mcnamaratw

8 ms·

61.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Nobody reveres St. Richard more than I do. But to be clear: Believing the experts are ignorant is a necessary condition for science. It is not a sufficient condition for science!
62.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Science is engaging with the data, engaging with the experts, understanding and addressing what that all really says, while keeping in mind that the experts are ignorant and I am ignorant. Just sitting in my basement grumping about how the
63.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Very good, but they left out quenelles! https://www.frenchcountryfood.com/recipes/fish-or-seafood/qu...
64.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Thanks. That's a good example. Three months ago deaths were doubling every 2 to 3 days. That's some of the little data we really have. Same virus (although there are speculations that perhaps now there are multiple forms). We&#x27
65.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Thanks. Since HN is overrun right now with people who are more or less denying that the virus is dangerous, I have to disagree with you. But it's nice to know what you're thinking.
66.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Someone saw fit to downvote, which is part of the process. But I'm curious. Does that mean you see that I intended heavy sarcasm, but you disagree with my actual position (i.e. that we're still in danger)? Or that you disapprove
67.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
No, no. The virus is over. The pandemic was multiple news cycles ago. Say the death rate doubles 2-3 times a week, but deaths right now are very low. In that case we're fine. Forget about exponential growth, that's so March 2020.
68.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Can you share your data?
69.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
I don't think anyone really knows whether this kind of transmission is relevant or not.
70.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Only the potential difference is physically meaningful. The absolute potential has no effect on anything. You can add 1000 V or 10^6 V to everything and you get exactly the same physics.
71.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
I am not disagreeing with your overall point, but they sell meters that measure electric potential. We measure it all the time.
72.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
That's relevant but it's definitely not the whole problem. As the article shows, lots of architectural ugliness isn't cost-saving at all. It costs extra and makes the buildings less usable http://news.mit.edu&#x2F
73.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Due to intense survivorship bias (say 0.01% of code goes viral) I think it is extremely difficult to get the real answer to that question by talking to all of us out here on a message board.
74.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
I like coffee. Let's skip the marketing words and look at the data.
75.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Never mind all that! How about IJ? Have you folks made any progress at all on guessing what maybe actually happens? For example do we know anything at all about Hal and Gately digging up JOI's head? Even for example what possible use t
76.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
The article seems to be comparing a hero experiment to access rates. Why not at least compare to telecom backbone rates? You can do at least 1.6 Tbps per fiber, long haul, with commercially available gear. If we use telecom hero experiment
77.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
"Why not a cubic polynomial?" taken literally is not a stupid question at all. No, it's not a contribution to understanding the problem at the professional level, but it is a fundamental and important question. Somebody persi
78.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Sorry to shock you, but not every piece of text on the internet holds water mathematically. Plot a cubic polynomial in time, a t^3 + b t^2 + c*t + d. Use Excel. The curve either diverges to + or - infinity at each end, or it's a consta
79.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Yeah that could be it. But in that case what's the big deal? The data is a messy bump on a log, the fit is a smooth bump on a log. That kind of fit is useless for prediction, but they say so explicitly.
80.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Of course there's a difference between smoothing and forecasting. It's the difference between interpolation and extrapolation. But I can't figure out what anyone in the original discussion is really saying, if anything.
81.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
It's not clear what technical content this post has. A cubic polynomial vs time would be a terrible idea, but the dashed and/or dotted red line (that people seem upset about) is obviously not a cubic polynomial vs time. At that po
82.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
I think the value of the whole booklet is "here's what we think about our PhD program," not necessarily "what place do PhDs really have in society?" They could be wrong about the latter, but if they believe it stron
83.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Sure. I think everybody remembers. I imagine the actions by CA's governor not only saved a lot of lives in CA, but probably helped NY get its rear in gear. But I'm saying something different: A full reopen without proper precautio
84.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
This comment and the great edit are a positive combo. They help remind people that California doesn't have uniquely high population density. Without reminders, that assumption tends to go unchecked. Silly (but real) example: I have hea
85.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Not disagreeing, but don't forget how fast this thing can grow. It was doubling ... every 2 or 3 days? Smaller infected population buys you weeks of time, but that's all.
86.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Seemingly multiple people downvoted this. Why??
87.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Can you link the discussion on Reddit?
88.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
+1 Full text of the article is available for free. Challenge to HN community: Let's make a serious effort to understand exactly what the paper says before either throwing rocks or talking about how awesome it is.
89.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
I think possibly you've defined "full" two different ways. Is it maximum safe pressure or maximum stuff possible?
90.
by mcnamaratw 6y ago
Right ... except that if I want to put more electrons in the same space I'm going to have to confine them more tightly. That prediction works.

More ›