Write questions on the users of accounting information

In this video we take a look at the 0:02 fetch to code 0:03 execute cycle including its effect on 0:06 the various registers we've previously 0:12 [Music] 0:14 discussed a computer is defined Definition 0:17 as an electronic device that takes an 0:20 input 0:22 processes data 0:25 and delivers output 0:29 in this simple example you can see we're 0:31 taking the input 5 0:35 we're multiplying it by 2 that's our 0:37 process 0:39 and we're outputting 10. 0:44 but this could be way more complex for 0:46 example of a game console 0:48 the input could be the buttons you press 0:50 on a controller 0:53 the processes would then be carried out 0:55 by the console itself 0:59 and the output would be some form of 1:01 update to a monitor 1:02 and sound out for a speaker possibly 1:04 vibration feedback through the 1:06 controller 1:10 to process data a computer follows a set 1:13 of instructions 1:14 known as a computer program 1:18 if we take the lid off a typical desktop 1:20 computer we can identify 1:22 two critical components the memory 1:26 that stores the program and the central 1:29 processing unit or processor 1:31 which is under this large fan and 1:33 carries out the instructions 1:37 a computer carries out its function by 1:40 fetching 1:41 instructions decoding them and then 1:43 executing them 1:44 in a continuous repetitive cycle 1:46 billions of times a second 1:48 let's look at each of these stages in a 1:50 little more detail Fetch 1:53 so let's start with the fetch stage the 1:55 very first thing that happens 1:57 is the program counter is checked as it 2:00 holds the address 2:01 of the next instruction to be executed 2:07 the address stored is then copied into 2:09 the memory address register 2:14 the address is then sent along the 2:16 address bus to main memory 2:18 where it waits to receive a signal from 2:21 the control 2:22 bus so it knows what to do 2:27 as we want to read the data that's 2:29 stored in memory address 2:30 0 0 0 0 the control unit sends 2:34 a read signal along the control bus to 2:36 main memory 2:41 now main memory knows the data needs to 2:44 be read 2:45 the content stored in memory address 000 2:49 can be sent along the data bus to the 2:51 memory data register 2:56 now as we're currently in the process of 2:58 fetching an instruction 3:00 the data received by the memory data 3:03 register gets copied 3:04 into the current instruction register 3:11 the instruction effectively has now been 3:14 fetched from memory 3:16 just before we proceed to the decode 3:18 phase we now 3:19 increment the program counter so that 3:22 the address it contains 3:24 points to the address of the next 3:26 instruction which will need to be 3:30 executed 3:32 the instruction now being held in the 3:33 current instruction register 3:35 is ready to be decoded 3:39 now as we mentioned in the previous 3:41 video the instruction is made up of two 3:43 parts 3:44 we have the op code that's what it is we 3:47 need to do 3:50 and we have the operand what are we 3:53 going to do it to 3:55 now the operand could contain the actual 3:57 data 3:58 or indeed it could contain an address of 4:01 where the data is to be found 4:06 by decoding this instruction we can see 4:08 the operation we need 4:10 is a load operation so we need to load 4:14 the contents of memory location0101 4:18 into the cpus accumulator 4:25 in the exam a simple model will be used 4:27 to describe the 4:29 structure of any given instruction 4:32 you're not going to be expected to 4:34 define how an opcode is made up 4:36 but simply to interpret opcodes in the 4:39 given context of an exam 4:40 question in the example here 4:44 you can see there's a total of 16 4:46 different opcodes available 4:48 and this is because we're using four 4:50 bits for our representation 4:56 so now we've fetched the instruction and 4:59 we've decoded it so we know what we need 5:00 to do 5:01 we're finally ready to execute it 5:05 so we now send address 0101 5:08 to the memory dress register 5:13 now we're in the memory address register 5:15 we can finally send the address 5:18 down the address bus to main memory 5:24 this time we want to read the data 5:26 that's stored in memory 5:28 and so the control unit again sends a 5:30 read signal along the control bus 5:36 so main memories now receive an address 5:38 and a read signal 5:40 so the content stored at memory location 5:43 0101 5:44 can now be sent along the data bus back 5:46 to the cpu 5:47 and into the memory data register 5:54 finally the contents of the memory data 5:56 register are copied to the accumulator 5:59 and this is one of a number of general 6:00 purpose registers found in the cpu 6:04 this first instruction is now complete Branching 6:11 so what does this program actually do 6:14 you should be able to work it through 6:16 carefully and figure it out 6:19 we're now pointing instructions zero 6:21 zero zero one in the program counter 6:23 and we're ready to fetch the second 6:25 instruction 6:27 at the end of this video we're gonna 6:29 provide you with the answer 6:34 so let's talk a second about programs 6:37 that branch 6:40 on the left here we have a very simple 6:42 piece of pseudo code 6:44 line zero says first execute this line 6:46 of code 6:47 line 1 now execute this line and then 6:50 line 2 says 6:52 if the age is greater than 18 then 6:56 we're going to execute lines 3 and 4 6:58 otherwise 6:59 we're going to execute lines six and 7:02 seven 7:03 so this program doesn't necessarily 7:05 follow strictly in sequence from line 7:07 zero through to seven there's a chance 7:10 here the program may branch and jump 7:14 around 7:16 so we're going to pretend that this 7:17 program has been loaded into memory 7:20 each line of code on the left here has 7:23 ended up 7:24 as a location in memory now this is not 7:27 strictly how this would happen in this 7:28 one-to-one way 7:29 but for the purpose of example it's 7:31 absolutely fine 7:35 so the program counter starts by 7:37 pointing to memory address zero 7:39 and we fetch the first instruction 7:41 decode it and execute it 7:44 it then updates and tells us the next 7:47 instruction 7:48 is zero zero zero one because remember 7:50 the program counter is being incremented 7:52 so we fetch it decode it and we execute 7:55 line one of our program 7:59 we then fetch line two which in binary 8:01 is one 8:02 zero 8:06 now at this point depending on what 8:10 happens during the execution 8:11 of line two the program may be required 8:15 to fetch line three from memory or 8:18 line five from memory 8:25 so let's look at how this actually works 8:27 because we've said the program counter 8:28 simply gets incremented 8:31 well in the current instruction register 8:33 we have an instruction with the op code 8:36 0 1 1 0. 8:41 now when we look this up in the decode 8:43 unit we discover that this 8:45 code means branch always 8:51 this replaces the value held in the 8:54 program counter 8:56 with the contents of the operand that's 8:58 the second part of the instruction 9:01 from the current instruction register so 9:03 this case 9:04 one zero zero one 9:09 now when the next fetch cycle begins the 9:12 program counter is obviously checked 9:14 and as its contents have been previously 9:16 updated to a new memory location 9:19 and not simply incremented the program 9:22 effectively is able to jump 9:24 around memory 9:28 so having watched this video you should 9:30 be able to answer the following key 9:32 question 9:33 how does a cpu work 9:39 okay so let's um answer the question we 9:41 posed 9:42 earlier what did that program actually 9:48 do 9:50 so this is the first fetch to code 9:53 execute cycle 9:55 and this is the one that we ran through 9:57 in detail earlier 9:58 it effectively loaded the contents of 10:01 the memory 10:02 stored at location location0101 10:05 into the accumulator in other words 10:08 the dna number 3 is moved 10:11 from memory into the cpu 10:18 we then proceed onto the second fetch 10:20 decode execute cycle 10:23 now this one adds the contents of memory 10:27 located at 0 1 1 0 10:30 to the current contents of the 10:32 accumulator 10:34 so in other words the dna number one 10:38 because that's what's stored at address 10:40 zero one one zero 10:43 is added to the number three that was in 10:45 the accumulator 10:46 the results are stored back over the 10:48 accumulator 10:49 so effectively we've done three plus one 10:53 equals four 10:58 the third fetch to code execute cycle 11:00 stores the contents which are in the 11:02 accumulator 11:03 into memory location zero one one one 11:07 and that's because the op code the first 11:09 part of this current instruction 11:10 zero zero one one is the command to 11:13 store when we look it up in the decoder 11:15 unit 11:16 so in other words the result of the 11:17 previous calculation three plus one 11:19 equals four 11:20 is now written back into main memory 11:28 the fourth fetch decode execute cycle 11:30 outputs the contents of the accumulator 11:33 remember they were copied into main 11:34 memory but they're still held in the 11:35 accumulator 11:37 so in this simple abstraction the number 11:40 four is now 11:41 output to the user so they can see the 11:43 result of the calculation 11:49 the fifth and final fetch code execute 11:51 cycle 11:52 brings a halt to the current program 11:58 so this very simple program which has 12:01 five 12:02 fetch decode execute cycles has 12:04 performed the calculation 12:06 three plus one is then stored the result 12:09 in main memory 12:10 and displayed the result four to the 12:12 user 12:13 and in a high-level language this may 12:15 look something very similar to the 12:17 following two lines of code 12:20 sum variable equals num1 plus num2 12:24 print sum to the user 12:27 so you can start to get an appreciation 12:29 here of how the high level code you 12:32 write actually ends up being fetched 12:34 decoded 12:35 and executed inside a processor 12:38 of course your processor is doing 12:40 billions and billions of these 12:42 operations a second 12:43 which when you think about it is really 12:45 very impressive 12:52 [Music] 13:03 you. make 10 questions for a standerd of a level

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

🔹 Quiz Title: “Which Deep Work Approach is This?” Question 1: Maya blocks off Monday–Wednesday for research, Thursday–Friday for teaching and admin. What deep work approach is she using? A) Monastic B) Bimodal ✅ C) Rhythmic D) Journalistic Correct Answer Explanation: ✅ Maya clearly separates deep work and shallow work by dedicating multiple days to each — this is a hallmark of the Bimodal approach. Question 2: Jon writes every morning from 8 to 11 AM, without fail. Which approach best fits Jon’s work style? A) Monastic B) Journalistic C) Rhythmic ✅ D) Bimodal Correct Answer Explanation: ✅ Jon has a regular daily rhythm of deep work — this is the Rhythmic approach. Question 3: Lina grabs any quiet 1–2 hour slot between her busy teaching days to do focused writing. What approach is she following? A) Monastic B) Journalistic ✅ C) Bimodal D) Rhythmic Correct Answer Explanation: ✅ Lina uses deep work opportunistically, fitting it into gaps in her unpredictable schedule — this is characteristic of the Journalistic approach. Question 4: Ali retreats to a rural cabin for 3 weeks to draft his dissertation in silence. What is Ali’s approach? A) Bimodal B) Rhythmic C) Monastic ✅ D) Journalistic Correct Answer Explanation: ✅ Ali isolates himself completely to focus on a single project — this reflects the Monastic approach. 🧩 Bonus Reflective Question (Open-ended – can be skipped in Quizalize or used in discussion): Question 5 (Reflection): Which deep work approach do you think best fits your current lifestyle? Why? (No correct answer; this is for self-awareness and discussion.)

Write questions based on the text: Katie likes to go to the store. She likes to shop. She goes to the bookstore with her mom. She shops for a book. She likes going to the food store with her dad. She goes to the toy store with her grandfather. She buys a toy. She likes shopping for food. She goes to the clothing store with her mom. She looks for a coat. She likes going to the shoe store with her grandmother. She buys new shoes. She goes to the pet store. She looks for a pet. Katie likes the pet store best. She buys a puppy.

Write questions based on the text: How long could you survive at sea? One day? Two? And when would you start to lose hope? When Robert Hewitt came to the surface, he realized straight away that something was wrong. He’d been diving for sea urchins and crayfish off the coast of New Zealand with a friend, and had decided to make the 200-metre swim back to shore alone. But instead, strong underwater currents had taken him more than half a kilometre out to sea. Lying on his back in the middle of the ocean, Robert told himself not to panic. He was a strong swimmer and he was wearing his thick wetsuit. 'I'm not going to die. Someone will come,' he told himself. But three hours passed and still no one had come for him. Robert would soon have to make a tough decision. He was now a long way from the coast and the tide was taking him further out, but he decided not to try to swim for shore. He felt it was better to save his energy and hold on to his brightly coloured equipment. But the decision was not an easy one. 'l just closed my eyes and said, "You've made the right decision. You've made the right decision" until that's all I heard,' he remembers. As night approached, Robert established a pattern to help him survive in the water. To stay warm, he kept himself moving and took short naps of less than a minute at a time. Every few hours, he called out to his loved ones: 'Just yelling out their names would pick me up and then I would keep going for the next hour and the next hour and the next.' When he woke the next morning, he couldn't believe he was still alive. Using his bright equipment, he tried to signal to planes that flew overhead. But as each plane turned away, his spirits dropped. He managed to drink water from his oxygen tank to keep himself alive, but as day turned to night again he started to imagine things. Robert woke on the third day to a beautiful blue sky. Now seven kilometres off the coast, Robert decided he had to swim for it. But the sun was so strong and Robert quickly ran out of strength. Hope turned to disappointment yet again: 'l felt disappointed in myself. I thought I was a lot fitter. I thought I would be able to do it.' Robert then started to think he might not survive. On the fourth day, the lack of food and water was really starting to affect him. Half unconscious, and with strange visions going through his head, he thought he saw a boat coming towards him with two of his friends in. Another vision, surely. But no - 'They put me in the boat and I said something like "Oh, how's it going, what are you guys doing here?"' Then he asked them the question that he'd asked in all his visions: 'Can I have some water?' As they handed him the water and he felt it touch his lips, he knew. This was not a vision. He'd been found! After four days and three nights alone at sea, Robert had been found! Sunburnt, hungry and exhausted, but alive.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes