Sniffnoy

49 ms·

571.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Yes, I was relying on your statement that they were all 16 bits; adjust appropriately otherwise.
572.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I mean, they should have been removing zero byte-pairs, not zero bytes; removing zero bytes risks shifting whether you're off by one or not!
573.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I see, thanks! I missed that.
574.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Question: How does this differ from Paul Evans's solution in libtickit, as discussed here[0]? (Yeah, yeah, I can read the whole thing and see for myself, but I'm hoping someone has a quick answer.) [0] http://www.leoner
575.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Really? Certainly it's not surprising that animals without brains might go without movement for periods of time, but why would you expect them a priori to have a state that meets all these criteria?
576.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
I mean, they're all animals . Prokaryotes are far less related to animals than e.g. fungi or plants would be.
577.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Note that this article is from 2017, and that since then, this approach, and the more obvious approach of just using electronics that can withstand such high temperatures, seem to have merged: https://www.sciencemag.org/news
578.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Robin Hanson isn't the one saying it's wrong. A number of other physicists (e.g. Garrett Lisi as mentioned in the post) have said it's wrong, on the basis that the calculation is easy and when they do it they get a very diff
579.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
My main point is doing this is to have the canonical link, not the best-looking link.
580.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
The gravitomagntesim (note: this effect is more commonly known as "frame-dragging") paper is just wrong, lots of other people have also done this calculation and shown that it's off by multiple orders of magnitude. Robin Han
581.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Yes -- the paper is just wrong, lots of other people have also done this calculation and shown that it's off by multiple orders of magnitude. Robin Hanson claims the particular error is the paper's assumption of zero pressure: h
582.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
This paper is just wrong, lots of other people have also done this calculation and shown that it's off by multiple orders of magnitude. Robin Hanson claims the particular error is the paper's assumption of zero pressure: https:&
583.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
This paper is just wrong, lots of other people have also done this calculation and shown that it's off by multiple orders of magnitude. Robin Hanson claims the particular error is the paper's assumption of zero pressure: https:&
584.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
But Hossenfelder doesn't propose abandoning dark matter; this comment seems like a mischaracterization of her position as stated in the original post. Rather Hossenfelder suggests that both dark matter and modified gravity may be n
585.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Non-mobile link: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/05/dark-matter-situati...
586.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Link to the actual post: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/01/an_answer_to_a.html
587.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Oh, ha, yeah, no question there.
588.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Sure, I could have chosen a more watertight example to demonstrate the point. (And I think that "although" is an important "although" -- those characters are not meant to be used for ordinary italics; if you do this,
589.
by Sniffnoy 5y ago
Italics change the semantic meaning of text too, but they're still rich text, not plaintext. Unicode has been generally taken the attitude that Unicode is for plaintext, not rich text, even if it's stretched the meaning of that a
590.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
Gwern mentions the benefit of being affiliated with a university so you can use ILL (in particular, Illiad). I think it's worth mentioning some ways you can get ILL without having to be a student or professor. (Note that these are no
591.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
What the hell is with the interface on this site? I can't select text, everything is acting funny...
592.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
There's a fair bit missing from this; e.g. MUMPS is also known as M, and I believe there's another one known as M as well that isn't here?
593.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
That just sounds to me like a particular sort of epistemology, not a separate thing above it.
594.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
Why do you say that is a way of internalizing externalities? I see nothing there that would internalize them. It may be a way of reducing negative externalities, but via a method other than internalizing them (namely, reducing competiti
595.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
Not clear to me why she refers to this as "metaepistemology" rather than just "epistemology". Seems to me the latter would fit fine.
596.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
> The delicious, inescapable inference is that they’re the only vegan food that can itself eat meat. OK, this bothers me. Carnivorous plants are well-known. Surely it must be possible to eat at least one of them? Edit: The article then
597.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
Others have already answered why surrogate pairs are irrelevant (and not UCS), but I think it's worth saying what the probable actual reason for 5-6 byte variants was. Remember that UCS and Unicode were at this point still two separat
598.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
I mean, if you keep that first election but replace that second election with prediction markets, then you're roughly describing Robin Hanson's idea of futarchy!
599.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
Yup, you came in and said it before I could. Knowing how many counterexamples there could be doesn't help very much if you don't have any bound on their size. pmiller2 seems to assume that there is some way to identify the tw
600.
by Sniffnoy 6y ago
Yup. You came in and said it before I could get back to this...

More ›