Then how would we have dinosaur bones from 65 million years ago +?

Fossils represent a very tiny portion of whatever was there at that time.

Yes, but the point is the 1.7 M number for total crust turnover can't be valid, as none of that tiny portion would still exist.

I find it hard to believe that there won't be at least some human fossils lying around 60 million years from now.

It’s an angle that a funeral directors could use as a selling point - Fossilisation.

In Gene Wolfe's SF/fantasy tetralogy The Book of the New Sun, set very far in the future, he refers to corpses preserved by extreme means and rendered essentially indestructible and basically just cluttering up the world.

see Ancient Egypt

We don't have bones, we have fossils.

Fossilized bones (plus the occasional feather/tissue), and way to miss the point.

Not trying to be pedantic but the devil is in the details.

Bones are common, fossils are formed by a relatively rare geologic process. Fossilization supplants slow to rot organic material with stone, embedding it in the strata, in just the right conditions. It's unclear to me what (if any) industrial rememants would become fossilized and if they'd be recognizable as such.

Given that pillow lavas can be recognised in some eclogite facies rocks, I think a porcelain toilet would stand a good chance of remaining recognisable at all the way to granulite or eclogite facies, as long as it is not too deformed.

Pyramids? Statues? Stuff that is already made of stone to start with?

How long has it taken the pyramids to decay to their current status?

Most professional archaeologists/anthropologists do ask the indigenous people and do listen. Sure there are always some people who are attention seekers, but the majority do good science and leverage indigenous knowledge. That said, you overestimate how much the people can know. They don’t have ground penetrating memory, and the Maya people have always been far from one united nation but closer to a collection of city-states with some shared cultural traits.

Furthermore, most of the classic Mayan sites were long ago abandoned so it isn’t like there are indigenous people hanging out around Ti’kal or Calak’mul that can just spill the entire history.

Any competent Mayanist would have told you the same as that person in Belize. It is no secret the landscape is dotted with unexcavated ruins, but the scope is unclear which is exactly why this research is so useful.

"They don’t have ground penetrating memory,"

No, they don't.

I'll point out that the article mentions they "remove the dense tree canopy to create a 3D map". It does not say "they used ground penetrating Lidar".

Seems to me you underestimate what they know and overestimate what you know and that is exactly what I was saying they found irksome.

The old joke goes, How do you make a small fortune in the aviation industry? Start with a big one.

Which is why it isn't aimed at "most people."

"It suddenly appears self-driving cars are no safer than human driven cars," says the guy who just read an article about a crash caused by a human while a self-driving car was not at fault.

You quoted me out-of-context.

They don't pay them a wealthy sum when their actions lowered Verizon's buying price by billions. If you crunch the numbers, there is a 0% chance Marissa did this 100% voluntarily with no pressure on her.

> when their actions lowered Verizon's buying price by billions.

You mean 0.35 billion?

Really long. It will still have to get lucky, or at least avoid being unlucky. This is why amateurs routinely crash the final table instead of just pros.

Why did he also have his audio jack taped over?

Maybe so the sound wouldn't go in... ;)

Could just be a joke. People like having subtle fun. If I were someone whose moves were so scrutinized, I'd have some fun with silly things too.

It's the microphone, not the audio jack.

It's definitely the audio jack, but you can use it for a mic, I just don't understand how it can record you without a mic plugged in. Thus my honest question.

twitter.com/topherolson/status/745294977064828929

TL DR April Fools

Blackjack you will lose the longer you play. It's math. A top DFS player can consistently play profitably.

Poker is a better analogy then. You don't play against the house's money there, just the other fella's. DFS, from the article, is best played profitably by whales if there is bumhunting of the newbies. Not only, but the best way to generate cash and minimize the time to do so is to play newbies. DFS is not strictly predatory, but if you are not playing as a predator in the big sites, you are going to loose all your money.

This is gambling. Not strictly defined as such, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what?

How is it gambling? The same guys with the skills consistently win? Elements of luck, sure, but the fact that the predators exist in the game demonstrates that it isn't gambling.

There are professional bettors who make money on horse racing (eg: Alan Woods). They look at historical odds of horses, jockeys, weather conditions, track conditions etc and like these 'predators' on DFS use models to predict probabilities of runners winning. When the estimated probability of the horse winning exceeds the estimated final public probability by the track take, they bet, and bet big. Lots of data, lots of modelling, algorithmic, lots of domain knowledge, and fully automated. No need to scrape websites, totes will supply the latest odds take their bets programmatically.

Do you consider betting on horse racing as gambling? To be honest, for the professionals placing bets in this way, I don't (keep in mind it's very very easy to incorrectly place yourself in this category, and you will lose). But the vast majority of people betting on DFS do not, and can not, take this approach. For them, horse racing and DFS are very much gambling.

Not if you tip the odds in your favor by counting cards. Not illegal by any means, but you have to make sure you're covert enough about it that you don't get kicked out by the casino.