lutusp

90 ms·

871.
by lutusp 12y ago
That's easy to answer -- humor is almost always disparaged at HN. People want serious discussions, and jokes often end up being noise blocking the signal. Also, sarcasm by its ambiguity requires people to shift gears from a straight in
872.
by lutusp 12y ago
> So the region within the event horizon is where we see the sufficiently large/infinite curvatures and the imaginary terms and GR can be said to break down? Yes. At the event horizon, general relativity still predicts the outcome.
873.
by lutusp 12y ago
>> The amount of spacetime curvature at the event horizon is fixed in the theory -- it's always the same. > No, its greater the smaller the horizon is (so, equivalently, less the bigger the horizon is). We're using differ
874.
by lutusp 12y ago
It's the other way around. The evidence doesn't depend on the assumptions, the assumptions depend on the evidence. The observations are very good and offer little latitude for interpretation -- there is a very massive, very dense
875.
by lutusp 12y ago
> "Remember that thing that happened in 1928" is hardly a compelling case. And that wasn't what I said -- Penicillin is just one example. Look at the polymerase chain reaction, thought up during a late-night drive by a gra
876.
by lutusp 12y ago
Not to mention what I'm about to -- that scientific theories are never proven, only disproven. You can always tell when a journalist is speaking about a topic for which a scientist might be a better source. As to "mathematically p
877.
by lutusp 12y ago
> even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer. Really? Given that science doesn't turn on belief but evidence, still, the Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence. It&#x27
878.
by lutusp 12y ago
Not if the issued commands spawned a new copy of Bash.
879.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Oh yes. I forgot scientists produce life saving medicine from their dorm rooms all the time. How could I forget. That's more common than most people realize (meaning something being discovered through work in an unrelated context)
880.
by lutusp 12y ago
Can't do that -- strlcpy already has a defined return value. To change it would break vast amounts of existing code.
881.
by lutusp 12y ago
> I will say that "pretty good" evidence is not consistent with the language we usually see in the media[1] but that's really another issue. That's the difference between science and journalism. In journalism, some th
882.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Is it worth pursuing legal action? Not unless you don't get the refund. If it was $10,000 or $100,000 I might answer differently.
883.
by lutusp 12y ago
> If I understand correctly, black holes do not play a large role in our model of the origins of the universe. So this doesn't (directly) lead to "rethinking the origins of the universe". But it does, because one hypothesi
884.
by lutusp 12y ago
> A huge black hole may have pretty weak gravitation at its horizon. Not really. The amount of spacetime curvature at the event horizon is fixed in the theory -- it's always the same. It's how the event horizon is defined. Near
885.
by lutusp 12y ago
> In particular, black holes can exist as long as they've always existed ... This doesn't work in physics. If you say they can only exist if they've always existed, then you're obliged to say how they came into existe
886.
by lutusp 12y ago
> What is an example of this positive evidence? Are you asking what observational evidence exists for black holes? There are very massive, very dense objects at the center of most galaxies, objects that by their mass and density fall wel
887.
by lutusp 12y ago
> The other thing that sets off my hand-wave-o-meter is the pretending that we are somehow already observing these things "new telescope detects hints of black holes" or have concluded that they exist without any positive evide
888.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Are the trajectories of light beams following the curvature of space-time reversible? In other words, if I reflect a light beam back on itself, does it return to its source? Yes, it would, assuming you have a way to reflect a beam back
889.
by lutusp 12y ago
> They aren't linked—they are the same thing! If you're speaking of time and space, no, they're different -- they're certainly all part of one spacetime, but they're distinct. This distinct: t' = t √(1-v^2&#
890.
by lutusp 12y ago
> So instead of the "black hole" being massive, it could be that time is running fast! I would have put it the other way around. Time passes more slowly near large masses relative to other locations.
891.
by lutusp 12y ago
Quote: "Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive." Not as conclusive as the evidence for bla
892.
by lutusp 12y ago
Good for you for knowing this. It's true, and it's something brokers wish people wouldn't point out. If you're simply interested in making money in equities and not gambling, index funds are the way to go. http:/&#
893.
by lutusp 12y ago
> Your first posting didn't mention that you had spot-checked against the book, and I assumed that the infringement you were talking about was from xkcd.com and not from the book. Fair enough, I could have been more clear. > Anot
894.
by lutusp 12y ago
> More specifically, the original has text like "Each collision releases a burst of gamma rays and scattered particles." while the quoted text on that site uses the conditional mood "Each collision would release a burst of
895.
by lutusp 12y ago
The U.S. has a similar system. Many contracts contain what lawyers call "unconscionable" clauses or conditions, meaning if the signer actually understood the contract, he wouldn't have entered into it. Such contracts are prob
896.
by lutusp 12y ago
> unless you really know what you're doing, buying and holding is the way to go. The Wall Street Journal dartboard contest, which ran for several years, shows that, statistically speaking, even if you do think you know what you&#x27
897.
by lutusp 12y ago
> The more pragmatic (and ultimately more successful) way to trade is to buy and hold - and hold, and hold, and hold. Good for you for posting this truth about investing. It's something that brokerage houses wish people wouldn'
898.
by lutusp 12y ago
> It's possible that "What if?" has different permissions than the thrice-weekly xkcd, but there's no obvious reason it isn't the same. I can think of one obvious reason -- the fact that it's a book. Most pu
899.
by lutusp 12y ago
In that case, your original claim was false -- either one neuron is acting alone as you claimed, or it isn't. Your claim was that one neuron was acting alone, which is absurd. A neuron is interconnected to many others, but this doesn&#
900.
by lutusp 12y ago
This article verges on a copyright violation. It simply copies a large block of Munroe's copyrighted content, without even a pretense of a satirical or critical purpose, or as a review of the work (a few of the legitimate reasons to co

More ›