4 ms·

> A femtometer is a few orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. Thank you for telling me what a femtometer is, as though my using the word wasn't a pretty go

> A femtometer is a few orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. Thank you for telling me what a femtometer is, as though my using the word wasn't a pretty good indicator I knew what it was. You mean a femtometer is a real thing? And I just made that up out of thin air to mean a meter stick to give to women. What are the odds? > There are about 2*140 atoms in the atmosphere. You can't even count to that number, let alone do any fluid dynamics to that. Would you like me to explain how your argument is a straw man, or can I trust you to figure it out? > I'm confident that we won't have femtometer scale simulations of the atmosphere before the sun becomes a red giant and swallows the earth. Very colorful, but all you're really saying is that you are pessimistic about technology and about any staggeringly large advancements in computer design or weather sensor tech, while I, otoh, optimistically say I just don't know, but I bet computers will get faster, smaller and cheaper, and that within only a hundred years there will be weather tech that we are incapable of conceiving of today. Sure, a femtometer is mind-bogglingly small, but it's only 15 orders of magnitude smaller than a meter. It's way bigger than a zeptometer. How is it even possible femtometers can be described so simply? But of course, there could never be any more advancements in mathematics, physics, computer engineering or our current understanding of weather and climate. We basically know all there is to know right now. Huh.

adrianN 4y ago
Maybe read https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908043.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908043.pdf before you think about computers operating on 2*140 objects and try to be less aggressive in your comments.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Are numbers not objects? Is scientific notation not a way of expressing numbers that are too large or too small to be conceived or expressed in decimal form? Does a large database keep every object and every bit of data stored in it in RAM? How is it possible a fractal can be rendered in parts of the whole? Even older computers ordinarily can operate on 2^140 objects. user@decadeoldcomputer:~$ echo 2^140 |bc 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 Maybe try to ignore who is saying what, and focus only on what was said.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    No computer can operate on 2**140 objects in any meaningful way, because no computer can even remember whether it's already done with one of the objects or not. Your example operates on a single object, a number.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      Your response is a no true scotsman fallacy while also moving the goalposts, though what you've described is either a single-user single-task operating system, or you are conflating the limitations of current conventional single computer technology, which has already been solved with conventional clusters as well as quantum computing, and probably also with modern GPUs. Parallel computing has existed at least since the mid-1960s.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        You apparently didn't even skim the paper I linked.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Your comment here and suggestion before, and that entire comment, is ad hominem: "ur dum! Go read a book! LOL! Stop disagreeing with me, I don't know logic!"
        adrianN 4y ago
        Not everything that disagrees with you is ad hominem and not knowing something is not a shame. But it does not make for good discussion if you're not engaging with the arguments.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Fallacy doesn't require response, yet I have entertained them as much as I have ignored them, such as this straw man. The other comments mentioned in my GP were ad hominem, though they didn't have to be phrased in a way that made them so, but instead asserted against my argument and cited rather than focusing on what I should do. One must speak to the argument, not to the man, "your facts are in error and your argument flawed because x, y, z," rather than "you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about, and I know this because I am an expert." Fallacy is not too difficult to avoid, but also easy enough to be trapped by,

adrianN 4y ago

Maybe read https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908043.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908043.pdf before you think about computers operating on 2*140 objects and try to be less aggressive in your comments.

Maursault 4y ago
Are numbers not objects? Is scientific notation not a way of expressing numbers that are too large or too small to be conceived or expressed in decimal form? Does a large database keep every object and every bit of data stored in it in RAM? How is it possible a fractal can be rendered in parts of the whole? Even older computers ordinarily can operate on 2^140 objects. user@decadeoldcomputer:~$ echo 2^140 |bc 1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776 Maybe try to ignore who is saying what, and focus only on what was said.
- adrianN 4y ago
  No computer can operate on 2**140 objects in any meaningful way, because no computer can even remember whether it's already done with one of the objects or not. Your example operates on a single object, a number.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Your response is a no true scotsman fallacy while also moving the goalposts, though what you've described is either a single-user single-task operating system, or you are conflating the limitations of current conventional single computer technology, which has already been solved with conventional clusters as well as quantum computing, and probably also with modern GPUs. Parallel computing has existed at least since the mid-1960s.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      You apparently didn't even skim the paper I linked.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        Your comment here and suggestion before, and that entire comment, is ad hominem: "ur dum! Go read a book! LOL! Stop disagreeing with me, I don't know logic!"
        adrianN 4y ago
        Not everything that disagrees with you is ad hominem and not knowing something is not a shame. But it does not make for good discussion if you're not engaging with the arguments.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Fallacy doesn't require response, yet I have entertained them as much as I have ignored them, such as this straw man. The other comments mentioned in my GP were ad hominem, though they didn't have to be phrased in a way that made them so, but instead asserted against my argument and cited rather than focusing on what I should do. One must speak to the argument, not to the man, "your facts are in error and your argument flawed because x, y, z," rather than "you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about, and I know this because I am an expert." Fallacy is not too difficult to avoid, but also easy enough to be trapped by,