how many people have seen curves that look like these progress against time right everywhere reading 00:48:14 scores test scores people love these yay oh no yay oh no it's bad because our 00:48:32 nervous system is only set up for relative change and in fact there's cause for cheering if that's the threshold but in fact for reading 00:48:43 threshold is this this is all oh no doesn't matter whether it goes up or not because there are many many things that where you have to get to the real 00:48:58 version of the thing before you're doing it at all in the 21st century it doesn't have help to read just a little bit you have to be fluent at it so this is a 00:49:09 huge problem and once you draw the threshold in there immediately converts this thing that looked wonderful into a huge qualitative gap and the gap is 00:49:20 widening and we have two concepts that are enemies of what we need to do perfect and better right so better is a 00:49:36 way of getting fake success we had improvement see it all the time it's the ultimate quarterly report we had improvements here and perfect is 00:49:51 tough to get in this world so both of those are really bad so what you want is what's actually needed and the exquisite skill here which I'm going to use these 00:50:06 two geniuses Thakur and Engels to labor it I'm going to call that the sweet spot the way you make progress here is you pick the thing that is just over that threshold that is qualitatively better 00:50:21 than all the rest of the crap you can do you can spend billions turning around and once you do that you widen up you give yourself a little blue plane to 00:50:34 operate in and for a while everything you do in there is something that is actually going to be meaningful

what is 00:32:39 your ten year plan and the reaction I get is that right think about it the idea of a ten year plan that people are 00:32:50 serious about is just it's fake companies just don't have it they don't set themselves up to be able to deal with this thing which is really just to 00:33:04 find hope that they're going to be in business in ten years they have no idea

basic literacies that users of the web and social media ought to have

first i think it's important to remember that net zero is a new phrase it's it's nothing we haven't had newton this language of net zero this framing of net zero is is something just appeared just in 00:11:54 the last few years if you look at the sr 1.5 report 2018 in the summary for policy makers then um it's mentioned 16 times if you look at the ar-5 the previous report from the ipcc and their synthesis report 00:12:06 for the summary for policy makers it's not mentioned once you look in the the committee on climate uk committee on climate change's sixth budget report and it's it's a long report 427 pages 00:12:18 it's on numerous times on every page it's somewhere between it's referred to somewhere between three thousand and five thousand times they use the expression net zero look at the previous fifth budget report from the committee on 00:12:31 climate change in 2015 it's not mentioned once now it is true to say that the language of net cumulative missions in various ways has been referred to if you like within the science but the appealing translation and the 00:12:44 ubiquitous use of net zero by everyone is a very new phenomena and one i think that we've taken on board unproblematically because it allows us to to basically um avoid near-term action on climate 00:12:57 change and we can hide all sorts behind it so it's important to recognize that net zero net zero 2050 net zero 20 20 45 for sweden firstly this is not based on the concept of a total carbon budget 00:13:10 and it's interesting note that the uk previously had legislation that was based on the total carbon budget for the uk as i mean i think the budget was too large but it was deemed to be an appropriate contribution to staying below 2 degrees centigrade but now 00:13:24 that's gone now we simply have this net zero 2050 framing so this whole language it moves the debate from what we need to do today which is what carbon budgets force us to 00:13:36 face it moves it off to some far-off point 2045 or 2050 which we have to think about that in which which policymakers in sweden and the uk will still be policymakers in 2045 and 50 they'll either be dead 00:13:49 or retired as indeed with the scientists that are behind a lot of this net zero language so it's in that sense it's we are passing that net zero is a is a generational passing of the challenge of the buck um to our children and our children's 00:14:02 children it's also worth bearing in mind that net zero typically assumes some sort of multi-layered form of substitution between different greenhouse gases so carbon dioxide for me thing between different sources 00:14:15 carbon dioxide from a car can be compared with agricultural fertilizer and nitrous oxide emissions but these these are very different things but across decades a flight carbon dioxide 00:14:27 from a flight we take today can be considered in relation to carbon capture in a tree that's planted in 2050 that's growing in 2070. this assumption within net zero that a ton is a ton is a ton regardless of different 00:14:40 chemistries different atmospheric lifetimes of the gases in the atmosphere and and different levels of certainty and indeed levels of risk and hugely different things this is this is incredibly dangerous and again it's another 00:14:52 it's another thing that makes net zero attractive and appealing in a machiavellian way because it allows us to hide all sorts of things behind this language of net zero the other thing about net zero is that 00:15:07 perhaps with no exceptions but typically anyway it relies on huge planetary scale carbon dioxide removal cdrs often well that's the latest acronym i'm sure there'll be another one out in the next year or two 00:15:20 um carbon dioxide removal captures two important elements first negative emission technologies nets as they're often referred to and second nature-based solutions um nbs so these two approaches one is sort of 00:15:32 using technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the other one is using various nature-based approaches like planting trees or peat bog restoration and things like this that are claimed to absorb carbon dioxide 00:15:45 and just to get a sense of the scale of negative emissions that's assumed in almost every single 1.5 and 2 degree scenario at the global level but indeed at national levels as well we're typically assuming hundreds of 00:15:57 billions of tons of carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere most of it is post 2050 and quite a lot of it is beyond 2100 again look at those dates who in the scientific community that's 00:16:09 promoting these who in the policy realm that's promoting these is going to be still at work working in 2015 and 2100 some of the early career researchers possibly some of the younger policymakers but most of us will 00:16:21 will say be dead or um or retired by them and just have another flavor if those numbers don't mean a lot to you what we're assuming here is that technologies that are today at best small pilot schemes will be 00:16:34 ramped up in virtually every single scenario to something that's that's akin to the current um global oil and gas industry that sort of size now that would be fine if it's one in ten scenarios or you know five and a 00:16:47 hundred scenarios but when virtually every scenario is doing that it demonstrates the deep level of systemic bias that we've got now that we've all bought into this language of net zero so it's not to outline my position on 00:16:59 carbon dioxide removal because it's often said that i'm opposed to it and that's simply wrong um i i would like just to see a well-funded research and development programs into negative emission technologies nature-based solutions and so forth 00:17:12 and potentially deploy them if they meet stringent sustainability criteria and i'll just reiterate that stringent sustainability criteria but we should mitigate we should cut our emissions today assuming that these carbon dioxide removal techniques of one 00:17:25 sort or another do not work at scale and another important factor to bear in mind here and there's a lot of double counting that gotham goes on here as far as i can tell anyway is that we're going to require some level of carbon 00:17:36 dioxide removal because there's going to be a lot of residual greenhouse gas emissions not you know not co2 principally methane and n2o nitroxites and fertilizer use um we're going to come from agriculture anyway if you're going to feed 9 billion 00:17:49 people now quite what those numbers are there's a lot of uncertainty but somewhere probably around 6 to 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every single year so we'll have to find some way of compensating for the warming from feeding the world's population and certainly there are plenty of things we 00:18:01 can do with our food eating habits and with our agricultural practices but nonetheless it still looks like there will be a lot of emissions from the agricultural sector and therefore we need to have real zero emissions 00:18:14 from energy we cannot be using all of these other techniques nets mbs and so forth to allow us to carry on with our high energy use net zero has become if you like a policy 00:18:28 framework for all and some argue and there's been some question discussion in some of the um journalist papers around climate change recently saying well actually that's what it's one of its real strengths is it brings everyone together 00:18:40 but in my view it it's so vague that it seriously undermines the need for immediate and deep cuts and emissions so i can see some merit in a in an approach that does bring people together but if it sells everything out in that process then i think it's actually more 00:18:53 dangerous than it is of benefit and i think net zero very much falls into that category i just like to use the uk now as an example of why i come to that conclusion

Designing policy for climate change requires analyses which integrate the interrelationshipbetween the economy and the environment. We argue that, despite their dominance in theeconomics literature and influence in public discussion and policymaking, the methodologyemployed by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) rests on flawed foundations, which becomeparticularly relevant in relation to the realities of the immense risks and challenges of climatechange, and the radical changes in our economies that a sound and effective response require. Weidentify a set of critical methodological problems with the IAMs which limit their usefulness anddiscuss the analytic foundations of an alternative approach that is more capable of providinginsights into how best to manage the transition to net-zero emissions

Can you reach net zero by 2050?

“You can’t close the digital divide with just pipes and wires,” Huffman said. “You have to also address the human side of the equation.”

2021 has heralded the dawn of a new form of hyper-carbon-intensive luxury travel, space tourism, in which hundreds of tonnes of carbon can be burned in just a ten-minute flight for around four passengers.28

Gösling and Humpe found that no more than 1% of the world population likely accounts for half of aviation emissions.30

Earlier studies also established the major contribution to carbon footprints of the rich and famous from flights, especially via private jets. Gösling’s study constructed aviation emissions estimates based on tracking the international travel of celebrities via their social media postings. Footprints – from aviation alone – were found to be in excess of a thousand tonnes per year.27

The fact that these countries are still not on track to reach the 1.5⁰C per capita level by 2030, and have still not delivered the minimal commitment to mobilize $100bn per year in international climate finance by 2020, is a double indictment of their moral and legal failure in view of the equity principle at the heart of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.

The extreme difference between the expected carbon footprints of a small minority of the world’s population in 2030 and the global average level needed to keep the Paris Agreement’s 1.5⁰C goal alive is not tenable. Maintaining such high carbon footprints among the world’s richest people either requires far deeper emissions cuts by the rest of the world’s population, or it entails global heating in excess of 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels. There is no other alternative.

NetInteraktive Dokumente

we will give you a complete overview of .Net Framework vs. .Net Core. The article will draw light on its functionalities and help you to quickly get the difference between Dot Net Core and Dot Net Framework.

Most of us get confused about choosing the best runtime programming language for the online platform. And, the hottest topic of this battle is .Net Core vs .Net Framework.

nmap -sS -sU -T4 -A -v -PE -PS80,443 -PA3389 -PP -PU40125 -PY --source-port 53 --script "default or (discovery and safe)"

Systemd targets are reached once and do not fire again when the connection state changes. Depending how your network is managed there are a couple of options:

[AllowAnonymous]

In July 2010, Microsoft let go Jimmy Schementi, one of two remaining members of the IronRuby core team, and stopped funding the project.[19][20] In October 2010 Microsoft announced the Iron projects (IronRuby and IronPython) were being changed to "external" projects and enabling "community members to make contributions without Microsoft's involvement or sponsorship by a Microsoft employee".

LINQ means Language Integrated Query and it was introduced in .NET Framework 3.5 to query the data from different data sources such as collections, generics, XML Documents, ADO.NET Datasets, SQL, Web Service, etc. in C# and VB.NET. 

Visual Basic (VB) is an object-oriented programming language and that enables the developers to build a variety of secure and robust applications that run on the .NET Framework.

Preencha os campos abaixo e clique na opção Solicitar Ligação.

NET fornecendo IP privado aos clientes residenciais

the learned think they know, or have it in their power to know every thing that it is possible for the human mind to be acquainted with.

TUNet: Incorporating segmentation maps to improve classification

CFUN: Combining Faster R-CNN and U-net Network for Efficient Whole Heart Segmentation

Net sales = gross sales – (customer discounts, returns, and allowances) Gross profit = net sales – cost of goods sold Operating profit = gross profit – total operating expenses Net profit = operating profit – taxes – interest Net profit = net sales – cost of goods sold – operating expense – taxes – interest

Another equation to calculate net income: Net sales = gross sales – (customer discounts + returns + allowances) Gross profit = net sales – cost of goods sold Gross profit percentage = [(net sales – cost of goods sold)/net sales] × 100%. Operating profit = gross profit – total operating expenses Net income = operating profit – taxes – interest

Another equation to calculate net income: Net sales (revenue) - Cost of goods sold = Gross profit - SG&A expenses (combined costs of operating the company) - Research and development (R&D) = Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) - Depreciation and amortization = Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) - Interest expense (cost of borrowing money) = Earnings before taxes (EBT) - Tax expense = Net income (EAT)

Here is how you reach net profit on a P&L (Profit & Loss) account: Sales revenue = price (of product) × quantity sold Gross profit = sales revenue − cost of sales and other direct costs Operating profit = gross profit − overheads and other indirect costs EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) = operating profit + non-operating income Pretax profit (EBT, earnings before taxes) = operating profit − one off items and redundancy payments, staff restructuring − interest payable Net profit = Pre-tax profit − tax Retained earnings = Profit after tax − dividends

Net profit is a measure of the fundamental profitability of the venture. "It is the revenues of the activity less the costs of the activity. The main complication is . . . when needs to be allocated" across ventures. "Almost by definition, overheads are costs that cannot be directly tied to any specific" project, product, or division

Net profit: To calculate net profit for a venture (such as a company, division, or project), subtract all costs, including a fair share of total corporate overheads, from the gross revenues or turnover. Net profit = sales revenue − total costs

Retina U-Net: Embarrassingly Simple Exploitation of Segmentation Supervision for Medical Object Detection

Human activity recognition based on time series analysis using U-Net

These findings reflect a broader discussion about the digital divide’s impact on America’s youth. Numerous policymakers and advocates have expressed concern that students with less access to certain technologies may fall behind their more digitally connected peers. There is some evidence that teens who have access to a home computer are more likely to graduate from high school when compared with those who don’t.

Another way to look at it: The .NET Framework has essentially two forks. One fork is provided by Microsoft and is Windows only. The other fork is Mono which you can use on Linux and Mac. With .NET Core we’re able to develop an entire .NET stack as a full open source project. Thus, having to maintain separate forks will no longer be necessary: together with the Mono community we’ll make .NET Core great for Windows, Linux and Mac OSX. This also enables the Mono community to innovate on top of the leaner .NET Core stack as well as taking it to environments that Microsoft isn’t interested in.

Thirty-two rural ISPs point to “the bureaucratic straightjacket of outdated regulations known as Title II” as a barrier to the vigorous investment they want to pursue.

Innovative providers hoping to offer their customers new, even free services had to fear a Washington bureaucracy that might disapprove and take enforcement action against them

82.9%

the majority of Americans—57 percent—support the current net neutrality regulations that ban ISPs from blocking or discriminating against lawful content on the internet

bipartisan

The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

telecom companies, which surged 2.7% to lead all sectors — a reversal of their futility so far in 2017, having dropped 12% year-to-date.

The War for Net Neutrality in the USA won a battle in 2014, but in 2017 we are seeing a second battle which is more likely to be lost. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are probably soon going to dictate what traffic can or cannot arrive at people’s end devices. GOOG-FB-AMZN traffic would be the most common, due to their popularity among internet users. Because of this market demand, ISPs will likely provide cheap plans with access to GOOG-FB-AMZN, while offering more expensive plans with full internet access. It is already a reality in Portugal.

Although anonymous comments are "six times more likely to be an attack," they represent less than half of all attacks on Wikipedia. "Similarly, less than half of attacks come from users with little prior participation," the researchers write in their paper. "Perhaps surprisingly, approximately 30% of attacks come from registered users with over a 100 contributions." In other words, a third of all personal attacks come from regular Wikipedia editors who contribute several edits per month. Personal attacks seem to be baked into Wikipedia culture.

If we upgraded to competitive wholesale publicly-overseen fiber optic networks all over the country, we could leave the cable industry and its ongoing destructive shenanigans behind. (Without expensive upgrades, the cable guys can’t provide the upload capacity that fiber can.) Yes, it would be initially expensive to do this. But so was the railroad system. So were the highways.

There are so many ways for the local cable monopolies to turn dials in their direction the way things are set up now. They can start charging more for peak-hour usage, so they never have to upgrade their physical facilities. They can start charging more for interconnection of Lane 2 with other networks. They can zero-rate a bazillion other services they provide and bundle them with their own “public internet” offerings. They can charge separately for their proprietary WiFi services nationwide — the new bottled water, the thing we ought to have access to in abundance for free.They can do all of this because most U.S. households have only a single choice of operator for download speeds greater than 25 Mbps. It’s even worse for speeds over 50 Mbps 

Networks are built to meet peak demands. Comcast has already made this investment. No “power user” is having any effect on anyone else’s download experience within Comcast’s Lane 2 — there’s plenty of capacity. (The Netflix/Comcast fracas last year made this eminently clear: as soon as Netflix paid up, presto, Netflix subscribers weren’t faced with a spinning wheel.)

Earlier this month, Comcast announced that it would be launching a $15 per month streaming pay TV service — cleverly named Stream TV — that wouldn’t count against the 300GB data plans (that number is the cap) it had already introduced in several states.

It begins by announcing a data cap that’s set high enough to affect only a small percentage of current users who routinely hit it. Justify it by saying you’re only targeting the “hogs” who gobble up everybody else’s bandwidth. Say you’ll charge for data usage that exceeds that cap. Then sit back and wait. Eventually, increased usage by more Americans will bring millions into the fold. And presto: without lifting a finger, dominant players can charge more people more per month — on every side of every transaction, content sources as well as consumers — without expanding their facilities, much less upgrading to the communications capacity we need.