|
24C9
|
CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T |
Det finns ett tecken för tunnelbanan i Stockholm, som är bra att använda när man ska beskriva i text att man ska åka tunnelbana, som också kallas t-bana, metro, metron eller tricken. Nu ska jag väl kunna hitta den här bloggposten igen när jag behöver teckent. Tecken som är en cirkel med ett inskrivet T. Sådeså.
Ⓣ 24C9 CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER T # 0054
European Union - Prepaid Data SIM Card Wiki
EU integration means you should be able to move and work anyway you want within the European Union. One obstacle to this is that it can get quite expensive to use your mobile phone once you get out of your own country. EU is trying to change this but there is some resistance.
The site above lists a couple of providers that can get you €10 - €20 per gigabyte EU-wide today. That is a pretty good deal.
Found via the the Europe subreddit at reddit.com: eugay comments on So the EU in the form of its various institutions is dragging its feet with regulation of roaming. But since we live in the single market, which providers offer cheapest roaming in the EU/EEA?
Sammansvärjningsteoretiker, putinister, kommunister och annat löst folk tror jag har en sak gemensamt: Man anser att världen fungerar, eller borde fungera, med relationer istället för med regler och fakta.
I mindre sociala sammanhang är relationer viktiga: Man litar på att en annan person ser ens problem och rättar till dem, man gör något för någon annan eller behöver uppenbart hjälp och blir sedd och får det man behöver i gengäld.
På större skala fungerar inte relationer så bra. Istället har vi parlament, en kakafoni av yttrandefrihet och marknader. Alla dessa är regelstyrda i sin funktion mer eller mindre och de lämnar inte utrymme för så mycket individuell empati och uppmärksamhet. Man skulle kunna kalla dem pluralistiska system.
En del personer upplever detta som problematiskt och vill att den stora världen ska fungera med relationer istället. Man är obekväm med de pluralistiska systemen och kanske till och med hatar och föraktar dem. Och det tror jag ligger bakom mycket av vurmandet för kommunism, eller för en stark ledare. Vad gäller konspirationsteoretiker är man dessutom övertygad om att allt redan är relationer på hög nivå över hela världen. Dvs marknader och parlament är bara kulisser för vad de stora grabbarna snackar sig samman om, i sina relationer med varandra.
Jag undrar om detta kan vara en grundläggande sak i människans psyke och om vi i så fall får dras med dessa åsikter och föreställningar, eller om en kulturell innötning av pluralistiska system kommer att balansera bort dem.
Uppdatering 2015-03-28
Insåg just att tätt kopplade globala finansiella system med stor hävstång (high leverage) är ytterligare ett exempel där man använder relationer på alldeles för stor nivå.
Sometimes you feel the need to pass judgement on a problem: You look at the facts, and reach a conclusion. But later another piece of fact turns up, or a previously asserted fact turns out to be false and everything gets turned upside down and you realise you were completely wrong. In short you are faced with a problem where what the apparent solution is changes, sometimes several times, as more information is known.
I call such problems whodunit problems, after crime stories where it is not clear until the very last page who actually did the crime.
The reasons why can be varied: It may be a war situation where a lot of disinformation is bandied about or it can be a problem where you need a heck of a lot more information than you previously thought in order to pass a correct judgement, or it might be a problem whose outcome seems pretty much random. It may be as simple as a leading question or a propaganda piece that sets you off in the wrong direction.
Ability, opportunity and intent is a triad used for assessing if someone is a threat to you. With Russia, strike out watching for intent.
It is impossible to know the intent due to the Russian regime playing games, but also because the Russian regime is truly unstable. Pretty much any behavior or intent can manifest itself - including cruel or bizarre ones - depending on the outcome of power struggles and of outright mistakes.
Furthermore many of the things Russia says it wants to achieve would be of no material importance to it and would likely not make it happier.
Instead, focus on opportunity. With a firm policy response, consisting both of military, diplomatic and economic means, opportunities for destabilizing Europe or for that matter Russia, will be scarce.
Independent.ie has a funny typo in an article about Greece:
I tweeted about the typo to them but it is still there. Maybe there is no International Monestary Fund, in which case one ought to promptly create one, and invite oneself to a bit of hob nobbing with the hoi polloi in the Swiss alps every now and then.
Read more: Link - Greek threat to flood EU with 'migrants, jihadis' - Independent.ie
Inte så långt ut till havs, men tillräckligt långt för att inte störa. Jag kom på idén idag och en snabb sökning visade att detta är lite hett just nu. Flytande kärnkraftverk kan byggas på ett ställe och sedan bogseras till där de skall vara, kylning blir automatisk och de är okänsliga för Tsunamis. Skulle något gå fel så kan man bogsera bort dem. Låter faktiskt som en bra idé!
Nuclear power: All at sea | The Economist
There is plenty of water to keep them cool and the electricity they produce can easily be carried onshore by undersea cables.
New concept for offshore nuclear plant
A new design concept for offshore nuclear power plants with enhanced safety features
Tidningen Neo har gjort ett reportage om att P3 är vänstervridet. Det är faktiskt inte så konstigt att massmedier som P3 har en populistisk ådra, och det har att göra med hur massmedia fungerar.
Populism är enkla lösningar på svåra problem. Ofta jobbar man med den dåliga idén att hela världen/landet är ens klan (högerpopulism, nationalism) eller ens familj (vänsterpopulism, åt var och en efter behov - från var och en efter förmåga). Sedan blir man förbannad när det inte funkar så bra i verkligheten, i stor skala.
Vad gäller P3 så är det ju radio, och det innebär att en röst magiskt dyker upp i hörlurar och i tjäll och stuga. Man låtsas att man är i samma rum som lyssnaren. Ja, jag vet att detta är självklart, men faktum är att detta får konsekvenser, nämligen den att journalisten talar direkt till individer som om de vore i samma rum.
Man fejkar en närhet och familjäritet. Känns likheten igen från populismen här ovan? Och detta kan lätt få journalisten att tro att hela världen är en radio, om han eller hon tappar kollen på samhället utanför massmedia.
Massmedia har alltså en naturlig dragning till enkla lösningar, därför att masskommunikation som form bygger på en illusion av närhet.
This video by Jack Vale is about what you can find out about random people. A bigger problem is what non-random people can find out about you.
Information wants to be free. What does that make us? A question to ponder.
Stuff you can find out from someone's tweets, instagrams, facebook posts.
Greece and other countries in dire straits in Euroland are not supposed to default. It is seen as a bad thing. But maybe a default would still be the best solution.
Countries in Euroland could be treated as separate risk areas. One country or the whole zone for that matter should not bail out a country. I'm thinking that it would be better to let the creditor banks take the hit.
The creditors will then know to never lend money to that country again (unless under very favourable terms for the creditors).
In this way the problem should fix itself. If one is worried about "to-big-to-fail" creditor banks not being able to take the hit of a Greek default, then treat the problem at the bank level and leave Greece and other countries out of the picture.
Greece then has no debts, and no credit. Or at least more expensive credit and is able to fix itself, given the new conditions it has to function under. It is not possible to blame any other country, cabal, entity or group and the Euro zone has then settled on a model of handling overborrowing that lets the markets set the terms, and does not require more political scaffolding and supervision.
The alternatives to default, all involve moving money around or diluting the money supply. None of that actually increases the value of products or services. All talk about stimulance, rescue packages and the like is just a game of semantics.
One could argue it is a game of smoke and mirrors deciding who actually loses money in the end, see Greece Vs Germany and the disappearing money . A default is clearer.
Also check:
Untested by me
Insightful article on the rules for it. It is only a threat if you treat it as such. In a way it is similar to how some diseases kill through the reaction of the immune system (e.g. a cytokine storm). However a warning that the rules may change in the future if bigger threats will get into the terrorists' hands.
Following an act of terrorism, the enemy continues to have the same number of soldiers, tanks and ships as before. The enemy’s communication network, roads and railways are largely intact. Its factories, ports and bases are hardly touched. However, the terrorists hope that even though they can barely dent the enemy’s material, power, fear and confusion will cause the enemy to misuse its strength. Terrorists fight like tai-chi masters: they aim to beat the rival with the rival’s own power.
Read more: Link - Yuval Noah Harari: the theatre of terror | Books | The Guardian
Imagine two hospitals that declare war on fever. After having tried different things, one decides to simply paint all thermometers to indicate 37°C (100°F). The other decides to give all patients massive doses of fever-reducing medication.
Both of these would of course be terrible ideas: Without thermometers it is impossible to know exactly how much fever a patient might be running, and giving fever-reducing medication to everyone would be even worse since that means depressing the immune systems. Instead of treating the root causes of the patients' ailments they are making everything worse by denying or depressing the symptoms.
Still, this is how we are treating the economy: Banks don't want to lend money, so we then give banks an easy supply to newly printed money. That does not solve the problem.
The real problem is that many people are busy doing work they should not do. Their businesses should fail and new businesses should come and take their place and employ the recently jobless.
That is how free economies work, through creative destruction. With the artificial printing of money (fever reducing medication) and centrally set unrealistic interest rates (painted thermometers), we are just leading people further into a dead end. This will make the eventual re-adjustment so much bigger and more painful.
We live in a time where money is going to be taken from people, and we are in the process of establishing who will be the losers.
So why cannot everyone just keep the money they have, we then reset the system there and just continue? We can't because they are literally holding on to the same money. Let's assume that Alexandra in Greece has money in a bank account, where the money originally, through a couple of steps, comes from a loan from a bank in Germany.
What Alexandra in Greece thinks is her money on her bank account, also shows up as the money on Hertha's bank account in Germany.
To see why this is so, we have to take a simplified look at fractional reserve banking, which is how banks work today. When Hertha deposits money into her bank account, the bank only keeps a fraction of it, and then lends out the rest to someone else. That person may in turn deposit it into another bank account, where a fraction will be kept and the rest is lent out by the bank to someone else.
This means that when Hertha wants to take out all her money to do something with it, the other people's bank account balances will be zeroed, including Alexandra's.
Or if the other people down the chain says that they have a right to keep the money, then Hertha's account balance will be zeroed.
So we are basically in the process of establishing who should have their bank balances zeroed.
De nya skyskraporna vid Norrmalms gräns till Karolinska Institutet och Solna ska få ett fasadmaterial, som jag i skrivande stund inte kan komma på något deppigare alternativ till:
"grovt rillad betong, som påminner om borrhål i berg, och har hämtat sin färgskala från stenstaden intill".
Read more: Link - Nya tors torn presenterade - YIMBY Stockholm
Till och med Yimby - föreningen som uttryckligen är för skyskrapor i Stockholm undrar vad de håller på med:
Fasaden kommer kanske att se bra ut initiellt men frågan är hur materialet kommer att åldras över tid, rå exponerad betong åldras sällan med värdighet.
Vi hoppas naturligtvis att fasaden ska bli bra men det är upp till OMA arkitekter, Oscar Properties och Stockholms stads representanter att säkerställa.
Stockholm är en stor del av året en dunkel stad, på grund av det nordliga läget. Att göra byggnader mörka, dystra och ojämna är därför en dålig idé. Faktum är att det nog är en dålig idé nästan varstans i världen.
Ibland springer jag på folk, ofta esteter, som prisar brutalismen. Jag kommer nog aldrig att förstå hur de tänker.
Människan trivs med och uppskattar variation och ojämna former, men då bör dessa överensstämma med naturens formspråk (som är en konsekvens av miljoner års evolution och annan aktivitet). Det enda i naturen som jag kan komma på som skulle likna formspråket med mörka boxar med rillade borrhål är nybildade vulkaniska formationer av pimpsten och aska, eller möjligtvis en stenöken med tungmetall i.
Om man ska ha skyskrapor i Stockholm så bör man antingen ta inspiration från naturen (gärna utanför vulkanöknar) eller göra någonting spännande och roligt i form och färg.
Norra tornen känns som när man står nära Brunkebergstorg i Stockholm, och inte vet om man ska vända sig så man slipper se Kulturhusets brutalistiska baksida eller det svarta bankpalatset med ojämn fasad.
Det verkar föreligga en enorm skillnad mellan det estetiska omdömet hos beslutfattarna i Stockholms Stad och mitt. Och det är väl inte så farligt om det bara vore jag, men jag tror att det är en försvinnade lite del av de som i framtiden kommer att få titta på de där husen som som håller med Stockholms Stads anställda esteter.
For a non-profit I am evaluating different options for a group chat, meant to replace the current Skype chat. Currently I am looking at ejabberd, a server for the XMPP protocol. The users of the Skype chat would like the new chat to have the following properties:
So how does ejabberd handle these demands?
Ejabberd is better at handling a user logged in simultaneously from several devices than OpenFire - another XMPP server - in our tests. While being logged in as the same user, both Kopete and Pidgin (Linux XMPP clients) have no problem seeing each other's posted messages in a group chat, while Xabber on Android will not see their postings, but can post, and its postings are seen by the other clients. Ths is not a big problem, the only drawback is that while being on the mobile phone, you won't be able to see you own postings made in the past, if they were made from another device.
There might be some way to reconcile this, it probably has to do with priority levels for each client. Here is some further reading, although I could not seem to make a difference by tweaking the priority settings. Having chat history stored on the server may also mitigate this; will see if ejabberd can do that.
Xabber seems to update instantaneously. Still have to check if it can pull history from the server. I tried a slew of other XMPP clients on Android but did not find one that worked well with group chat.
Seems to be well supported
I initially turned this off since Pidgin does not accept self signed certificates. I then turned it on, and well, Pidgin still balks. Xanner an Kopete are fine. So off it is till we get the chat server to a domain name for which we would like to get a certificate. The three clients otherwise had no problem with encrypted communication so it will likely turn out well.
Forskarna letade egentligen efter något som håller blodkärl unga men de hittade något som verkar hålla huden ung: Att blockera ett enzym som kallas Gramzyme B på engelska. Labbråttor behöll en ungdomlig hud även efter simulering av solljusbelastning.
“We have generated natural and synthetic inhibitors of this enzyme, and one can easily see the application for this after excessive sun exposure ... or in other cosmetics as well,” he said. “That’s obviously the first thing that comes to mind.”
I listened to a very good Security Keynote by Bruce Schneier where he mentions an experiment where people prefer getting $1000 with certainty before having a 50% chance of getting $2000, while at the same time they prefer to lose $2000 at a 50% chance before losing $1000 with certainty.
The strange thing, it is said, is that people seem to be risk averse for gains, and risk seeking for losses.
However, if you simply see people's valuation of money as non-linear, the paradox goes away: It does not hurt twice as much to lose $2000, and it doesn't make you twice as happy to gain $2000. Hence the behavior of most humans is rational.
One can see it as humans valuing the status quo, since they have built a cognitive framework around it, and any deviations from it will mean a re-planning. Getting extra resources will only force you to re-plan if the amount is significant, hence higher rewards have less value. Even a small loss will trigger re-planning and a big loss will do the same.
There might be more to the Kahneman and Tversky work, but as presented by Schneier, non linearity is enough to explain the behavior.
One very important result of Kahneman and Tversky work is demonstrating that people's attitudes toward risks concerning gains may be quite different from their attitudes toward risks concerning losses. For example, when given a choice between getting $1000 with certainty or having a 50% chance of getting $2500 they may well choose the certain $1000 in preference to the uncertain chance of getting $2500 even though the mathematical expectation of the uncertain option is $1250. This is a perfectly reasonable attitude that is described as risk-aversion. But Kahneman and Tversky found that the same people when confronted with a certain loss of $1000 versus a 50% chance of no loss or a $2500 loss do often choose the risky alternative. This is called risk-seeking behavior. This is not necessarily irrational but it is important for analysts to recognize the asymmetry of human choices.
