ydoaPs

Emphasis mine. *exhales*

There's some wrinkles (like most of Captain America 1 takes place during WWII), but they're essentially in order chronologically, though several of them take place over the course of the same week.

They've been polling about equally (with a downward slope for the trend line) since September. She had a slight bump at the beginning of April, but it's going back down now. Try looking at those plots with the MOE in the graph.

Think of just about any foreign policy disaster from the US, and there's likely a video from C-SPAN of Sanders telling the rest of Congress why it's a dumb idea. Trump is in a primary race with more people than the race that Clinton and Sanders are in, so his race's vote is split more than the other race. As for general election viability, we've had matchup polls for a long time. Clinton consistently does terribly against Trump and does worse as time goes on. I don't think you should underestimate Trumps ability to win the general election.

Did you ever figure out the problem?

Your code could be a bit more readable. Comment to the point that you think you're overcommenting, then comment some more. Remember, future you thinks past you is an idiot. Things like "myFunction" are really bad names. Refactor to something more meaningful. And a general rule is that no physical line of code should be longer than a tweet.

In epistemology circles, it's generally accepted that knowledge is justified true belief plus what is called an "anti-Gettier condition". Epistemologists study justification for most part, but there's a not insignificant portion of epistemologists that study Gettier problems. Gettier problems are situations of justified true belief that are often intuited as not being a case of knowledge. There are things like the TrueTemp case in which unbeknownst to a person, while they were asleep, someone put an implant in their brain so that they can always just tell what the temperature is accurately. Does this person *know* what the temperature is? There's also less scifi kind of cases like a broken clock. You wake up at 7:30am and your clock reads 7:30. It just so happens that your clock is broken and reads the correct time coincidentally. Does your belief that it is 7:30 constitute knowledge? I'm in a growing camp that says these Gettier cases are not really important or really relevant. What is important is whether the belief is justified. If we have to drop the k word, then so be it.

Say it yd-oh-aps. Pretend the 'y' is a 'j'. It isn't that hard.

Tim Maudlin has a good overview of SR and GR (and some philosophical issues therein) devoloped using just the diagrams. Here's the book on Amazon.

You have to be careful in interpreting them, though. The spatial distance and temporal distance don't combine in a pythagorean way. The square of the spacetime distance is the difference of the square of the temporal distance and the spatial distance. So, in the diagram, you can't always judge a line by the length on the paper.

What's the asterisk?

I'm not sure we can say anything about SC right now. A lot has happened since the last poll. Sanders and Clinton tied in Iowa. Sanders pulled to a tie nationally. Clinton shot herself in the foot by alianating women even more via sexist comments from her surrogates. Paul dropped out and many of his supporters flocked to Sanders immediately. Paul senior essentially endorsed Sanders. Sanders was endorsed by former NAACP president. Sanders dominated NH by double digits. And then there's the recent debate. Any or all of that could affect the SC outcome. We have few polls and they're all old. Hopefully we will get a new poll after tonight and we can have a better idea of what we're looking at. I think its significance is somewhere in between. Hillary took NH handily last time. And even just a couple of months ago Hillary was predicted to take NH by a 30 point margin landslide.

And whether Hillary will respond by shooting herself in the foot like she did to the Iowa tie.

This isn't nearly as exciting as the Iowa caucuses. It's kind of stable with Sanders having ~56% and Clinton having ~40%. Though, at this point, only 9% of votes are in, so it might change. It's fairly static, so I doubt it, but it might.

Making this whole crazy event even crazier, that is actually under dispute.

And the difference has jumped back down to within 0.2% I think the only outcome difference on a Sanders win vs a Clinton win is the spin. Either way, it's going to be spun toward Clinton. If Clinton wins, it's a stunning victory. If Sanders wins, it's going to be a long grueling election.

And now the delegate differential is 2 instead of 1. Clinton's lead has widened back to 0.8% 93% in and the difference is back down to 0.7%.

So far, Clinton leads by less than a percent, but Sanders leads by a delegate. Let's say that's the final count for the sake of argument. Who won?

Bernie and Hillary are at about half a percent. I wonder if he will keep going up. Still quite a few precincts to come in. It looks like Huckabee is folding his campaign too. Sanders: 49.36 Clinton: 49.96 85.48% in

80% of precincts are in and Clinton is barely ahead by less than a percent. Trump is performing worse than polling.

You say that like O'Malley ever had a chance. Clinton and Sanders are still VERY close.

The Iowa caucuses started. Who do you think will be the winners in each party? For those that don't know, a caucus isn't a voting situation. It's not a five minute thing where you go in and write your name on a piece of paper. It's more like in cartoons when someone really draws a line in the sand and everyone picks a side. The doors close at 7pm. At 7, everyone goes off to their candidate's corner (if they're not undecided). A preliminary count is done. If a candidate doesn't get a certain percentage of the people, they aren't qualified to caucus and their people enter the undecided group. At this point, the debating begins. Everyone tries to get the undecided to join them and to get the opposing team to defect and join their team. Once time is up, a final count is done. Delegates are awarded according to how many people are in each candidate's corner......literally.

I wonder how much the social stigma of not discussing your wages plays into this. If you know that you're making half as much as the opposite sex at your job, you can raise a ruckus. If you don't, you can't raise a ruckus for your pay specifically (though you still can, and should, fight the issue in the general case).

Don't most industrialized nations do that? A lot of industrialized nations do that too. The US is just a really backward country in a lot of respects.

You have to practice. Luckily for you, there are tons of resources online for help. KhanAcademy is a good start. It should get you through introductory linear algebra, calculus, and differential equations. If you need a lower starting point, they've got that too. You can start from basic counting, if you need to go that far back. No matter where you're at, that site is a great starting point on the math. They've even got an introductory physics section. I've not looked through that, but the table of contents looks like it might have most of the calculus done for you. That's just a grounding. If you want to move on a basic grounding in something a bit more, there are university classes on YouTube for special relativity and quantum mechanics. Special relativity, you can do pretty much immediately after you go through the KahnAcademy physics section, since the math is basic algebra. Quantum Mechanics is calculus and linear algebra, so you'll need more of the math sections to get through it. After going through those online resources, you should be able to tackle coursework much easier. As others have told you, you'll need an undergraduate degree and a PhD if you want to get a job as a physicist. I see what you did there.