djsbs

10 ms·

31.
by djsbs 5y ago
A throttle-able test reactor can be as simple as a pool with no pressure vessel. There’s maybe 100 of those in univeristies throughout the US. Now commercialize it.
32.
by djsbs 5y ago
I wouldnt be surprised if he declares a mistrial with prejudice. The 5th amendment stunt they pulled was jaw dropping.
33.
by djsbs 5y ago
I posted another one 2 days ago, vis a vis the Rittenhouse trial. I was in a rush but I wanted to post something demonstrating how the fidelity of digital tech can be misleading. In my post I just picked the first main stream media outlet (
34.
by djsbs 5y ago
Its a bit complicated. Disclaimer: Im not a nuke engineer, I just took some nuke classes and was surrounded by then for a while. New reactor designs promise to throttle, but I don’t know if any have been deployed. This is a bit more complic
35.
by djsbs 5y ago
See answer to other comment.
36.
by djsbs 5y ago
“ Nukes can operate as peaker plants. The feedback from the control rods is nearly instantaneous.” But the physical thermal stress from throttling it significantly shorten its lifespan. Throttling nukes is not a trivial task; I know one pl
37.
by djsbs 5y ago
And therefore needs to be validated! The prosecutor literally tried to infer an action from a single pixel . That’s BS and everyone in this forum has the technical ability to recognize this. A single pixel from a low light environment (t
38.
by djsbs 5y ago
And when the prosecution is trying to infer from a single pixel what the defendant was doing, algorithms and artifacts matter. Just watch the trial.
39.
by djsbs 5y ago
I strongly agree with this comment. But this is why digital media is so dangerous - because few people understand the “logorithms” used to light the pixels on the screen
40.
by djsbs 5y ago
Then get an expert to testify as much. Btw, this isn’t a “right wing” issue. Political “liberals”, to their credit, have been saying as much for years, pointing out that closed source software has huge problems in court. As it stands, the
41.
by djsbs 5y ago
“ 20 minutes to find an expert?” They had months to prepare. They’re not noobs they know what the rules are. The rest of your comment is exactly why council has a right to object and demand validation: - The judge doesn't know the an
42.
by djsbs 5y ago
If the algorithm introduces materially changes the image, then the opposing council (to the one who introduces evidence) has the right to have the image validated be validated by an expert. Thats basic court procedure. Btw, see a submission
43.
Confused Xerox copiers rewrite scanned documents, expert finds (2013)(bbc.com)
69 points by djsbs 5y ago|7 comments
44.
by djsbs 5y ago
Is interpolation “super resolution”. Id argue not, but it doesn't matter. If the software adds pixels to the image than it has made a material change to the picture. Defense has a right to call the prosecution to prove that the zoom ef
45.
by djsbs 5y ago
Rock’s absorption of neutrons doesn’t matter. Neutron thermalize. Since rock has mostly low atomic weight isotopes, it thermalizes them very well [1]. Once they are thermal they scatter easily. Gauss’ law is for the electric field. The mag
46.
by djsbs 5y ago
Thats not what they claimed. They pointed out that the onus is on the prosecution to their get evidence validated. If they want to zoom in they have to get an expert to testify that iOS doesnt add any pixles. Its pretty basic trial procedur
47.
by djsbs 5y ago
Use a magnet instead then. Flip it over with the pneumatic arm.
48.
by djsbs 5y ago
You’re basically right. Miners trapped in a cave not penetrated by E&M waves? Wont work. Signal from inside a reactor? No. No logic can modulate the signal in said reactor that isn't destroyed by the radiation. If you have a pneuma
49.
by djsbs 5y ago
“… using neutrinos” “… neutrons will be absorbed…” I made the same confusion for a second. Neutrons are easily absorbed. Neutrinos (little neutrons) are almost impossible to interact with (and therefore absorb)
50.
by djsbs 5y ago
With neutrons, no. They’re slow, isotropic and thermalize easily. With neutrinos that’d be a different story. They travel at the speed of light (or just below it - depends who you ask) and they aren't readily absorbed by anything. Ther
51.
by djsbs 5y ago
So they should use the word “managed”. Endemic has a very specific meaning. If you haven't seen the push for boosters, seasonal shots, etc then you’re not paying attention. As to assault, you’re right. Legally, the sovereign cannot ass
52.
by djsbs 5y ago
You clearly haven't read much about the societal impacts of pornography. Being a enthusiastic consumer doesn’t make you am expert. But, I’ll take you up on your offer. Its better than the one Im currently facing.
53.
by djsbs 5y ago
Thats not what endemic means. Endemic means regularly found. The virus is already endemic throughout the world. Either way these vaccines will not accomplish your stated goal. The vaccines wear off too quickly. The virus bifurcates too quic
54.
by djsbs 5y ago
And Im in favor of banning video games, social media and pornography. Btw, what do you plan to accomplish by assaulting people who don't want it? The virus isnt going away no matter how draconian you get. Just for fun, imagine forcibl
55.
by djsbs 5y ago
you classify CNN in the same way The Economist is largely segmented? Really?
56.
by djsbs 5y ago
I first joined HN ten years ago. So that was sarcasm? Wow that went over my head. Makes sense though.
57.
by djsbs 5y ago
I disagree with everything you say, but: “ They were the first "ethical" tech company,” What does that even mean? Unless you equate “ethical” with manipulating their dominant social position to shove a worldview you happen to a
58.
by djsbs 5y ago
Only if they’re legal US persons. Ie they have a green card. Undocumented, student visas, etc are banned from buying guns
59.
by djsbs 5y ago
You made a solemn oath under penalty of law. Thats not what they have in the US. I can literally come up with a common name, say Ben Levi, and vote on Ben’s behalf. If Ben decides to show up, he’s in trouble, not me. In Canada you are typic
60.
by djsbs 5y ago
Wait a second. Canada does require an ID. From someone. If the would be voter doesn't have ID, then someone who knows them has to make a sworn affidavit that the voter is who they claim to be. Thats not the same thing as we have in t

More ›