blix

13 ms·

121.
by blix 5y ago
The interesting thing about trust is it takes much longer to build than to spend. Given the level scientific institutions have been spending trust over the past few years I'm not sure how this problem can be alleviated within our curre
122.
by blix 5y ago
Thanks for confirming my take. This is a little out of my comfort zone. Do you see a future for this simulation method with increased computing power, or do you think limitations of the method might still limit its applicability. Maybe this
123.
by blix 5y ago
I am not an expert on this type of model but after reading their methods section a little more thoroughly, this is my sense: I don't believe there is any case where a molecule in one voxel knows about molecules in other voxels. DNA and
124.
by blix 5y ago
I guess it's just wierd to me to see ab initio used to describe a class of methods than in my field it explicitly precludes. Having developed a few newtonian force fields, calling them "derived from QM" is very, very generous
125.
by blix 5y ago
> It does represent that many atoms. It also represents even more electrons and even more quarks than that. I think it would be silly to characterize this system by the number of constituent quarks, but that's just me. To me, the im
126.
by blix 5y ago
I would not describe AMBER, or anything using a newtonian force field, as ab initio. In inorganic materials ab initio means you actually solve Schrodinger's equation (though obviously with aggressive simplifications e.g. Hartree-Fock).
127.
by blix 5y ago
I do classical molecular dynamics simulations for a living, and I feel the model using in this paper is pretty dramatically different than what would typically be described as classical dynamics. 2B atoms would be absolutely insane for any
128.
by blix 5y ago
The most recent doctor I asked was 6 months ago. I've been diagnosed with Chrons specifically, so that may be a factor. Incidentally, my current diet is extremely high in a subset of FODMAPs and has helped dramatically.
129.
by blix 5y ago
You would think, but my personal experience is the exact opposite. I actually continue to ask every new doctor the same question and continue to receive the same answer.
130.
by blix 5y ago
I had pretty crazy side effects from biologics (ultimately I feel they made things worse). No one believes sick people though :P
131.
by blix 5y ago
I fully understand where you are coming from, but do not discount the power of diet. I found, that in order to see a real difference, I had to move ~very~ far away from my old habits. It can be a scary thing to do.
132.
by blix 5y ago
Every gastroenterologist I have ever talked to has been ~absolutely certain~ that diet plays no role at all in gut inflammation. I'm glad to see this mindset start to change.
133.
by blix 5y ago
I'm not sure the best way to judge the quality of a scientific argument is whether it 'feels like good science.' While the author is obviously only scratching the surface in an article targetted at non-scientists, the several
134.
by blix 5y ago
> It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative, member of the environmental movement This is a powerful no-true-scotsman here. In my experience, the vast majority of people espousing technical solutions to climate change are
135.
by blix 5y ago
The point of the article is that the philosophy underpinning eco-conscious modernity, specificially the fundemental separation between "humanity" and "nature," leaves no place for humans who live as a part of nature. In
136.
by blix 5y ago
So do price increases from supply chain shocks. And if you've ever lived paycheck-to-paycheck, you understand that even minor shocks get balloon out of control very quickly because resources are so tightly allocated. We are just now li
137.
by blix 5y ago
I don't think this is our last pandemic. Really the modern globalized era is a vanishingly small slice of human history. Ancient societies were often wiped out by unexpected events. I would not bet that nothing unexpected will ever hap
138.
by blix 5y ago
Of course not, but I kinda feel like this discussion is splitting hairs. If you accept that killing and eating another being is fine, as long as you aren't going out of your way to cause excessive pain I don't think it's a pr
139.
by blix 5y ago
Humans very quickly realized that food doesn't always come in at a constant rate and learned to hoard[1] in times of plenty to protect against times of scarcity. As you note, current governments still stockpile food, but before power w
140.
by blix 5y ago
For most of the pre-modern era, 'governing body' simply means a group with enough stockpiled resources, especially food, to project power. Anyone who could get in on this action tried to. Spoilage is an issue, but humans came up
141.
by blix 5y ago
> It’s quite natural, normal humans also don’t hoard everything they can possibly think of needing... For most of human history we did exactly that. The deeply interconnected "JIT Consumption" world is really quite new. And if
142.
by blix 5y ago
I don't understand the obsession with the 'pain-free' death. Surely the animal feels something in all slaughter methods, and either way it's getting killed and eaten. Frankly unless you have even been slaughtered by a Je
143.
by blix 5y ago
So do you want to correct my incorrect conclusion or are you happy to just call it a day :P The contradiction was in saying the simulation hypothesis was fundementally unfalsifiable, and then pointing to its falsifiablity as a reason to pre
144.
by blix 5y ago
While disagreement is often violent, I think if you look closely most of these disagreements are actually politically motivated rather than reflecting deep divisions in core beliefs. Prior to the advent of nationalism this was simply a good
145.
by blix 5y ago
I'm having a hard time interpreting this; are you saying that because people who believe in religions don't unanimously agree that implies all relgions are false?
146.
by blix 5y ago
> The former is a claim that I made explicitly. I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be. It is unimportant to the broader idea of the simulation hypothesis that any individual hyp
147.
by blix 5y ago
There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence
148.
by blix 5y ago
Pumping oil, turning it into plastic, and then burning it, is really not significantly different from just pumping and burning oil from an atmospheric pollution standpoint. The benefit here is less trash. In terms of emissions, it is at bes
149.
by blix 5y ago
I have personal experience with severe depression. I fully agree with GP. It is dangerous to assume others' life experiences. Depression, like most other forms pain, is a warning signal. Unplugging warning signals usually leads to prob
150.
by blix 5y ago
I don't think this future is really all that sophisticated.

More ›