Spzi

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What's up with the wiggeling, is the camera dangling from a balloon?

I guess if drones can fly into doors on moving targets, an observation drone should be able to hold relatively still.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Alright, thanks! I think I understand where you're coming from, and can relate. I'm an ex-Christian, although I guess for ex-Muslims this process is a whole other beast.

And yes, I know exactly what you mean about culture and critique - as an leftwing, anti-theist leaning atheist, I often have to cringe about my peers. It feels like false romanticizing, like we did with native americans, or other falsly understood cultures. So many things which I despise in fascism are also present in strict Christianity and strict Islam. Although luckily, very few people take their religion seriously here. So our religious nutjobs are a fringe minority and can mostly be ignored.

Refugees welcome, but I hate it when they try to establish religio-fascist areas here, spewing hate and all their nonsense, occasionally killing someone. I mean, if you want to live like that, go back. If you like our way, be welcome.

Yeah, a sensitive topic which can easily trigger people. I try not to care about the boxes they try to put me in. And I absolutely love the freedom of speech we have here. I don't want that be ruined by migrants who think they speak for Allah, nor by leftists who think every minority shares their values. Like I was one of them. In my youth, with coloured hair and ragged clothes, I was regularly beaten up by (almost exclusively) migrants. Created quite some cognitive dissonance, some effort to justify their deeds, like worse socioeconomic status blabla. Truth is, many people are quite "conservative", naturally more so in less liberal countries of origin. And still, I vote and speak for open borders. Our society must find better ways than building walls. This issue is challenging European core values, with at least two ways to erode the values; we can lose them by allowing hostile subcultures to grow, or we can lose them by closing us off to the outside.

Good lord, 6 years. Poor Aisha. I guess my brain was happy to forget that detail.

So thanks again for this exchange. Stay safe.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Other person.

I think there are stories in the Quran or the other important texts (Hadid?) about their prophet marrying a 9yo. Although I've witnessed controversy around her exact age amongst people in /r/DebateReligion. Like some said it wasn't too bad, she was almost 14 or so.

Now your turn, what do you think? And why did you want them not to google?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Hey, I know a pretty similar bus stop in Hamburg, Germany: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMa5unXew4uAfVtPA

Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.

If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.

So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn't really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it's just that; an explanation, not a justification.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Nice summary. Yes, turnout. It will probably increase for Republicans. But since everybody can guess that, it will just as likely increase Democrats turnout. We should expect many effects to affect both sides, like Democrats voters now also have a higher attention that there is an election coming up. I think the effect on swing voters, if there are any left, is marginal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Sehr gut! Danke, BGH.

Es gibt so viele Varianten von "klimaneutral", manche legitim, manche weniger. Es ist gut, das transparenter zu machen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Hehe, right! (technically). Context matters! When talking about fruit, people usually don't include stellar objects when weighing their options. Still true when taking in consideration that "apples to oranges" is usually metaphorical and not really about fruit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I like that, especially this insight:

when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.


A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.

Good on you to say "harder to compare" :D

it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.

Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. "cannot be compared" attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.

The reference to poetry was nice, too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

My point works just as well with an arbitrary amount of options. Someone could say "These quintillion things cannot be compared".

The number of options is irrelevant to what I tried to address. Though my examples were only pairs, so sorry for causing confusion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed reply. I guess you're right about the equivocation and I can see the irony :D

Though I have not fully understood yet. Following your example, the two different concepts are ...

  • in case A, we compare the value of a property (different top speed)
  • in case B, we compare the purpose or context-dependend usefulness of an attribute (different types of liquid container holders)

What blocks me from fully agreeing is that still, both are comparisons. And they don't feel so different to me that I would call them different concepts. When I look up examples for equivocations, those do feel very different to me.

I still guess you're right. If you (or someone else) could help me see the fallacy, I'd appreciate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, yeah. Guess I was taking the word too literally.

 

What they actually mean is rather "these two things are very dissimilar", or "these two things are unequal".

I guess in most situations "cannot be compared" could be replaced by "cannot be equated", with less lingual inaccuracy and still the same message conveyed.

To come to the conclusion that two things are very dissimilar, very unequal, one necessarily has to compare them. So it's rather odd to come up with "cannot be compared" after just literally comparing them.

For example, bikes and cars. We compare them by looking at each's details, and finding any dissimilarities. They have a different amount of wheels. Different propulsion methods. Different price, and so on.

When this list becomes very long, or some details have a major meaning which should not be equated, people say they cannot be compared.

An example with a major meaning difference: Some people say factory farming of animals and the Holocaust are very similar, or something alike. Others disagree, presumably because they feel wether it's humans or animals being treated, the motives or whatnot make a difference big enough that the two should not be ~~compared~~ equated.

Can you follow my thoughts? Are 'dissimilar' or 'unequal' better terms? I'd be especially interested in arguments in favor of 'compared'.

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about


Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:

Image Text

BRACKEYS

Hello everyone!

It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.

Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.

I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.

Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.

Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.

The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.

I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.

Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.

I can only say that I have started learning Godot.

Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!

Sincerely,

Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys

 

Video Description:

Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.

Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.


Channel Description:

Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.

The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.


CHAPTERS (and key bits)

  • 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
  • 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO~2~ in 2022.
  • 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
  • 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
  • 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
  • 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO~2~/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
  • 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
  • 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO~2~
  • 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
  • 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
  • 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO~2~ in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
  • 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
  • 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
  • 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
  • 24:35 Outro and credits
 

WARNING - LOUD!

Gav plops down the high speed camera next to a rocket engine with 45,000lbs of thrust and the results are epic. Big thanks to Firefly for allowing us to film at their facility and BBC Click for letting us use their behind the scenes footage from the day.

Filmed at 2000fps

 

Absolutely everything you think about yourself and the universe could be an illusion. As far as you know, you are real and exist in a universe that was born 14 billion years ago and that gave rise to galaxies, stars, the Earth, and finally you. Except, maybe not.

Other explanations for Boltzmann Brains did not require an 'inside-out black hole', for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain, so this inclusion came as a surprise to me. Not sure if it's necessary.

What baffles me about the theory: If it's true, and reality is (mostly, statistically speaking) imagined ... the physical reality could be anything. It could be very different from the reality we live in. But we created our models of the universe in this one reality we know, and the theory of Boltzmann Brains emerged from that.

So based on these physical models we arrive at the idea of BBs. But if this idea is true, the physical reality could be completely different.

Or what do you think?

 

In 1997, a contest began to develop a new encryption algorithm to become the Advanced Encryption Standard. After years of debate, one algorithm was chosen as the AES. But how does AES work? And what makes for a secure encryption algorithm?


Spanning Tree is an educational video series about computer science and mathematics. See more at https://spanningtree.me

To be notified when a new video is released, sign up for the Spanning Tree mailing list at https://spanningtree.substack.com/

Spanning Tree is created by Brian Yu. https://brianyu.me/

Email me at [email protected] to suggest a future topic.


  • 0:00 The Contest
  • 1:02 Encryption
  • 3:57 Confusion and Diffusion
  • 5:44 Block Cipher
  • 6:55 KeyExpansion
  • 7:34 AddRoundKey
  • 8:14 Substitution Cipher
  • 8:55 SubBytes
  • 11:30 MixColumns
  • 12:53 ShiftRows
  • 13:21 The Algorithm

Aug 22, 2023

 

The strange science experiment that blew a worm’s head off… and blew our minds.

This interview is an episode from /channel/UCz7Gx6wLCiPw3F-AmXUvH8w, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the /channel/UCMJ6QeJUbCUuhOSYZadF7sA.

Michael Levin, a developmental biologist at Tufts University, challenges conventional notions of intelligence, arguing that it is inherently collective rather than individual.

Levin explains that we are collections of cells, with each cell possessing competencies developed from their evolution from unicellular organisms. This forms a multi-scale competency architecture, where each level, from cells to tissues to organs, is solving problems within their unique spaces.

Levin emphasizes that properly recognizing intelligence, which spans different scales of existence, is vital for understanding life's complexities. And this perspective suggests a radical shift in understanding ourselves and the world around us, acknowledging the cognitive abilities present at every level of our existence.

Read the video transcript ► https://bigthink.com/the-well/intelligence-can-cells-think/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=video&utm_campaign=youtube_description

 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4915484

In this video, I talk briefly about a few interesting discoveries and experiments made over the years concerning evolution and natural selection in modern animals with the hope of convincing some people that evolution is indeed real and visible in the real world and that animals can change and evolve over time and in response to environmental conditions entirely naturally. Hope you enjoy!

Chapters:

  1. Intro
  2. Big Bird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bird_(bird)
  3. Italian Wall Lizards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard
  4. Stickleback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stickleback
view more: next ›