From my outsider perspective I mostly agree, I've read a few papers that weren't available for free. But for the opposing perspective, consider that they index curated content and don't curate anything themselves. This is a frequently debated argument. For comparison I'm considering youtube or torrent sites that are swamped with low quality content or outright malware. In effect, the inception of the internet, as far as I know, was motivated precisely by the need to exchange scientific material. But we are still far from a global library, on-line. Coordination does take a significant amount of work. So, if anything, it needs more investment. But whether that needs to be direct financial investment or just a lot of voluntary work from the people for whom the system is kind of working alright at the moment, is not even in the question. Because journals and universities acting as gate keepers setting barriers to entry is seen as elitist and pejorative by the vast majority of the excluded. That involves a lot of indirect criticism of the financial market system. The whole problem involves marketing. Just look at wikipedia, stackexchange or even the stock-exchanges to see what kind of imbalance, for lack of a better word, huge projects incur, virtually invariably.
> Da er zu wenig Geld für den Bau der Burg hatte, bat Radbot seinen Bruder, Bischof Werner von Strassburg, um Unterstützung
> Because of insufficient funds to construct the castle, Radbot begged his brother, Bischop Werner of Strassburg for support.
Whether or not that's a legend, it was not unbelievable, which is the whole point.
That castle was situated at an impasse of a river, where they likely extorted money, I mean "took taxes". The rest is convoluted history. I guess you heard the name.
If you're interested in more examples of worldly clergymen check out Thomas Wolsey in the novel "Wolf Hall", Thomas a Becket in the movie "Becket" (1964), and of course Cardinal Richelieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
The term wage-slave doesn't appear to be in your lexicon. Child labor, too. Never mind slavery was officially abolished only half a century after the industrial evolution had started, which didn't even count for e.g. India. Never mind they owned India. I am sure the Irish will have a thing or two to say about the matter, anyway.
The thing with leafy greens is, they rot faster, they need to be reasonably fresh. I know because last week I had to clean up a brown puddle of ooze coming out of a stored grocery bag. The salad was rotten within a week while the fruit still looked good. Carrots are similarly short lived, in my experience.
And there's a whole thing to say about frigerator hygiene - they are not sterile just because of lower temperatures, while they are hard to clean unless turned off, because water won't dry, whereas they are hard to turn off, when they are always filled. I'm being pedantic, I know.
I still doubt the Monty Hall problem (mentioned in the wiki-article). I understand the reasoning, summing the probability tree, but there are two ways to build the probability tree, with the step of reveal or without. Since the player doesn't know that step, why would it be part of the tree? Because we know the setup a priori, in a way.
I'm assuming the bigger tree is still incomplete. More levels can be inserted, reflecting the reasoning of the a priori knowledge. I assume the supposed advantage would thus prove to be imaginary. Or in simpler terms:
Normally the tree would have the sequence in the following order: box distribution, choose a box, reveal one empty box, switch choice or don't.
However, if you are predetermined to switch, then the order would be changed to switch before the reveal. Thereby, the reveal is irrelevant to the result of switching and the probabilities are equal again.
You make your initial guess. What's the probability you're right on your initial guess? 1/3. What's the probability you're wrong? 2/3.
So now, you're presented with your second decision. Do you stick or switch? Well, if you stick, that's going to lead to success if and only if you were right on your first guess. And if you switch, that's going to lead to success if and only if you were wrong on your first guess.
We all agree that you were more likely to be wrong on your first guess. So you should bet on the fact that you were initially wrong. I.e. switch.
>However, if you are predetermined to switch, then the order would be changed to switch before the reveal. Thereby, the reveal is irrelevant to the result of switching and the probabilities are equal again.
Before the reveal, you don't know which box to switch to. Monty knows which boxes are empty, and he gives you partial information about that by revealing one of them.
I feel similarly about Monty Hall. I literally just made a spreadsheet of all the possible outcomes, and sure enough, switching leads to winning 2/3 of the time. Even though I can see the indisputable data in front of my eyes, my brain just won't fully accept it. Looking at it, I realized an interesting little wrinkle that I think might have to do with the problem's psychological quirkiness in some way I can't fully articulate: When you stay you win 1/3 of the time. When you switch, you win 2/3 of the time. BUT if you randomly pick between staying and switching, you win 50% of the time because (1/2)(1/3) + (1/2)(2/3) = 1/6 + 2/6 = 3/6. There is a correct-ish-ness to the intuitive answer of 50%...it's just not...actually correct.
PS: of course you can't switch before the game maker reveals a box. But isn't that immaterial? In one of three cases, your first choice is correct. Therefore, in two of three cases, the first choice is incorrect ... so switching should be correct in those two.
The best way to become convinced of Monty Hall may be to grab a buddy and some playing cards, and run a simulation. 30 rounds or so should be convincing.
> The languages spoken by today's ... are not systematically and fundamentally different ...
That is a meaningless statement, when there is no consensus on the fundamentals of language, and more so because the Languages of the world differ variously.
I'm not sure what you think how complexity of language is measured. Certainly, there are terms and expressions that had to be invented along with the concepts that they describe, which hunter gatherers don't know, and that's not limited to technology. Emotional content would be much more important on a human scale. I think the question would have to be, whether everyone was able to speak. Which term would the analogous to "literate"?
The only way I can think of for measuring the complexity of a language is an inaccurate empirical one: see how hard it is for speakers of unrelated languages to learn it. That approach would probably confirm that Hausa is harder to learn than Bahasa Indonesia, for example, though whether that's what other people mean by "complexity", I can't say.
It's hard to abandon the old idea, when the new idea, I mean, it's there, everywhere and nowhere at the same time, if you don't look, isn't particularly convincing, and the retort that it doesn't need to be convincing if you (read: I) just aren't smart enough, because it's counterintuitive, then I have a counterintuitive disregard for your cleverness.
I have to concede, though, that "empty" is not a particularly meaningful physical concept, quite the opposite. Disregarding the Aether theory, only to replace it with fields of potentials, that is kind of running in circles.
A model is fundamentally wrong. That's what it means to have a model. At that "clouds" is no more helpful then "empty". The fact of the matter is that no one has ever seen these things, no nucleus, no electrons, as far as I know.
Yet, you haven't pointed out what was actually wrong with "Those are simply the electron orbitals which describe the probability of finding the respective election at a given point".
Edit: Perhaps you intended to imply that this description is overly idealized (not to say simple).
