nyssos

6 ms·

31.
by nyssos 2y ago
> The criminal liability here is "intentional inflection of emotional distress", Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort, not criminal.
32.
by nyssos 2y ago
> Dark matter is strictly defined by its effects All physical entities are defined by their effects! Suppose we found axions and they had the right mass to be dark matter. Would that mean we now "really knew" what dark matter w
33.
by nyssos 2y ago
> I dunno if this is the correct way of thinking about it, but I just imagine it as a particle that has mass but does not interact with other particles (except at big-bang like energy levels?). Not even anything that extreme. What's
34.
by nyssos 2y ago
All major DM candidates also have multiple interactions: that's the WI in WIMP, for instance. In fact I don't know that anyone is seriously proposing that dark matter is just bare mass with no other properties - aside from the pra
35.
by nyssos 2y ago
> If an algorithmic process is an experience and a collection of experiences is intelligence Neither, what I'm saying is that the observable correlates of experience are the observable correlates of intelligence - saying that "
36.
by nyssos 2y ago
> In the case that you get a zero parameter, you could inflate it by some epsilon and the solution would basically be the same. Not everything is continuous. Add an epsilon worth of torsion to GR and you don't get almost-GR, you get
37.
by nyssos 2y ago
> By spelling out what computers are doing it becomes very obvious that there is nothing that can be aware of any experiences in computers as it is all simply a sequence of arithmetic operations. By spelling out what brains are doing it
38.
by nyssos 2y ago
> Sure we can't see dark matter (it doesn't interact electromagnetically), but we can see its effects Even this is granting too much: "seeing it" and "seeing its effects" are the same thing . No one has eve
39.
by nyssos 2y ago
> What can't be fit by declaring the amount of dark matter that must be present fits the data? Tons of things - just like there are tons of things that can't be fit by declaring the amount of electromagnetically-interacting mat
40.
by nyssos 2y ago
Neuron anatomy is the product of hundreds of millions of years of brute contingency. There are reasons why it can't be certain ways (organisms that were that way [would have] died or failed to reproduce) but no reason whatsoever why it
41.
by nyssos 2y ago
The original four color theorem proof used a computer as a computational aid for some nasty casework: the procedure for checking each case and the list of cases that needed to be checked were found by hand. Proving something in a theorem pr
42.
by nyssos 2y ago
> it doesn't have the same kind of predictive power that people want (i.e. too much freedom so it can be used to explain anything, not just everything). That's the popsci version that's been disseminated, yes. It's no
43.
by nyssos 2y ago
In principle, almost anything: any system of masses will emit gravitational waves with an intensity proportional to its mass quadrupole moment (which may be 0, as it is for rotationally symmetric systems). But the proportionality constant i
44.
by nyssos 2y ago
Tao is Australian. That said, yes, real analysis is often a third-year class.
45.
by nyssos 2y ago
> There might be some small subset of citations that work like a mathematical proof And even then, you're just weakening the result, not throwing it out entirely: instead of a proof of X that cites a proof of Y, you have a proof tha
46.
by nyssos 2y ago
> up to isomorphism Which is exactly the sort of more sophisticated notion of equivalence you end up needing in these cases.
47.
by nyssos 2y ago
If you're comfortable writing interpreters you've probably already picked up on most of the "big ideas" SICP is trying to teach. It's a very good introductory book, but it is still just an introduction.
48.
by nyssos 2y ago
Sorry, my wording was a bit unclear: what I meant was that they were probably taking the limit of \int_{0}^{r} s_{i} \* f_{i}(R - r)/r^2 + f_{i}'(R-r)/r with respect to some suitable sequence of functions `f_{i}` (na
49.
by nyssos 2y ago
> I'm still not sure if it's just claiming that the "hallucinated" Hilbert spaces in a measurement are actualy real copies of the "universe". I'm not sure what you mean by "'hallucinated'
50.
by nyssos 2y ago
They're talking about what the Copenhagen interpretation predicts, not what actually happens. It's a mathematical question, not an experimental one. Solutions to the Schrodinger equation all take the form `Psi(t) = U(t)Psi(0)` for
51.
by nyssos 2y ago
> BUT what do you think about that weird business with the s scaling factor that supposedly rescales the Delta function so that it takes a finite value at 0? I can't yet prove what kind of animal s is supposed to be. It's like
52.
by nyssos 2y ago
> I ask because a circle around a cusp in a sheet will get “caught” on the infinite spike; and a circle not around the cusp will end up with weird deformations if it comes close. That suggests there’s something “topological” about such a
53.
by nyssos 2y ago
Loosely speaking, it's a structure that can't be continuously transformed away. For example, consider a (frictionless, non-dissipative etc.) fluid flowing in a circle around a given point: a vortex. Since this has net angular mome
54.
by nyssos 2y ago
> But the reason we need markets in the first place is that governments aren't able to discover the right levels of resource allocation on their own. Markets don't discover "the right" (i.e. social welfare maximizing)
55.
by nyssos 2y ago
> my key point there was simply to show that the magnetic field isn't really necessary - I wanted to show that it's all part of relativistic contractions made by the electric field. This isn't quite right, there are field
56.
by nyssos 2y ago
It absolutely does not. "Interact with each other only gravitationally" has its plain and ordinary meaning: we're ignoring other interactions. No charge, no collisions, no radiation, etc.
57.
by nyssos 2y ago
QFTs are effective field theories: they describe interactions at a particular energy scale, smoothing over whatever unknown physics is going on at lower (or sometimes higher) length scales. This makes the strengths of interactions scale-d
58.
by nyssos 2y ago
> Do C# arrays have a Sum method? I don't think so. It's not literally a method (it's not, for instance, in the vtable of some array class), but as far as their API is concerned, yeah, they do: https://github.co
59.
by nyssos 2y ago
> Correct specification is as hard as correct programming A complete specification, sure, but that's not really the goal. The things we want to prove are generally just a few key properties: this function always terminates, that one
60.
by nyssos 2y ago
Sum types are disjoint unions. This `T` has three cases L = { tag: "a", payload: string } | { tag: "b", payload: number } R = { tag: "b", payload: number } | { tag: "c", payload: boolean

More ›