pdonis

10 ms·

61.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> the singularity is always in your future It's not just that it's always in your future in the sense that you can't avoid it. It's that the reason you can't avoid it is that it's a moment of time , not
62.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> the singularity is still a point (or rather surface) in the future instead of a point in space. It's a spacelike line on the Kruskal diagram, yes. > The issue is that these diagrams are for eternal, static black holes The f
63.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> if I was walking toward the black hole past the event horizon, and then I turned around Note that, once you're inside the horizon, you can't "turn around" and go back outside again. You're inside the hole for
64.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> Really what it means is that past the event horizon you can use the direction in space between you and the singularity as a way to measure time That's not correct. There is a relationship between the radial coordinate r you ar
65.
by pdonis 2mo ago
This is the opinion of most physicists, yes, but it does not in any way justify the GP's claims or cast doubt on anything that is said in the paper. Note that the paper talks explicitly about the limitations of GR as the singularity is
66.
by pdonis 2mo ago
Unfortunately you are wrong. Everything the paper is saying about the singularity and its properties in GR, and more generally about the black hole solutions it describes, is well understood and has been for decades. The definition of &quot
67.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> the space and time coordinates switch places as you cross the event horizon If Susskind's book does in fact say that, it's extremely disappointing to me, because, as a number of other GR textbooks will tell you (e.g., Misne
68.
by pdonis 2mo ago
Which doesn't matter to me since the music I'm talking about is music I already have on the USB stick (because it's music I've collected over years and years of buying CDs, mostly before ways of streaming music over the
69.
by pdonis 2mo ago
My phone is much clunkier to use for this than a USB stick. Plus my phone can't store my whole music library (because there's too much other stuff already on it), whereas a single USB stick does it easily with plenty of room to sp
70.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> I’ve never met anyone irl who used USB sticks full of music. I've been doing it for years, since it's so much more convenient than the alternatives: plug the stick into my car and I have my whole music library there and it
71.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> Otherwise you're still facing the single cause trap. "Something" does not have to mean "one single thing". But I would be fine with your phraseology if it ended up making it clearer to whoever was doing the a
72.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> Until you start to pull management decisions into your analysis, of course. Meaning, having something like "management will decide not to fund maintenance for this component in the future, causing a failure" in your fault t
73.
by pdonis 2mo ago
Did Microsoft give fair warning of what was going to happen to the data in the cloud that was stored there under these licenses? (I don't have a Slate account so I can't read the full article to see if this is addressed.)
74.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> "root cause analysis", at least on complex systems, is a fools errand. Not when properly understood--which, to be fair, it often isn't. The proper purpose of root cause analysis is to answer the question: does this fai
75.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> Domain expertise. Sorry, not buying the argument from authority here. > Fluids always have perturbations Not sure I agree with this as a sweeping general claim; but in any case, my question was about what in the particular model
76.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> in the time-evolving model ("model"), dark energy is not uniform across space What are you basing this on?
77.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> it all really looks awfully close to "okay, fine, the dark energy/matter apparently also can do/be this stuff as well, just so we can write in whatever correction factors we need to make the theory fit the observations
78.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> they were able to arrange for their license to allow over 10000 schools, libraries, and other institutions to provide free access to walk-in users. Sure, but that still only covers a miniscule fraction of US taxpayers. Plus, you have
79.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> You said several times that the public had paid for the papers. Researchers were not paid to create open access papers. You even said it was criminal that they weren't. I had assumed that readers would be able to exercise intell
80.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> It seems like you are jumping between the reality you would like and the reality that exists. No, you did that, by responding to my post where I said "should" as though I were trying to describe how things are instead of ho
81.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> I think what Swartz actually did was anger someone at MIT, who called the Secret Service. MIT was concerned that someone (they didn't know who it was at the time--in fact IIRC they didn't find out until the police told them
82.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> Doesn't matter if the public funded it. The public didn't mandate or pay for the publication rights or access. So when your tax dollars pay for a scientist to do research, you don't think the papers that document that
83.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> I don't like talking about this I can see why it's difficult, but I think your post provides some much-needed context.
84.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> Aaron Swartz was punished because he disrespected a business model. Exactly. And what's more, it's a business model, keeping behind paywalls scientific papers that we the public have already paid for once with our tax dolla
85.
by pdonis 2mo ago
The scientists who wrote the papers that Swartz downloaded were compensated, with the public's tax dollars. That should mean that we the public should now have free access to what we paid for. Unfortunately the government prefers t
86.
by pdonis 2mo ago
The information Swartz was downloading was scientific papers that we, the public, have already paid for with our tax dollars. The crime here is that the government allows JSTOR and other private companies to still hold those papers behind p
87.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> He did something illegal Read the book Three Felonies A Day. The law is so bloated now that we all do illegal things all the time, we can't help it. What Swartz actually did was to download copies of scientific papers that shou
88.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> I guess I have to make it extra simple. No, I already understand what mistake you're making. >1. Where there's surface paint, that is the inner surface. 2. Where there's no surface paint, well guess what, that&#x27
89.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> it is possible to label it the surface inner and outer Not in a way that is continuous over the entire surface. You can do it locally on a small patch, but you can't extend any such local labeling over the entire surface.
90.
by pdonis 2mo ago
> The issue was there was no way for ants to know where they stand on a strip. No, that's not the issue. The issue is that there is no possible continuous orientation on the strip. That's not a matter of "where they st

More ›