I challenge you to do the things you kept pushing for later.
Use your imagination and laugh.
Choose beauty.
Te reto a que hagas las cosas que has ido dejando para después.
Usa tu imaginación y ríete.
Escoge la belleza.
-
-
-
Street under a very modern metro line in the capital of India. The loud noise is missing in the photo.
-
Este artículo me pareció tan interesante que decidí traducirlo y compartirlo aquí con permiso de su autor, Dyske Suematsu. Puedes leer el original en http://dyske.com/paper/945.
La mayor parte de la riqueza se concentra ahora en la parte superior de la escala social. Esto ocurre en los EEUU y la brecha se amplía cada año. Creo que se debe a la eficiencia y no a China. Hoy en día las mejores ideas pueden propagarse por el mundo de manera rápida y eficiente, y todos pueden encontrarlas y comprarlas de manera eficiente, lo que convierte a los propietarios de esas ideas en personas asquerosamente ricas y hace que las ideas que no son las mejores apenas puedan sobrevivir. No solo es rápida la transferencia de información, la riqueza también se transfiere rápida y eficientemente.Imagina que en el futuro existe algo similar al teletransportador de Star Trek que nos permite servir comida recién cocinada a cualquier persona del mundo. La eficiencia de un dispositivo así probablemente acabaría con los restaurantes locales que no son los mejores. La eficiencia de esta cocina del futuro permitiría a un cocinero servir a millones de comensales cada día. Probablemente solo necesitaríamos unos pocos cocineros por cocina en todo el mundo. La razón por la que muchos cocineros aún tienen trabajo es por que el mundo aún no es tan eficiente. En otras industrias mucha gente ha perdido su trabajo debido a la invasión de la eficiencia en sus campos.Cuando alguien es propietario de un medio de producción más eficiente puede eliminar un gran número de puestos de trabajo y obtener unos grandes beneficios con el dinero que ahorra. En otras palabras, no es tanto que los empleos estadounidenses estén yéndose al extranjero, sino que los propietarios de medios de producción eficientes se están embolsando el dinero que gastaban en la contratación de empleados. -
Last February on our way to Agra.
-
I remember discussing with my math and physics teacher. I was about sixteen years old. She argued that the attraction the Earth exerts on any bodies around it increases as we get closer to the center. My intuition was telling me that if gravity acceleration is caused by mass, the point of maximum gravity should be the surface of the planet, not the center. At the center of the earth we would be surrounded by mass, so nothing would be pulling us towards the center of the Earth anymore. I believe she probably had this formula in her head: F = G*m1*m2/r*r. That's Newton's law of universal gravitation. In that formula, as the distance between the two masses decreases, the force gets stronger. If the distance (r) would approach 0, the force (F) would increase towards infinite. This formula is useful if we consider the two masses (m1 and m2) to be points. But the Earth is not a point. Points have no inside and outside, but this planet does.Somehow a few days ago, twenty years after that discussion, these ideas came back to me. So I went and asked Mr. Internet. It turns out we were both partially right. The gravity acceleration does not immediately decrease as we move towards the center of the Earth, as my intuition had told me. In fact, it first increases a little as we go down. There are at least two reasons. One, the effect of the planet rotation, which tries to throw us up into space, is stronger on the surface than down below. And two, density of the matter inside the planet is not always the same: it changes depending on the depth.That means that as we start digging towards the center of the planet, the gravity acceleration initially increases, reaching the maximum at about half way through our trip to the center of the Earth. But after that it decreases down to zero, as I had suspected.My teacher did not appreciate so much my ability to get the right answers without knowing or remembering all the theorems and rules. At least publicly she didn't, I don't know what she thought about it. In any case I believe it was an ability to be promoted, not something to get rid of. My feeling is that teachers wanted students who were able to memorize things, not understand them. That's why I find this video important: Changing Education Paradigms, why I enjoyed the book Hackers and Painters. And maybe one reason why I'm interested in the Khan Academy and recorded almost 100 episodes of Fun Programming.
