in my view it's absolutely clear that even talking about this now I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it and this is a bit dilemma but even talking about it this will already be feeding into Delayed Action elsewhere in the same way that negative emission Technologies sucking CO2 out the air has actually undermined the need for Action that has undermined the scale of the challenge that the climate scientists the academics the experts have said is now necessary

Is that a false negative

I think people need to understand we are up against an event 00:36:00 that is one of six in Earth's history like hurtling towards it at an outrageous Pace in order to kind of galvanize especially leaders

What could possibly go wrong? Dear Stack Overflow denizens, thanks for helping train OpenAI's billion-dollar LLMs. Seems that many have been drinking the AI koolaid or mixing psychedelics into their happy tea. So much for being part of a "community", seems that was just happy talk for "being exploited to generate LLM training data..." The corrupting influence of the profit-motive is never far away.

If there are more electrons than protons, then the net charge on the object is negative.

People on imdb have a bad habit of giving movies they think are overrated 1s, or movies they think are underrated 10s. This movie is an example of the former.

The problem with this pile of questions is that, instead of helping the OP get out of the X Y problem, people stay focussed on Y, mark the question as a duplicate of Y in a matter of minutes and X is never properly addressed.

𝑟=−𝑥2 + 𝑦2‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾√r=−x2 + y2r = -\sqrt{x^2 ~+~ y^2} (i.e. 𝑟rr is negative)

convention that 𝑟rr can be negative, by defining (−𝑟,𝜃)=(𝑟,𝜃+180∘)(−r,θ)=(r,θ+180∘)(-r,\theta) = (r,\theta + 180^\circ) for any angle 𝜃θ

This is not to say the technology cannot be made to work at scale, but it is incorrect and risks being misleading to give the impression the technology is tried and tested at scale, let alone economic compared with the alternatives.

one of the things I think Civil Society has to be aware of is that there's been 00:09:33 a deliberate misuse of the prospects of technology

If there’s a force that’s driving us toward greater complexity, there seems to be an opposing force, a force of destruction that uses competition for ill. The way I see it, Moloch is the god of unhealthy competition, of negative sum games.

I rolled back your edit because the double negative was very deliberate - I explicitly would not claim correctness, just lack of clear incorrectness

They write a bunch of crap down that they wish they’d be able to do (secretly knowing they never will) and then their task manager gets overwhelming and they drop it because there is too much noise. This is why systems like Bullet Journal thrive in a digital world. When something is too hard to migrate to a new page or notebook, you just said it’s not worth doing and you let it go. Bullet Journal is a no-first system.

Expansion is led by focus. By taking time to edit, carve up, and refactor our notes, we put focus on ideas. This starts the Great Wheel of Positive Feedback. All hail to the Great Wheel of Positive Feedback.

That's actually a false negative if it doesn't trigger the cop but should; a false positive is when it does trigger the cop/test/fire alarm/etc. but should not.

This search for order pushes one to seek out under-lying patterns and trends, to find relations that may betypical and causal.

As this stands, the specs could pass w/o the formatter.output == new_formatter.output check.

So what can we make of politicians who continue to argue that ‘1.5°C is still alive’? Are they misinformed or are they simply lying?I believe many are in denial about the types of solutions the climate crisis demands. Rather than do the – admittedly – very difficult political work of eking out our supplies of fossil fuels while accelerating a just transition to post-carbon societies, politicians are going all out on technological salvation. This is a new form of climate denial, which involves imagining large-scale carbon dioxide removal that will clean up the carbon pollution that we continue to pump into the atmosphere. While it may seem much safer to stick to the script and say that it is still physically possible to limit warming to no more than 1.5°C, while pointing out that the scale of change demands much more political will, I believe that this can no longer be a credible response to the climate crisis.We have warmed the climate by 1.2°C since pre-industrial periods. If emissions stay flat at current levels, then in around nine years the carbon budget for 1.5°C will be exhausted. And, of course, emissions are not flat – they are surging. 2021 saw the second-largest annual increase ever recorded, driven by the rebound in economic activity after Coronavirus lockdowns. We did not ‘build back better’.The clock has been stuck at five minutes to midnight for decades. Alarms have been continuing to sound. There are only so many times you can hit the snooze button.

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

*The compass*

For example, we know one of the ways to make people care about negative externalities is to make them pay for it; that’s why carbon pricing is one of the most efficient ways of reducing emissions. There’s no reason why we couldn’t enact a data tax of some kind. We can also take a cautionary tale from pricing externalities, because you have to have the will to enforce it. Western Canada is littered with tens of thousands of orphan wells that oil production companies said they would clean up and haven’t, and now the Canadian government is chipping in billions of dollars to do it for them. This means we must build in enforcement mechanisms at the same time that we’re designing principles for data governance, otherwise it’s little more than ethics-washing.

There’s many examples around the world of communities banding together to collectively govern a shared resource, like forestry, grazing grounds, and wells.

I returned to another OER Learning Circle and wrote an ebook version of a Modern World History textbook. As I wrote this, I tested it out on my students. I taught them to use the annotation app, Hypothesis, and assigned them to highlight and comment on the chapters each week in preparation for class discussions. This had the dual benefits of engaging them with the content, and also indicating to me which parts of the text were working well and which needed improvement. Since I wasn't telling them what they had to highlight and respond to, I was able to see what elements caught students attention and interest. And possibly more important, I was able to "mind the gaps', and rework parts that were too confusing or too boring to get the attention I thought they deserved.

The Inca are most often remembered not for what they had but for what they didn’t have: the wheel, iron, a written language.

Still, persuasiveness need not take the form of logicalargumentation; it can just as easily involve appeal to sentiment,whipping up passions, deploying poetic metaphors, appealing tomyth or proverbial wisdom, employing irony and indirection, humour,insult, or appeals to prophecy or revelation; and the degree to whichone privileges any of these has everything to do with the rhetoricaltradition to which the speaker belongs, and the presumeddispositions of their audience.

But first, a word of caution. Writing affirmations is a good way to manage stressful situations and mitigate negative thoughts for many people. However, for people with low self-esteem or depression, studies suggest that self-affirmation can be harmful. Repeating a statement that you do not believe to be true can make you feel worse. In circumstances where self-affirmations could do harm, it is more appropriate to invest in support from a therapist or counsellor.

on average a stunning fifty percent of the medieval page was left blank.

As I wrote in January, silence is effectively impossible on the contemporary internet, where “voids are just filled by other people’s content, and thus vanish instantly.”

+1 to counter the drive-by downvote. I'd still use sed for this, unless you need the power of Perl regular expressions to select the delimiting lines

We just cannot know all that life will throw at us, and if we want our grading contract to be fair and equitable for everyone, we need to reexamine it, reflect on how it has been working for each of us, and perhaps adjust it. 

Stack-exchange is not teaching or education. It's just giving out answers for upvotes. Just like some tech support is about closing tickets.

Negative margins are in many cases equivalent to position:relative; with negative position, e.g. position:relative; top:-100px, as in Guffa's answer.

Negative margins get removed by Gmail and others. So, no negative margins.

You can't use negative margin in html email. To mimic this, there are 2 ways to do it, the nested tables way and the more complex rowspan way:

gmail and other mail services are ignoring the negative margin.

Negative values are mostly unsupported in html email. So is CSS position. For webmail at least, this is so that your email doesn't render outside of the desired window. Imagine Gmail with your CSS or email affecting the interface - they've limited the CSS you can use specifically to prevent this.

No, I'm afraid not. I wanted to like it, but it hasn't offered up anything to make me choose this over a wealth of other short two-player games. It should go without saying (but it's worth repeating in view of the responses such reviews tend to get on BGG) that a negative review is always subjective and personal to the reviewer.

Negative affordances are used when conveying a lack of function or interactivity.

The areas which were most improved by exercising were patients' ability to understand social situations, their attention spans, and their 'working memory'

Both higher levels of reported stress and theperception that stress affects health were independently associated with an increased likelihood of worsehealth and mental health outcomes. The amount of stress and the perception that stress affects healthinteracted such that those who reported a lot of stress and that stress impacted their health a lot had a 43%increased risk of premature death (HR
1.43, 95% CI [1.2, 1.7])

He introduces the idea of the apophatic: what we can't put into words, but is important and vaguely understood. This term comes from Orthodox theology, where people defined god by saying what it was not.

Help defend Monica from defamation! Stack Overflow, Inc. must repair the damage caused by their libel against Monica Cellio, cooperate with the community, be willing to talk, treat users with respect, learn about the world outside the United States, open the governance of the sites.

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

Since 'using decorators' has come to mean 'smothering your code in @ symbols' it's probably no longer a great name.

The success of JSX has proved that the second curly is unnecessary. Moreover, a lot of people — particularly those who have been exposed to React — have a visceral negative reaction to double curlies, many of them assuming that it brings with it all the limitations of crusty old languages like Mustache and Handlebars, where you can't use arbitrary JavaScript in expressions.