Yes, the government doesn’t have a checking account. When it spends money, that money is created and its balance sheet grows. When it receives taxes the balance sheet shrinks as the money is destroyed. If there’s a gap it gets filled by issuing bonds. Thats the national debt. These are conventions, not absolute rules, so governments can go rogue but it doesn’t end well
But, there is no fixed quantity of money in modern finance. It's created every someone or some business takes out a loan from a bank, and every time the government spends money. It's destroyed when the loans are repaid or taxes are paid.
Why would any of those compounds come from fossil fuels? Sulfur is mined, hydrogen peroxide is water with some oxygen taken off, and sodium carbonate is made from salt and limestone
Sulfur is produced when the H2S is removed from petroleum and natural gas. Elemental sulfur is burned to produce Sulfuric acid using the Contact Process.
The problem is the assumption that in most debates there are sides to be taken, and that there are 2 of them. It leads to shoddy journalism where "balance" means finding someone to debate another, regardless of the bizarreness of their position.
In the real world there are many perspectives on a given issue, and a lot to be learned by everyone through open discussion. "Both sides" mentality discourages this, and also tends to give too much airtime to extreme views.
So you’re wanting to bet that we’ll get humanoid robots capable of driving a dumb car at L4 before we get cars capable of L5? When we have no humanoid robots driving cars, and many L4 cars driving around? I’ll take that!
The theistic schism? I had to look it up, and was not cleverer after. Nobody can ever know an ultimate why, for obvious and well established philosophical reasons. At least the scientists are trying to squeeze the knowledge gap down as small as possible instead of making up stories.
> Nobody can ever know an ultimate why, for obvious and well established philosophical reasons
Yes we can, you are just presupposing that philosophy is ultimately ineffective. For example Hegel gave a presuppositionless development of all metaphysics among other things. It’s not some kind of philosophical consensus that ultimate justification is impossible
Fractal Patterns in Reasoning – David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg
Abstract This paper is the third and final one in a sequence of three. All three papers emphasize that a proposition can be justified by an infinite regress, on condition that epistemic justification is interpreted probabilistically. The first two papers showed this for one-dimensional chains and for one-dimensional loops of propositions, each proposition being justified probabilistically by its precursor. In the present paper we consider the more complicated case of two-dimensional nets, where each ‘child’ proposition is probabilistically justified by two ‘parent’ propositions. Surprisingly, it turns out that probabilistic justification in two dimensions takes on the form of Mandelbrot’s iteration. Like so many patterns in nature, probabilistic reasoning might in the end be fractal in character.
Only by embracing solipsism, in which case why are you here debating things, since your entire truth is derivable from your existence alone with no other observations or interactions required?
Interesting word soup. Ultimately, no, you cannot build a valid representation of the universe from nothing and you need observation and validation. You can presupposition whatever you want when you are talking about unproveable models, but it says more about you than the universe. Until we have a reason to think that there is a "why", discussing what it is is completely unnecessary and futile because 1) it does not change anything about our understanding or the predictions we can make, and 2) it is not something we can observe, measure or prove.
Oh it's worse than that, for distribution and playback sampling at more than 48kHz is likely worse in many ways due to unwanted ultrasonic noise and increased intermodulation distortion. 96/24 makes sense for production, and 96/float56 is common in DSP chains.
When the production produces unwanted ultrasonic noise, then that's not a sampling rate problem. It is instead a production problem.
And that's perfectly OK, too: The neat part about having too much data is that other end-users (like you and me) are free to throw it away as expeditiously as we choose to.
To that end: I, for one, welcome our 192kHz overlords. (And then I'll shove it through my hardware DSP that operates at 24-bit 48kHz and fuhgettaboutit.)
I don't LISTEN to music in 192kHz. I listen in 48kHz like everyone else and it sounds perfectly fine. But, I do MIX my music in 192kHz, however, before it's final export to 48kHz. It is about the anti-aliasing principle I described in my post above. But, while I'm mixing my audio clock is at 192kHz, and I can't escape that. Hence I will be looking at how to run this project on a beefier device that could run at 192kHz sample rate.
The analog input will use separate ADC modules, just as the analog output uses separate DACs. DSPi itself is purely digital (OK, excepting the PWM based sub out). These modules are just a few dollars on AliExpress for ~96dB SINAD
reply