concerned about the possibility that browsers could/would remove support for plain text.)

This page is for Guidelines 3.0

02:33 Pseudo productivity as visible and busy work. "The bussier, the better" More mails, text messaging back and forth, meetings. In essence, work is done for the sake of doing, but it lacks substance and effectiveness.

This can also be likened to work optimisation (3:43) "Fit as much as possible"

Why only even terms in this equation?

For example, SMART goal is an indirect strategy

We will add more explicit language about including one or more strategies in SMART goals, focusing on how and what part.

ToDo/@lma@mstdn.social

ToDoBioinformacion

@lma@mstdn.social

Those are: - https://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/Conferences/ECHT90/Authors.html#BernersLee - https://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/Conferences/ECHT90/Authors.html#Cailliau

“Oil and gas is a connected network of processes, people, and infrastructure,” ... “We are working with a client now modeling saltwater disposal wells. If you turn a valve that decreases the flow in a pipeline, it has a downstream effect on the disposal well. Knowledge graphs built on Neo4j are the perfect abstraction layer to model relationships across this kind of complex network and were a much better fit for reView than triple stores.” [Jeff Dalgliesh], Chief Technology Officer at Data².

“Analysts need to be able to dissect exactly how the AI reached a particular conclusion or recommendation,” “Neo4j enables us to enforce robust information security by applying access controls at the subgraph level.” Chief Business Officer Eric Costantini.

See 9:02 for snapshots of the new animation style

WIT Studio is working on a new One Piece series that has better animation/pacing. They seem to also collaborate with Netflix here?

List of people working on it.

foster collaboration intersection

for - sub0symbolic.artificail.intellgence

symbolic0representation Knowledge.Graphs GKs

for - Sub-Symbolic.Methods

The sole purpose of the SC Pump (Steam generator Self Cleaning pump) is to empty the steam generator.

In Basic settings:

The length of time the pump is required to run to empty the steam generator can be adjusted. (Normally set at 45 seconds)

The amount of time since the last Self Clean Automatic is recorded.for reference purposes.

The Self cleaning maximum interval time can be set (Normally 7,200 seconds (2 hours)).

The pumps operational functionality (XS ovens only) can be set between Continuous running or Pulsing

The CDS (Calcium Diagnostic Sensor) S11 is a hall sensor device, sensing movement of water though any of the five solenoid valves in the 5 port valve block.

In Basic Settings the number of pulses per litre can be adjusted.

Must be set at 1350 pulses per litre for 6-1/1 to 20-2/1

Must be set at 1000 pulses per litre for 6-2/3 (XS model)

The CDS sensor is connected to the A10 I/O board at connection X15 and when water is flowing, measures the volume by sending electrical pulses via the A10 I/O board through the bus system (Data Highway) to the main processor (A11).

The CDS provides a preset number of pulses for each litre of water passing through the valve block.

The processor (A11) uses this information to confirm:

a) That any specific valve is in fact working by sending a signal to open the valve and then waiting for pulses to appear from the CDS sensor as in confirmation that the valve has in fact opened.

b) The volume of water stored in the steam tank each time the SC Automaitic system operates..

Certain Launcher screens have "Module test" facilities which aid as a diagnostic tool by running specific processes and providing either confirmation that the system is fully functioning or indicating via service error codes which components may be faulty.

Basic settings on SCCWE required a machine to be switched off at the on/off button to confirm any changes.

iCombi Pro basic setting changes are active as soon as they are changed. It is no longer necessary to switch thje machine off and back on again to confirm the changes.

The diagnostic tab enables you to see real time functionality such as activation of components like door switch, level probe, fan motor speeds etc.

Error code description:

Faulty data communication to automatic ignition controller.

Condition for error detection:

BUS signal from automatic ignition controller is missing or is not transmitted for at least 5 seconds at a time.

Error area:

Data transfer cable, automatic ignition controller.

Relevant causes/components:

• Electrical connection to components
• Automatic ignition controller

Error code description:

Faulty data communication to the I/O board.

Condition for error detection:

BUS signal from I/O board is missing or is not transmitted for at least 5 seconds at a time.

Error area:

Data transfer cable, I/O board

Relevant causes/components:

• Electrical connection to components
• I/O board

Error code description:

Faulty data communication to pump PCB.

Condition for error detection:

BUS signal from pump PCB is missing or is not transmitted for at least 5 seconds at a time.

Error area:

Data transfer cable, pump PCB

Relevant causes/components:

• Electrical connection to components
• Pump PCB

Error code description:

Faulty data communication to bottom fan motor.

Condition for error detection:

BUS signal from bottom fan motor is missing or is not transmitted for at least 5 seconds at a time.

Error area:

Data transfer cable, control electronics for bottom fan motor

Relevant causes/components:

• eSTL has initialised
• Electrical connection to components
• Control electronics for bottom fan motor

Communications error with STM32

STM32 is a family of 32-bit microcontroller integrated circuits

"...Христианские проповедники говорят, что любая добродетель обращается чудовищем, если в ней нет любви. Справедливость становится жестокостью, искренность – хамством, вежливость – лицемерием, вера – фанатизмом. Даже самоотдача без любви – лишь инструмент для манипуляций.

Но я говорю, что любая добродетель – и даже сама любовь – обращается чудовищем, если в ней нет уважения. Там же, где уважение царит и властвует, даже ненависть и зависть обретают человеческое лицо."

"as (not THAN) it was to the Biden presidency

for - The roundtable on the human future - Club of Rome - Roundtable

for - Call for world action on multiple threats - Roundtable on the Human Future

Ну и что

https://www.liberation.fr/environnement/climat/bilan-carbone-de-paris-2024-vraiment-plus-verts-ces-jeux-20240811_OX6AGZH7KVGXFIWVX7MVXMXCEA/

Feels like what I do with Drafts/JS— solve problems programmatically. Maybe that’s a gateway to development beyond that stack; there’s only so much I can do in a text editor, however superpowered it might be…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/10/thousands-of-serbians-protest-in-belgrade-against-lithium-mine

“平衡态”和“偏离平衡”是古人用直觉就把握的世界理论。人们从这一观点出发，逐渐建立一个differential theory（newton laws）。

Aristotelian (384-322 BC): Violent motion (Need persistent causing by an agent) / Natural Motion. Eg. object naturally falls down and stay at rest. Eg. Projectile motion sustained by some intermediate carrier of motion, continuously exercising force to it. Denies empty space. Potentiality and Actuality.

Hipparchus (2CE): force is "transferred" to the body and dissipates as the body moves.

Philoponus (6CE): "inclination" is gained from the agent and then dissipated. Upon exhaustion, the object is back to natural motion. Objects continue to move in empty space. Concept of energy: dynamis, energeia.

(Iran) Avicenna (11CE) The Book of Healing. Distinction between Force and Inclination (Mayl). Object gains Mayl when it is in opposition to its natural motion. (close to potential energy). Similar idea as Newton's concept of Inertia. Dissipation of Mayl requires external force.

(Arabic) Hilbat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (12CE). Like Philoponus' idea, unlike Sina: Mayl self-extinguishes.

Acceleration of falling body: The falling body itself provides mayl, one after another.

Jean Buridan (14CE), impetus = weight x velocity. Similar to today's concept of momentum. When something moves an object by violence, it provides 1) force - that makes the object move, 2) impetus - that keeps exerting force to the object. Still distinguishes moving and at rest. Distinguishes linear and circular impetus.

Posits that God provides celestial bodies with impetuses, that are never damped or resisted. Could not well explain why these bodies are rotating at a constant speed, rather than infinitely fast.

Tunnel Experiment distinguishes between 1) Aristotelian theory 2) H-P Variant of Aristotelian theory, 3) Buridan impetus theory.

1) Predicts that the object becomes at rest when reaches the center of the Earth, since no force would be there to move it. 2) Cannot reach the surface again, since by the time the ball reaches center of the Earth, the initial upward force of impetus is either exhausted, or produce a force opposite to the direction of motion of the ball. 3) Predicts that the object would perform pendulum motion. During the natural motion downward, the object would accumulate enough impetus, greater than gravity, to pull it up toward the surface after reaching the center.

Pendulum motion is not explainable by 1) or 2), only explainable by 3).

This thought experiment is the origin of all oscillations in the history of dynamics. Analogy is quickly drawn between pendula and vibrating strings.

Video summary start-timeflag - end-timeflag: Generate a succinct and informative video summary in one paragraph of about 150 words according to the video transcript. Capture the primary ideas, key insights, and notable information presented in the video transcript Highlights: + [00:00:29][^1^][1] La méditation de pleine conscience à l'école * Présentation de Stéphanie Devané, professeure des écoles, et Frédéric Lenoir, spécialiste d'hypnose. * Contexte : préoccupation croissante pour la santé mentale des enfants à l'école. * Promesses de la méditation de pleine conscience : amélioration des apprentissages, bien-être, réduction du stress, renforcement des compétences psychosociales. + [00:19:18][^2^][2] Origine de la méditation de pleine conscience * Remonte au 19e siècle dans le bouddhisme. * Propagation en Birmanie suite à la colonisation anglaise. * Laïcité remise en question : la méditation de pleine conscience est-elle vraiment laïque?

Video summary start-timeflag - end-timeflag: Generate a succinct and informative video summary in one paragraph of about 150 words according to the video transcript. Capture the primary ideas, key insights, and notable information presented in the video transcript.

Highlights: + [00:23:29][^1^][1] Origines de la méditation de pleine conscience * La méditation de pleine conscience a évolué à partir des pratiques bouddhistes en Birmanie et a été popularisée par des Occidentaux intéressés par l'Orient. * Elle est devenue plus répandue et a finalement atteint les écoles, mais avec des influences New Age. + [00:30:07][^2^][2] Laïcité et méditation à l'école * La question de savoir si la méditation est appropriée à l'école est complexe. * L'agrément éducation nationale ne garantit pas l'absence de biais ou de dérives sectaires. * La vigilance est nécessaire pour éviter tout impact sur la liberté de conscience des élèves.

epistemic dynamics / belief dynamics.

c.f. Borel-Cantelli.

何をやってもダメだったのにこれで回復した。 自分は一般的にはPCの知識がある方だと思っていたけど、これは知らなかった。 本当に感謝。

I see Collaboration as an essential pivot for a social constructivist environment. It is such a great vehicle for allowing people to engage with a multiple of different perspectives which can challenge assumptions.

Se aborda una crítica a una vision sesgada de los conflictos y actos de violencia global. Se cuestiona la tendencia a "satanizar" al Estado Islámico, destacando la influencia de los medios de comunicación en nuestra percepción de estos eventos. Tambien una falta de atención hacia las víctimas de los bombardeos occidentales en Siria e Irak y se argumenta que la violencia y barbarie tienden a engendrar más violencia. Además menciona que la historia ha demostrado repetidamente cómo las subjetividades y sus producciones racionales, por ser inherentemente conflictivas y subjetivas, pueden conducir a la barbarie. Esta perspectiva invita a reflexionar sobre las causas subyacentes y la responsabilidad compartida en los conflictos globales

We, in the Grafoscopio community, had a similar need, but our approach was different: to keep the format simple and to use Pandoc combined with metasystem capabilities of Pharo (for example the fact that a document can be used to program itself) to address publishing formats and reproducibility.

More details as comments ahead.

Should I be concerned that these really don't look like they match up well at all?

This is a table, not a Figure. The are referenced and numbered independently.

No mention of what the dashed vs solid lines mean in the figure or the caption.

why should a reader care about this?