Amusing note: yesterday, I was scheduled to participate in my ward's session at the temple sealing offices that evening, and I also had a midterm review scheduled with my manager, so somewhat on a whim I decided to wear a suit to work and go to the temple directly after getting off of work. I didn't realize that Microsoft had a dress code, but apparently we do. Somewhere between twelve and twenty people stopped in to ask me what I was dressed up for. Eventually I gave up trying to explain the nuances of the situation--neural networks, right? there's never just one factor behind any decision--and just said, "I'm going to the temple after work today," which satisfied most people's curiosity. I sort of liked how I felt--a little more professional, a little more focused--but it's too much hassle for me to repeat the experiment with any frequency. However, now that the questions are out of the way, maybe I'll repeat the approach when I'm intending to go to the temple--for instance, on date night. BTW, is next Tuesday good for you?
On another note, here's an interesting brief from a physicist and some kind of mathematician:
The most debated issue in contemporary science is the cause or causes of global warming, with the popular media contending that the issue has been resolved and that the majority of scientists concur. The "majority opinion" is based on the analysis of global warming done using large-scale computer codes that incorporate all identified physical and chemical mechanisms into global circulation models (GCMs) in an attempt to recreate and understand the variability in Earth's average temperature. The IPCC report1 concludes that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible, to a certainty of 95%. It is reported that the "majority" believes the average warming observed since the beginning of the industrial era is due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.1 concludes that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible, to a certainty of 95%. It is reported that the "majority" believes the average warming observed since the beginning of the industrial era is due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Someone once told me something about Velikovsky: that geologists thought his geology was nonsense but his anthropology was intriguing, and anthropologists thought his anthropological ideas were absurd but his geology was intriguing. The climate scientists can't seem to convince anybody outside of their own subspecialty. Fortunately it will all be over within a decade. Given that this particular episode of climate alarmism was much more widely-publicized than the last one (the "Big Freeze" scare before I was born, in the 1960's I think), we can hope that once it is discredited people will be a little more skeptical of the next one. That could be bad in some ways, if it made people reluctant to act when improbable emergencies really do occur (suppose somebody really does locate a comet with a 1 in 10 chance of hitting the Earth), but overall I think it's a good thing if people are cautiously skeptical of big threats--since we're neurologically wired to overestimate them.
Anyway, have a nice day.
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.