raattgift

291 ms·

1501.
by raattgift 11y ago
Typed Racket < https://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/> is pretty successful in the Racket community. It's also prompted some pessimistic papers about gradual sound typing, since it's hard to avoid a per
1502.
by raattgift 11y ago
"up to 2 million miles per hour" is pretty slow compared to the speed of light :-) These stars are in Kepler orbits so the speed tells us the relationship between their mass and the central mass. We can also use their periastron
1503.
by raattgift 11y ago
The match between this rhetorical question and your username is awesome.
1504.
by raattgift 11y ago
Uh, pardon the stupid question, but isn't it safer to consider the fine structure constant to be the IR fixed point of \alpha (i.e. \alpha(\mu = m_e)^-1 = 137...)? \alpha(\mu = M_Z) is about 128. But m_0(photon), h, and e are the same
1505.
by raattgift 11y ago
Would you really characterize this Wilczynska, Webb, King et al. paper as an argument that there is "growing evidence", rather than (say) that it's a number-crunching argument that the small amount of observations that sugges
1506.
by raattgift 11y ago
Another alternative was proposed by Hawking & Hertog (Phys Rev D, 2006, see below): walk the present values surface back to a superposition of possible universes and study the mechanisms that generate probabilities near one. That then
1507.
by raattgift 11y ago
Well, we're getting photons and probably cosmic rays from Sagittarius A , so not that unlikely. :-) You're right about small mass but macroscopic objects though, since Sag A 's rotation is very sub-extremal, its mass is suffi
1508.
by raattgift 11y ago
A sufficiently energetic meteor strike will cause a high enough amplitude wave to qualify as tsunamis (and which therefore would produce destructive effects onshore). Exact modelling is tricky, but that sort of thing appeals to some geophys
1509.
by raattgift 11y ago
Numbers aside, there is nothing in our universe that suggests that we shouldn't take the concept of future timelike infinity seriously, and some evidence that we should, notably the accelerating metric expansion of space. That in turn
1510.
by raattgift 11y ago
Glad you did the edit. Still off by a lot... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
1511.
by raattgift 11y ago
io9 used to be such a good site. Gawker's merger of io9 and gizmodo is messier and less useful than even the rest of their sites.
1512.
by raattgift 11y ago
On the typing front, maybe you'd find this recent paper entertaining: "Is Gradual Sound Typing Dead?" (link below) The conclusion is that it's mostly dead or worse, because of the performance hit when typechecked code ca
1513.
by raattgift 11y ago
Cool. "We took a dynamic language and made it fast(er again)". And you're gonna apply that to the darkest corners of ES6? Whee, language theory nerd paradise! I can't wait for the compilers targeting that using all sor
1514.
by raattgift 11y ago
It doesn't really matter what the configuration was before the formation of the horizon; what matters is what comes out again when the horizon shrinks due to BH evaporation. The problem exists classically as well as in QFTs: if I drop
1515.
by raattgift 11y ago
Sure, and in several theories of gravitation where there are gravitons as an uncharged massless spin-2 gauge boson (General Relativity isn't one of these; it doesn't have any gravitons at all, although the non-quantized classical